Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 March 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 28 February	2 March >

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. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blastazoid

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

Unremarkable TV show. Lasted for two episodes and few if any useful things turn up on Google. Does not need its own article and does not appear suitable for redirecting. Lazy Bastard Guy 02:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/possible redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_MTV#Comedy. I couldn't find anything out there on Highbeam or on a Bing news archive search. The only thing I can really find is that a self-published book considers it to be a spinoff of Jackass. It might be feasible as a redirect, although I don't know how helpful it'd be in the long run. Still, redirects are cheap. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I say "does not appear suitable for redirecting" because I'm not sure where it would redirect to, for example which of the show's hosts, but you do seem to have the most likely candidate. Still, I too question how useful such a redirect would be on what is apparently a fairly obscure TV show. Lazy Bastard Guy 04:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's my biggest concern as well. I'm not a follower of the Jackass crowd, but for a while there I did sort of keep an eye on some of what they were making and I don't remember this show at all. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 15:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 23:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of WP:N. No sources are cited. Article fails WP:V. A Google turned up nothing that rang the N bell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Ironholds (talk) 01:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian civil war detailed map

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

Not an article at all; it's a page consisting entirely of an embedded map. Ironholds (talk) 23:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page is fantastically useful for people following the conflict. Who cares if it's an 'embedded map', its a incredible piece of work. Keep updating, don't delete. Please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.164.117.225 (talk) 23:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though perhaps move to wherever an image should be located. This was developed in Template space, and was just moved to article space, then promptly nominated for deletion. I think it needs to be moved to wherever detailed maps / images are kept. Certainly it could exist over in Wikimedia commons. I believe there also are photos and maps and other images in some Wikipedia area, though those are often moved to Commons then deleted from here. It is not appropriate to AFD this, at all. There is just confusion from someone having done an inappropriate move. Note, i see it is linked from articles like Syrian Civil War, though in that article I don't see where it appears (perhaps it is linked from a navigation template there). It's an awesome-looking map, obviously useful, needs to be just relocated appropriately, not deleted. --do ncr am 00:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seems reasonable; investigating the history I see the same thing. Why on earth was it moved into article space? User:Barcaxx1980? Ironholds (talk) 00:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is indeed a template and not an article. User:Barcaxx1980 (new to wikipedia) suddenly and without consulting with anyone moved the template to an article, which is a completely ridiculous move! I have now moved it back to a template. Can we now close this discussion before wasting more of people's time as the article is now only a redirect (which can be deleted)? Tradedia^talk 01:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Totally :).
Keep. Since I'm not sure if this is the correct page for the discussion, I paste here what I wrote in the other one: "The map is a very good tool to understand the details of the war in all the Syrian territory."--Andres arg (talk) 00:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Syrian Civil War. Although I concur that the map is useful, it doesn't seem to meet the standards for a stand alone article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The map is very good, and gives important information that is not in anywhere else. I am with keeping the map. I moved it to an article because some users requested that to avoid deletion. Now, Tradedia moved it back to a template which is ok. The important thing is to keep the map, no matter if as a template or an article. --Barcaxx1980 (talk) 10:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Renaming and/or restructuring as a list can be discussed on the article talk page. JohnCD (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Computational packages for Cosmologists

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)

Not sure if this article is needed. It appears that most of these software packages already have their own articles. Safiel (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If most of these software packages already have their own articles, then they are presumably notable, and this can become a WP:LIST. -- 101.119.14.237 (talk) 08:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC) — 101.119.14.237 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep It provides a list of software which are notable in the community and are used by many cosmologists. The page can be linked to the cosmology page.128.101.170.117 (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC) — 128.101.170.117 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. I have created this article to provide a lists of software which are most frequently used by the cosmologists. In wikipedia, there are articles on Physical cosmology and latest cosmology research and observation like WMAP, Planck etc. but there were no article where the software used in cosmology are listed. Similar article exist for other part of physics. Also as mentioned by others many of the software listed in the article have their own articles on wiki and they are notable in the cosmology research community. Unatnas1986 (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have List of statistical packages, List of numerical analysis software, List of computer simulation software, and other similar lists. Nonetheless, for consistency, the article should be renamed to List of cosmological computation software, or something to that effect. -Anagogist (talk) 16:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 22:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A perfectly legitimate list, though I occasionally share the nominator's confusion as to why we have so many lists. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kancho

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

This is a barebones WP:DICDEF on a topic for which there is no serious discourse. Coverage on other language projects is minimal, even at the Japanese Wikipedia where there's just a list of works of fiction where it is performed. Knowledge of this in English is limited to these "popular culture" segments and the article previously featured such content until it was cut down to its stub state long after the AFDs several years ago. Our standards on content have changed since then, and it's time for this to go. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if this article has been kept four times before, I don't see how we'd get rid of it now. This seems more like a keep and improve. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned, our standards on inclusion have changed over the years.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You may have asserted that, but with no support regarding ~how~ they have changed or how these changes would apply to keeping/deleting this article, which has been nominated for deletion four times already and consistently been kept. Bueller 007 (talk) 01:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Conceding that my opinion is a minority one based on previous AfDs, this doesn't seem to ring the notability bell. RS sourcing is thin at best. Only two sources are cited and the NY Times source provides only incidental mention. My take is that it lack both WP:N and WP:V. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. I'm against keeping dictionary-like articles as a general rule, but kancho is pretty well-known nowadays (as attested to by there being Wikipedia articles for it in 11 different languages). We have an article for "wedgie", so I can't see a reason not to keep kancho. Nominated for deletion many times in the past and always kept. Bueller 007 (talk) 22:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The improvements made to this page have been turning it into the stub you're reading now. It is only known because of anime fans. Its existence as a cultural phenomenon of note is minimal within Japan. Just because there are a bunch of old AFDs that closed as keep 5 years ago and 4 years ago, and the mere existence of what appears to be equally as subpar articles on other language projects does not mean it's notable according to this project's guidelines anymore.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think "its existence as a cultural phenomenon of note is minimal within Japan" is debatable. FBOFW, I'd have to agree with Bueller 007 that Wedgie is a good comparison. Dekimasuよ! 01:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Existing as a common practice does not mean it's notable for coverage, particularly when its notability is only supported by its use in cartoons.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a silly comment. I've personally seen this schoolchildren do this to each other and had this done to me by schoolchildren in Japan. It's not used only in cartoons, and even if it were, that wouldn't be any reason to delete it. Everyone in Japan knows what this term means, and as I said above, there are Wikipedia pages in 11 other languages for カンチョー. This act is widely known. If it somehow differs from wedgie (other than its country of origin), explain how or else I think you should also nominate wedgie for deletion and see how that goes. In addition, there are plenty of non-cartoon Google Image hits in Japanese [1], so claiming that "Its existence as a cultural phenomenon of note is minimal within Japan" is quite questionable. Bueller 007 (talk) 01:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How are we to know that their articles on this subject are not as poorly writen as our own? And just because it is a Japanese word does not mean we cover it here. Thats Wiktionary's job. There's no cultural context here. It exists but is not something that can adequately be covered unless you go "it shows up in this cartoon".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The term is not a term just for anime fans. It is a general term, known by all Japanese, used in TV comedy, anime, manga, and children's (and even adult) play. I checked the Asahi Shinbun database, and it, for instance, has an article on 2008.5.31 on children still using the term. There's another article on 2012.9.14 on an IBM employee charged with sexual harassment doing "kancho" on female employees. There's also another article on "kancho" on 1992.7.17. A search of the Oya Soichi database finds 13 articles since 1998 in the weekly tabloids with "kancho" in the title (in the meaning given in the article), including a number on how Kazuhiro Kiyohara liked to do it a lot. There are plenty of RS in the mainstream media in Japan that show this is not just a popular term, but a popular phenomenon. Michitaro (talk) 03:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nominator, and for reasons of WP:NAD, WP:PERMASTUB, WP:GNG. This belongs in Urban Dictionary, not WP. mikeman67 (talk) 17:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This seems similar to the Fark meme UFIA. Could be combined with that to form a slightly larger stub. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the 2nd AfD discussion.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why should a 5 year old AFD still have meaning here?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its not the age, its just the most substantive discussion prior to this one for meeting notability. Its notability is similar to Wedgie although some sources are not in english.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Paradise (Lana Del Rey album). and/or Lana Del Rey slakr^\ talk / 08:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paradise Tour

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

The tour was never officially called Paradise Tour. Only three references listed mention that title. Del Rey did tour during 2013 to promote Paradise but the tour dates weren't announced or promoted (consistently) under that title. I think we should move the tour dates to the wiki article of the EP and this article should be deleted. Littlecarmen (talk) 17:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buff bills 7701 15:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 22:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Paradise (Lana Del Rey album). I think there is more than concert dates that are worth salvaging. But yeah it seems like it would be a better fit in the main article for the EP. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Lana Del Rey (but removing the tour list and other extraneous info). This should be worked into the main article, although I'm still unsure whether the tour was ever called this, so I'm unsure if there should be a redirect. None of the references in the article support the tour was called this. mikeman67 (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 22:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan Triangle

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

WP:FRINGE topic with only two citations - one of which is a broken link. Second reference relates to the crash of a small plane several years ago, which over a windy lake like Lake Michigan is hardly cause for great mystery. No indication that the "Michigan Triangle" exists as a thing in notable sources - google search only pointed to highly fringe websites such as Abovetopsecret.com Simonm223 (talk) 22:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Simonm223 (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To my considerable surprise a Google turned up a ton of hits on this subject. But almost without exception (at least on the first four pages) they were from sources that massively failed WP:RS. There might be some sources out there that will pass RS. But as of right now this article is a pretty clear case of FRINGE and it fails WP:N and WP:V. That's three strikes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yeah, Jim Butcher actually mined a little bit of the "Lake Michigan eats boats" mythology for a few of his recent novels, however without RSes it's not appropriate for Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 01:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only citations given do not support the claim of the article. Fails WP:N and WP:V Dkriegls (talk to me!) 06:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG, and likely some WP:OR. mikeman67 (talk) 18:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources support this concept. It was originated by a single individual in an obscure Sheboygan newspaper story that's been subsequently reprinted in fringy places around the web. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having flown across Lake Michigan in scheduled commercial airliners many times, I am well aware of the total lack of credibility for this extraordinary claim, as evidence by all the mainstream sources on commercial aviation saying nothing whatever about any special danger in traveling that heavily traveled route. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Found this [[2]] which discusses coverage by Dwight_Boyer in one of his books, which I do not have access to. Most likely not enough to qualify as notable coverage. Wickedjacob (talk) 07:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 22:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mound Marked C

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG. Perhaps some archaeologist can enlighten us but I can't find anything to indicate the significance. There certainly are mounds in the area and this one appears in various archeological survey reports of the Raj era but, well, so what? Does being old somehow confer notability? Sitush (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 22:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim for WP:N is advanced in the article and no sources are cited. In a sane world this would have been an A-7 CSD, but places are not covered by that. Being old can in some cases help establish N if there is more to it. Inhabited places have largely gained a presumption of N. Such is not the case here though. As the article stands right now, it doesn't come close to passing GNG. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. No claim for notability, nor any sources provided. I guess it would only qualify as a PROD though since A7 doesn't seem to apply here. I'm confused why it's called a mound in the article but tagged as an archaeological monument. mikeman67 (talk) 18:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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: The nominator withdrew the nomination and no one else voted for deletion. Chmarkine (talk) 00:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CCTV (disambiguation)

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

CCTV redirects to closed-circuit television, and on that article, a hatnote is used to point to China Central Television and to Cork Community TV directly. So per WP:2DABS, this disambiguation page is unnecessary. Chmarkine (talk) 22:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: I agree with Bkonrad. Since this disambiguation page has been expanded, I withdraw my nomination. Chmarkine (talk) 00:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I've added a couple of other uses that satisfy WP:DABMENTION. The hatnote should link to the dab page, though it may be worth keeping the link to China TV in the hatnote as by far the most likely second use. older ≠ wiser 14:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. It might be worth considering a merge, as User:Gongshow suggests. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Arsonist (Deadlock album)

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

A non-notable album by a non-notable band. No references cited. PROD and maintenance tags were removed without explanation. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 01:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 01:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No, it's not. It's a charting album released via one of the bigger labels of the genre (Napalm Records). I'm not a fan of such stubs, but that's a different story. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 11:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I'm not finding much, but a Sputnikmusic staff review [3] (considered reliable here) to go with shorter pieces at Metal Hammer [4] and Revolver [5] might just (or might not, YMMV) be enough material to support an article. If not, a merge into Deadlock (metal band)#Line up changes and sixth album (2011-) would be appropriate. Gong show 20:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 22:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Don't think this qualifies under WP:NALBUM - the rather short album reviews don't seem to be significant enough coverage to justify its own article. Hardly any information beyond a track listing. Band's page I think would be sufficient to cover the album. mikeman67 (talk) 18:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tulsa Youth Symphony

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

youth symphonies are not normally notable. This one is no different; essentially all the sources are press releases. DGG ( talk ) 06:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - well established orchestra; it received some coverage for its 50th anniversary. It seems strange to say "youth symphonies are not normally notable" when Category:American youth orchestras has 68 articles. St Anselm (talk) 11:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this orchestra is notable for it's continuity, and alumni, note - there are many wiki entries on other Youth Symphonies around the US (over 50), even a wiki on Youth Orchestras in the US. [6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.124.156 (talk) 23:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 22:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Alpha and Omega (film)#Sequels. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha and Omega 3: The Great Wolf Games

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

This is article's subject fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines on films. The film hasn't been released yet, and all the information we have about this film comes from Walmart's description page, iTunes, and this. This is nowhere near the standard of significant coverage for notability. I wouldn't mind merging/redirecting content to Alpha and Omega (film)#Sequels. Mz7 (talk) 21:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 01:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This subject has gone through AfD before; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpha and Omega 3. The result of the previous discussion was redirect to Alpha and Omega (film)#Sequels. Mz7 (talk) 01:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't really have an opinion on the matter, but I always thought if a movie is confirmed for release, then that is all that is needed for an article about it be kept.--BarrettM82 Contact 17:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a film exists doesn't mean it is notable. Likewise, just because a film is scheduled for release doesn't automatically make it worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Mz7 (talk) 04:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete the page when the movie is being released next month and the rest of the information can be included on the page then? There's no reason not to - the page is incomplete because the movie isn't out but the movie is being released in 30 days - LITERALLY! Ktanaqui (Contact) — Preceding undated comment added 17:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is: there is no indication that there will be significant documentation of the movie in reliable sources even when it does come out. We aren't here to speculate about future events. There is no significant coverage of the film right now, just 30 days before the release date. Why should we assume there will be significant coverage to prove notability when it does come out? As an alternative to deletion, I'm okay with redirecting the article to the first Alpha and Omega article's relevant "Sequels" section, or sending it to Wikipedia:Drafts. Mz7 (talk) 02:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alpha and Omega (film)#Sequels, per WP: CRYSTAL. Strictly speaking it should probably be deleted, but with the film's release a near certainty at this point, I think it's a good idea to preserve the article history so it can be restored in the unlikely event that the film does achieve WP: NOTABILITY.--NukeofEarl (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 22:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UrgentRx

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

While this company's yeomen efforts to improve the article about itself are appreciated, the product simply does not meet notability criteria. Although the article has changed since its first incarnation which was deleted in an AfD, its inherent problems remain: it is a promotional article about a non-notable product. They make low-dose aspirin as do many companies. Coretheapple (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weakish keep - I think it's supposed to be a fast acting aspirin rather than a low dose aspirin. Either way, the product seems to have received sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:GNG per the NYT, Forbes etc sources cited in the article. I agree that the article still needs work.--Mojo Hand (talk) 01:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 22:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The product/company seems to have ample coverage from independent reliable sources. BTW it's not just aspirin; it is flavored, powdered versions of several different drugs, claimed to be faster acting than pills, and intended to be carried on the person for use in emergencies. At those prices ($1.39 per dose) it had better not be just an aspirin! I'll see if I can improve the article any. --MelanieN (talk) 14:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 22:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel School of Music

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

Originally tagged by User:117.209.250.37. Doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG, let alone WP:ORG - Google search turns up no unrelated sources. Around half the text is a copyvio from the school's page. ₆an⁶sh₆ 07:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 21:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claims of notability in the article, no secondary sources, and pretty much just WP:PROMOTION. Not to mention the copyright issues mentioned above. Pretty straightforward delete I think. mikeman67 (talk) 18:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bau Xi Gallery

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

Promotional article for a photo print retailer of no particular notability. (I don't mean to slight the photographers whose prints it sells: offhand I don't know most of them, but I have a high opinion of one.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it's more of the same:

-- Hoary (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 01:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 01:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 06:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 21:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP - no indication of notability or coverage. After some online searching, I failed to turn up anything either. mikeman67 (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Koimoi

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

Not notable. Promotional and may include COI editing. References are mostly press releases, quotes and internet stats. Little depth to the coverage. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 06:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I doubt any COI involvement in the article history with the main editors of article. Even if there was any, the current article is hardly promotional in tone. But i have a different question. Although the subject might lack WP:CORP, do we keep articles of subjects that we consider WP:RS? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 21:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A decent stubby article on a website which is an RS which serves its area. Current version not promotional in tone. Nom's assertion that it "may include COI editing" is unfounded. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can't remember now why I thought it might be COI, possibly due to other linked articles, but it is the lack of depth to the coverage that is the problem.

I have just been through the refs:

1 is internet stats

2 is not about the subject

3 also is not about the subject

4 looks like a press release

5 is some sort of internet stats/advertising site

6 is a blurb from one of their software suppliers about their customer

7 is the firm itself.

Not a single RS that discusses the firm itself in depth. This is advertising and fails CORPDEPTH and GNG. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts as nominator. I maintain my "keep" and await input from Indian Wikipedians able to offer and evaluate non-English sources. As India has a population several times larger than all the West combined and not all sources will be online, I expect patience will out. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is rather putting the cart before the horse to say that "lots of articles use it as a source and therefore it is notable". a reliable source is one with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy and it is difficult to establish that such a reputation exists if there is no reputation at all demonstrated by other sources. [7] and it does not look like it has been vetted formally to be accepted as a WP:RS reliable source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't been vetted in our WP:RS system as it hasn't been challenged yet anytime on any article. This site is used as reference in the FA Kareena Kapoor Khan, FL List of Indian submissions for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film and GAs Parineeti Chopra, Mullum Malarum, Once Upon ay Time in Mumbai Dobaara!, Huma Qureshi (actress), Aashiqui 2 at the least. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 22:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Train of Thought Sketch Comedy

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

Non-notable local sketch comedy group from 2006; requires significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. None provided, nor found in Google News. No higher notability established since last AFD ended with no consensus eight years ago. -- Wikipedical (talk) 08:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 06:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 21:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Any of the coverage mentioned in the article seems to be strictly local, contrary to WP:AUD (although can't confirm because of link rot and improper citing. I don't believe WP:N has been established. mikeman67 (talk) 18:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 22:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ritika Ramtri

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

Person is not notable. Person appears on social sites facebook, twitter, linkedin, blog pages, and one New Zealand article. Appears to be promotion. Jay (talk) 04:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. This fails GNG/PROMO - besides that, the first reference spammed my browser and the second is 404.► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 05:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 21:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO, and links aren't reliable or significant enough to justify inclusion. mikeman67 (talk) 18:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seiklus

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete: Article subject appears to be non-notable per WP:GNG, relies heavily on bare links and first party and self published sources of information. The article also appears highly WP:Promotional. BlitzGreg (talk) 08:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 21:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see coverage in all of the major RSes. Edge calls it a "minor masterpiece". Gamasutra calls it a "superstar of the modern indie scene." It's listed as #13 in 1up's "Definitive guide to the best new freeware games on the web". Quite a bit of coverage at indiegames.com... I'd recommend searching for ways this article can be improved per WP:BEFORE. -Thibbs (talk) 11:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Besides the above hits, there are more (e.g. [8]) in a custom WP:VG/RS Google search. I agree that the article needs to be improved. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barstool Sports

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable website lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 23:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nearly all of the cited references seem to provide considerable non-trivial coverage of the subject in independent published reliable sources. Perhaps it's not sufficient coverage to establish notability, but I strongly disagree with the nominator that it doesn't exist. While the lede introduces the subject as being about the blog alone, I am conflating the company, its blog, and its non-blog activities as a single subject; some coverage is about the company's parties more than the blog. ––Agyle (talk) 01:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm undecided but there is a bit of coverage for the site. It's all coverage about the guys being asses, but it is coverage in reliable sources. What we need to decide is whether this shows a depth of coverage, since a lot of it is based predominantly in the Boston area. I'm leaning towards a keep offhand, but this will probably need some cleaning to make it flow a bit more. I'll see what I can do. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've cleaned the article. Some portions of it seemed a little WP:POINT-y, but in which direction I can't honestly say. It kind of reads like people from both sides of the argument had a go at this. Hopefully it should read a little better now. I haven't removed any sources from the article, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly not trivial and given its consistent mentions in major media outlets as well as the ongoing clean-up, I think it is a definite keep. Perhaps an expansion mentioning its video series/youtube channel would be beneficial - some have over 1 million views.TheWarOfArt (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 21:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My understanding is that it is a very well known website in the American sports world. Has built a reputation as a controversial and irreverent site. Examples of in-depth coverage of site include: [9], [10], [11] and so on. Meets WP:GNG and WP:WEB fairly convincingly, IMHO. mikeman67 (talk) 18:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Defaulting to, I guess, "soft redirecting," as it seems like there's not consensus to delete (even according to the nom), but there does seem to be agreement to either eventually keep it outright (if the enough sources are found/valid/whatever) or leave it as a redirect until better sourcing can be found (thereby maintaining the page history). There doesn't look to be any prejudice against un-redirecting or otherwise reviving the article immediately. slakr^\ talk / 08:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Opus-CBCS

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

There were many software packages for BBS/FidoNet back in the day. I found some independent coverage for one similarly purposed package called Maximus-CBCS [12], but nothing satisfying WP:GNG about this Opus-CBCS; the page about it on bbsdocumentary.com is a wp:primary source as it's written by the software's initial author. There are some mentions of it in google books, but all are in recent and low-quality books that synthesize/copy material from Wikipedia. The wiki article was created by a WP:COI contributor quite a while back, so I don't think much more effort searching for independent sources is justified. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 4. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 16:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also this article seems to suggest it was open source, but apparently that was not the case during the time when the product still might have mattered on the market [13]. Given the scarcity of reliable sources, the article is hard to fix. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of BBS software. Honestly, most of those software packages need to turn into redirects. They were fun back in the 1980s, but they're simply not notable by Wikipedia standards. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I think a WP:BLAR might a good solution for now, but keeping the page's history. This might actually be slightly notable. After reading the Maximus CBSC review I found above, I learned that the Maximus software was inspired by Opus. Assuming it might have been a little influential, I searched a little more; it's easier to find relevant citations if you search for "opus" (without "CBCS") and "wynn wagner" but exclude his later self-published books (which are unrelated to the software) [14]. That way I found two BBS software roundup books from the early 1990s that have 1-2 pages(s) coverage of Opus (can't tell exactly how much coverage because only snippets are visible for me in GS):
  - Dvorak's guide to desktop telecommunications pp. 276-277 [15]
  - The Essential Guide to Bulletin Board Systems pp. 59-60 [16]
- With those two in mind, it might be justifiable to keep this page's history & rewrite it based on those secondary sources. Library holdings for these two books are pretty sparse (on Worldcat) so it might take a while for anyone to get them and fix the page. Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. If you feel it's enough, then I'll strike my vote, and we can speedily keep this. There's probably something out there that describes this software, as it was historically important (one of the earlier IBM PC-compatble BBS programs), but it was popular before the explosion of interest that happened in the late 80s and early 90s, and much of the coverage by reliable sources was for commercial software. There's mountains of BBS cruft out there. I still think most of these articles should be redirected or merged, but I'm willing to pick my battles. At the very least, someone is going to have to go through all these nostalgia-filled articles and remove all the original research. I haven't been able to bring myself to do it yet, but I'll probably get around to it, eventually. Many of these are very old articles, dating to the period before we even required reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The potential sourcing I found is pretty thin. It's not clear how much depth of coverage those two books have for Opus; I can see maybe three paragraphs in one book and one in the other via GB snippets. Stuff with far more depth of coverage but similarly weak in terms of number of sources has been deleted before. (I'm thinking of BP Logix.) The other thing clear from the table of contents of Dvorak's book is that there were a lot of similar BBS software packages. So let's see how other Wikipedia editors evaluate the potential sources. I'm not (yet) withdrawing my nomination. Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 11:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 21:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Celedon

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

No sources on Celedón, Celedon, or es:Celedón. I'm also having some trouble tracking any down on google. The page should probably be deleted now, until reliable sources can be established. If it's a "tradition", then sources probably exist somewhere, but without them there's no way to establish notability. — Jess· Δ ♥ 12:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 21:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Closing per discretion per WP:BIODELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 03:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Worrell

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

Non-notable person, orphaned article, and has few reliable sources Epicgenius (talk) 13:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I just removed a gross BLP violation from the article. No vote, but the article's sources are low quality. I'm not finding reliable source coverage in searches. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment. In searching further, I found a local paper's news article and a DoJ press release naming the subject as one of two dozen people charged in a fraud scheme. Lots of additional low quality source coverage but falls way short of WP:CRIME. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 21:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raffi Gregorian

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

Unremarkable diplomat who as far as I can tell has not held any ambassadorial level positions to date. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 06:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not yet senior enough for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 21:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 22:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lunawebs

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

1. No secondary sources fails WP:CORP 2. no assertion of notability was dePRODed but still no secondaries added in years. COI (creator) / advert. Widefox; talk 10:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 21:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Don't see any claim for notability, fails WP:CORP, and an online search didn't turn up anything for me either. Looks like WP:PROMO. mikeman67 (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CORP. -- Wikipedical (talk) 06:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 22:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Swati Kain

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

does not meet WP:GNG as the coverage is trivial. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 21:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete no significant coverage, fails WP:ENT-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ENT/WP:GNG, lacking significant coverage. -- Wikipedical (talk) 06:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Butt (Pakistani surname)

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

This is a borderline A10 candidate as it is a small subset of the information already contained within Bhat clan. All of the bluelinks listed as notable people are already linked within that article. The references given do not substantiate any of the claims within the lead other than the existence of the name (again, which has already been established in the other article). --ElHef (Meep?) 04:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 19. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 19:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 21:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Amazon Instant Video. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon Instant Video German

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

Amazon Instant Video German is supposed to be the German language version of Amazon Instant Video, however, the German version is using the name Amazon Instant Video and is quite likely not different from the USA version of the service. Please see this article in context: The user (very likely also editing as 86.135.253.106) has also created Amazon Instant Video UK, which I suggested to merge (with a redirect as the result) with Amazon Instant Video. In the course of the merger discussion, I told the IP that neither AmazonUK nor Amazon UK exist, which have as a consequence been created without much attentiveness (version before I restored the redirect). I now noticed that another Amazon Instant Video in GER and GBR article has been created: List of Amazon Instant Video UK and German compatible devices. |FDMS 20:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Amazon Instant Video per nominator's concerns. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 22:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Alexander

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

Non-notable producer, no sourcing found. IPs have deprodded and WP:REFBOMBed the article with stuff that doesn't mention him at all. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Does WP:CREATIVE apply to producers? If so, then he might have a credible claim toward notability. My guess is that Korean reviewers are not going to mention an obscure American producer, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 18:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like nobody thinks he falls under WP:CREATIVE. Article can be recreated later with reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:23, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 22:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Montana (actor)

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

Not a notable actor, only plays minor roles, most of these articles listed dont even mention him outside of a cast box. Beerest 2 talk 20:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an actor involved in minor roles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 18:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to fail WP:NACTOR with minor roles and no evidence of notability. Can be recreated with reliable sources, if they exist. I don't see anything usable on Google. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. postdlf (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of the most remote substantially populated cities

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

The article is original research and includes no inline references. We have a similar list as part of the Extreme points of Earth article, which does include some sources. eh bien mon prince (talk) 18:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An arbitrary list that fails WP:LISTN. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a new article and there appears to have been no tagging of problems at the article, and there is no discussion at its Talk page (Talk:List of the most remote substantially populated cities, ~~currently a red-link~~ since started by me). There is citation of Guiness book of world records in the article. All the information may be from there, and it may not be primary research at all. And, non-controversial facts don't all need to be supported by references, if they have not been challenged, and no distance given or any other fact in the article has been challenged. Sure, try to educate some about need for references, and add some tags. But, geez, people, help the newbies out a bit, and don't hit them with an AFD when not necessary! (I didn't check to see if the original contributor is a newbie, but whether they are or not, my view is pretty much the same, don't hassle imperfect contributors unnecessarily). --doncram 22:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sympathy for the newbies is no reason to keep an article, nor is an AfD a sign of hostility towards them. The list makes non-trivial claims (the Guinness book is almost certainly not the main source) and includes OR from start to finish. I can't verify the accuracy of the claims (and I shouldn't have to, that's why we have WP:CITE), and as a member of WP:ZA I know that Johannesburg for example is not the city closest to Cape Town (what about Port Elizabeth or George or Stellenbosch?).--eh bien mon prince (talk) 01:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Those cities have populations well below 1 million, the threshold stated clearly in the article. Stellenbosch's size is just 77,000! And, we'll have to agree to disagree, about an AFD being hostile or not. --doncram 13:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - If this arbitrary threshold of 1 million is to be taken seriously, then both Cape Town and Johannesburg would have to be removed from the list, given that the population of the cities (as opposed to the metropolitan areas) don't quite reach that figure. About AfDs being somehow 'hostile', there is nothing to discuss: they have been part of Wikipedia since the very beginning and no matter what you think of them they are a core part of the project.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 13:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Obviously the Guiness source of facts for this article uses the metropolitan area sizes, not the arbitrary city borders within the physical cities. And, yes, Wikipedia has long had this feature, which is necessary I suppose but in implementation is often/usually very unfriendly, particularly when wp:BEFORE is not carried out. Isn't all this sourced from Guinness book of world records? --do ncr am 14:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Follow your own suggestion and read WP:BEFORE, especially this part: "The main four guidelines and policies that inform deletion discussions: notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)". As I have already said, the Guinness book is almost certainly not the main source of the tables, you should be able to confirm that by just reading the article, so it counts as original research and should be deleted. Do you have any policy-based reason for wanting to keep it, other than deletion might offend someone's sensibility?--eh bien mon prince (talk) 15:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        The nomination is for stated reason "The article is original research and includes no inline references". I don't believe it is original research, it is referenced to Guinness (and no facts have been disputed, anyhow). And, so what about inline vs. end-of-article referencing. Sure, tag it to call for inline referencing. There is no policy-based reason for deleting it. It is interesting and useful and sourced and valid as a Wikipedia article. --do ncr am 17:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        The Guinness book is not the source of the article's data, which is therefore the product of original research. I challenge you to prove that this is not the case.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        For what it is worth, i went to a public library yesterday and checked its collection of Guinness books. It had several editions, including i think 2001, 2004, 2005, and the various editions differed in what they covered about cities. 2004 had a most remote-from-any-ocean city mentioned (some city in western china), the others before and after did not have that. Also it turns out that one can search online for various Guinness records at http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/. Although it is possible this material is covered in an edition that I did not find, I didn't find the material covered. I still like the material, think it is factual and interesting and useful, akin to List of enclaves and exclaves, but I must admit that it does not seem to be sourced where I thought it was sourced. --do ncr am 22:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above naysayers. It's pretty arbitrary, and includes a grab bag of other trivia. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about one section being not related, and removed it to Talk page. Does the argument against come down to assertion that Guiness does not provide the info? Can someone check that? --do ncr am 13:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is poorly sourced original research Secret ^account 18:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR and arbitrary. The author credits Travelmath.com in the references, all but confirming the OR hypothesis. The distance from capital table is arbitrary; the choice of 1e6 population is arbitrary; and the inclusion of some cities which don't meet the population criteria is very arbitrary. Pburka (talk) 00:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are arbitrary cutoffs in many lists of largest, most significant, etc., objects. E.g. minimal size of objects are arbitrary in most/all lists within Category:Lists of largest buildings and structures. I don't see that as a problem, and I think the million cutoff is a fine one, and also the use of metropolitan size rather than city boundaries (which often have enclaves and exclaves, see List of enclaves and exclaves which I think is kind of similar. I rather believe all the information presented is accurate and factual. I would rather this was tagged for sources and revisited in 6 months time; your view may vary. There has been no tagging at all. --do ncr am 22:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a false analogy. A list of tallest buildings might have a cut off where the list ends, but it's not trying to derive arbitrary relationships between those buildings. There's no evidence that 1e6 population is a widely accepted definition for "substantially populated". Pburka (talk) 14:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. NativeForeigner ^Talk 09:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bucks–Bulls rivalry

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

Fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage from multiple independent sources. This title was changed from a redirect back to an article, even though it was pretty much a copy/paste of National Basketball Association rivalries#Milwaukee_Bucks_vs._Chicago_Bulls. This subsequent discussion indicates even the mention in a redirected article might not be notable. I've only found trivial mentions, coverage in non-indy NBA.com[17], and questionably reliable content farm coverage at SB Nation and Bleacher Report.—Bagumba (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC) —Bagumba (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is not seen as a significant rivalry by anyone outside (maybe) Milwaukee. Rikster2 (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Don't think nearly enough has occurred for this article to ever be anything beyond WP:PERMASTUB. Think it's much better suited to section on NBA Rivalry page. mikeman67 (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there does not appear to be enough coverage on this rivalry to make a standalone article necessary. Gong show 21:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per text "According to Bleacher Report, this is one of the seven weakest rivalries ever in the NBA." That explains it all. Secret ^account 16:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but weak - Seems like most rivalries would be hard to source because they are so dependent on subjective points of view and, therefore, probably not capable of being sufficiently and reliably sourced for stand-alone status. Maybe this could be kept as a stub or merged into a larger article, but I don't feel there is enough currently there for it to stand on it's own. See talk for more.- Marchjuly (talk) 02:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is there a pressing need for immediate deletion? A template requesting improvements and reliable sources was added on March 1, 2014. The article was then nominated for deletion on March 2, 2014. Isn't it possible to leave the article as is for a little while to see if somebody comes along and tries to improve it? If nobody does, then delete it. It seems a little unusual, at least to me, to request improvements one day and then nominate for deletion the next day, doesn't it? - Marchjuly (talk) 04:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also responded to your similar question earlier at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Bucks–Bulls rivalry. The issue is whether this topic is notable. Your question, though well intentioned, is an argument for WP:MERCY, but unfortunately doesn't establish the subject's notability. Even if consensus ends up being to delete, the article can still be to WP:USERFY, and there is no prejudice against re-creation if notability is later established. In the meantime, sources that establish GNG are needed.—Bagumba (talk) 04:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I added more info to talk. Sorry if I posted the same question here by mistake. I wasn't sure if I needed to make it "official" by posting here too. Still learning how things work.- Marchjuly (talk) 04:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added 4 more new sources to the page today, from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, ESPN, and USA Today. They are all from reliable sources, and they all use the term "rivalry" to refer to this series. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the research. Unfortunately, the term "rivalry" is often liberally used in the media for any two teams in the same division. The ESPN source is speculative: "Rose vs. Jennings could be a memorable pairing for the next 10 years; the two lightning-quick scoring point guards will make this Central Division rivalry a little sexier to a national audience." The Journal Sentinel 2012 source says ""I don't even know if it's a rivalry when you get dominated like that." The 2013 source is WP:ROUTINE game coverage with trivial use of "rival", and the USA Today source is also a trivial mention of "division rival Chicago Bulls" What is missing is WP:INDEPTH coverage that describes the rivalry in a historical context, not merely incorporating the word "rival".—Bagumba (talk) 07:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Benefiel

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

I can not find any reliable sources to establish notability, all references in the article are self published or promotional. Coffeepusher (talk) 17:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources don't establish notability per WP:BASIC. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Zendor/Zen Benefiel. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No WP:RS evident to convince me he meets the test for WP:BLP Simonm223 (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I sought to provide evidence by referencing produced works, both on YouTube and throughout the Web. I'm trying to follow Wikipedia protocol as much as I understand and can apply it. Please inform me how I can better present this material. Zendor (talk) 20:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zendor, there are several issues here mostly revolving around reliable sources as well as the general requirements for notability. Wikipedia requires that a person's notability is established prior to having an article written about them. The easiest way to establish notability is to have that person be the "subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,and independent of the subject." There is also the additional requirement that there is significant coverage, meaning that there must be quite a few reliable sources which are each independent of each other. As of now the sources you have provided are not reliable in that they are either primary sources controlled by the subject of the article, or they do not come from a site that is known for its fact checking or transparent editorial process. None of the above editors have been able to find anything on Bruce Benfiel which would qualify for adequate sourcing, which makes us skeptical that such sources could be found. If you are able to fulfill these requirements, I would withdraw my nomination. Additionally I'm not the gatekeeper, so even if I choose not to withdraw, but you are able to find enough sources to convince the closing admin that the article is worth keeping then the article will most likely stay. As of now please look through all the links I have provided and let us know if you think you have found sourcing that adheres to Wikipedia's standard. Buena Suerte! Coffeepusher (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Zendor: additionally, if you are Bruce 'Zendor' Benefiel, please read WP:COISELF. Thanks. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 16:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Bonilla (baseball)

AfDs for this article:

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

This page was kept last year as meeting WP:BASE/N because he played in the Italian Baseball League. Since that discussion last year, BASE/N was revised to remove leagues such as the IBL, which are of clearly lower level than MLB, KBO, and NPB, which were retained. Sources don't establish WP:GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per updated guidelines, fails WP:GNG Secret ^account 17:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Though the fact that he's a pro ballplayer out of El Salvador may be reason to keep, if there are significant articles highlighting that fact. Alex (talk) 22:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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; concerns stated by User:NatGertler appear to have been addressed. Mojo Hand (talk) 01:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suzy cohen

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

Just sufficient notability stated to avoid CSD. One reference of zero quality means BLPPROD cannot be used. This person is not notable. Fiddle Faddle 14:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would want to see more sign that someone looked for signs of notability before endorsing an AFD. Given appearances on notable TV shows, position as a syndicated columnist, and reasonable book sales through significant publishers (this one is in Amazon's top 25,000, at the moment, which may not sound like much, but is pretty good for a book three years after release), it seems at least quite possible that there is coverage of her out there that would meet our criteria (and given the rough state of the article in terms of Wikipedia format, I would assume the creator isn't someone who specializes in knowing what an article needs to be bulletproofed.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. She has written books and columns, and appeared on TV shows, but nobody has written anything ABOUT her or her books and columns that I could find. In a search I found nothing independent about her at all; everything was self-referential. I did clean up the article, just so that we can evaluate it based on notability rather than the poor state of the article. BTW if kept the name should be changed to Suzy Cohen (capitalized). --MelanieN (talk) 23:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing the requirements of WP:BIO being met here. (And I sympathize with the nominator with regard to BLPPROD vs. [18], and wish we could find a better comprimise with policy around that tag.) --j⚛e decker ^talk 21:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Nomination withdrawn j⚛e decker ^talk 15:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bankruptcy problem

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

Non-notable article that reads like WP:OR or as an essay. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've place a notice for this discussion at the game theory wikiproject. --Mark viking (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From a cursory search it looks like bankruptcy problems in general are certainly a noted form of bargaining problem, but I'm seeing very fe resources that are saying "the bankruptcy problem" rather than "a bankruptcy problem", which makes me think that bankruptcy problems are a class of problems like Coordination games, not a specific problem like Guess 2/3 of the average or the Prisoner's dilemma - both of which are specific well-known incarnations illustrating a class of games. If the article is kept, it should probably be reformatted appropriately. I'll wait for more information before !voting, though. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 20:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My first impression is to doubt that this is original research. As for the notice at the game theore wikiproject, it looks as if maybe somebody looks at that page at least once every twenty years. 2001:558:6014:1C:59C9:BC1E:77E6:F1AD (talk) 18:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It does very much sound like a typical problem in game theory. There seem to be enough articles to initially doubt the assertion of non-notability. In my opinion, it does not at all read as original research. In fact, it may well suffer from the opposite problem of being too close to a existing source, namely doi:10.1016/S0165-4896(01)00075-0. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looking into this more, this topic is a well-known game-theoretic problem from the Talmud. A GScholar search for "Bankruptcy problem" talmud yields 751 hits, with every paper on the first page of hits being about the game theoretic aspect of the problem; this looks like a promising survey of the field. Likewise, "Bankruptcy problem" game theory gets about 1,090 GScholar hits. There are more than enough sources to make this a notable topic and on which to base an article. The article itself seems fine as a stub, but of course could be improved. I'll note that Entitlement (fair division) is on the more general topic, but discusses the game-theoretic aspects, too. A notable topic and an article with no major problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 13:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough for me - nom withdrawn. Thanks Mark. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not distinguishing between "the bankruptcy problem" and "a bankruptcy problem", which would be a class of problems and quite possibly a subclass of bargaining problems, as I pointed out earlier. Note that in the survey article, it refers to them as "bankruptcy problems". I don't particularly object to the article being here, but we should at the very least tag it with {{Expert-subject}}, because I think that someone who has already heard of this before (and they should be out there, if this is notable) should have a sense of how it fits into the larger literature. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 14:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An expert tag is a good idea. I was hoping to draw some experts from the game theory WikiProject, but it seems moribund. --Mark viking (talk) 16:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Quinolone. Although we don't typically delete AND merge (due to potential licensing issues), it seems that most favor a merge back to Quinolone, and consensus on that target is free to determine just how much of the existing content, if any, is integrated into that article. slakr^\ talk / 09:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adverse effects of fluoroquinolones

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

This article is a redundant fork with the Quinolones article. All of the articles on fluoroquinolone antibiotics, including Ciprofloxacin, Levofloxacin, Quinolones, Moxifloxacin were re-written in 2009, primarily by User:Davidtfull, the president of the now disbanded Fluoroquinolone Toxicity Research Foundation. Per the organization's website (no longer available), its purpose was to "support those seeking financial compensation for injuries caused by fluoroquinolone drugs". At that time, all of these articles became lengthy diatribes listing pretty much every case report, in vitro study, and animal study existing in the literature that cast these drugs in a negative light. At one point the ciprofloxacin and levofloxacin articles dedicated only 2-3 sentences each to describing what the drugs were used for.

Davidfull disappeared from Wikipedia in early 2011, about the time the FQTRF website disappeared. Since that time, I've gradually rewritten the main articles of this series. Given by background as a former pharmaceutical scientist I've asked user:Jmh649, user:Jfdwolff, and user:Anypodetos to review this work for NPOV. I believe I have successfully captured all of the key MEDRS compliant and notable reports of adverse effects of these drugs in the Quinolones article as well as in the articles for the individual drugs. I've tried to do this carefully and concientiously, knowing that hundreds of people view these articles every day.

The largest difference between the adverse event descriptions in the Quinolone article and the Adverse Effects article is the absence in the former article of AEs for which I could not find MEDRS compliant sources. Bearing in mind that these articles are supposed to be summaries and not detailed treatises, I've focused on the key AEs, so its possible that there are some rare or non-serious AEs that have been left out. I've focused on the key ones of tendon damage, neurological adverse effects and Clostridium infections. So at this point the separate adverse events article seems to be a redundant fork, and I believe it is time to remove it. I'm 100% open to suggestions if anyone wants to put an extra set of eyes on this and suggest anything from Adverse Events that should be transferred over to Quinolones.

As the subject will likely be raised, I'd like to explicitly state that I have no COI with respect to any of these articles, and no history of employment with any of the manufacturers. Except for one relatively minor drug with modest sales, all of the fluoroquinolones are now generics, sold as commodities for pennies a pill. There is a small amount of litigation going on, but most of it has been settled, so to the best of my knowledge there is really not a lot of potential for COI around these drugs in any case. Formerly 98 (talk) 13:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Formerly 98. POV forks run against policy anyways, and the individual articles on the different fluoroquinolones are better for discussing their adverse effects rather than trying discuss them under a broad umbrella article where you run the risk of WP:SYNTH where an individual drugs AEs may be falsely generalized to all fluoroquinolones. I'd also like to thank F98 for his work on this important class of articles.AioftheStorm (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CommentYes at least all the primary sources needed to be cleaned up and then if there is not to much content it should be merged. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you would prefer to defer this discussion until I go through an cut all the primary references and otherwise badly sources material from the article, I can get it done in the next 24 hours or so. I was reluctant to do that because it will likely be a chain saw operation that reduces the content by 3/4, and since that is nearly equivalent to a delete, I did not want to proceed without some sort of consensus.

The 2009-2010 editors were sufficiently anxious to make their position known that almost everything in the "Adverse Effects" article was pasted word for word into the Quinolones, Ciprofloxacin and levofloxacin articles, so I'm reasonably confident that the process of hacking out the poorly referenced stuff will be a repeat of what I've done in editing the aforementioned articles. Just let me know what you want me to do. Formerly 98 (talk) 19:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the content that meets WP:MEDRS (i.e. supported by high-quality secondary sources), delete the rest. All antibiotics have side effects, and we have no articles about side effects of β-lactam antibiotics, cefalosporins, macrolides, aminoglycosides, tetracyclines etc etc. JFW | T@lk 21:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete, as discussed above. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as discussed above --LT910001 (talk) 23:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete, concur with above. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 23:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've gone over this again and believe that everything salvageable from Adverse Effects has been transferred over to Quinolones. As I mentioned above, I'd welcome a second set of eyes on this, but otherwise believe that "Delete" and "Merge" are now operationally equivalent operations. Formerly 98 (talk) 12:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. postdlf (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of the 72 Shaolin martial arts

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

This has been tagged as 1-source for nearly five years, and frankly much of the content is patent nonsense. I refer especially to "skills" that involve hurting an opponent without even touching them, such as "One Finger of Zen Meditation" and "Cinnabar Palm". Matt Gies (talk) 04:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This appears to be a description of the contents of one book rather than any particular list of standard techniques. The question is not so much about the reality of the techniques but the notability of the book.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:50, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is more a list of techniques than distinct martial arts and it's based solely on one book. Fails WP:GNG and all other notability standards.Mdtemp (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 22:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mikayla Mendez

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No nonscene awards, only nominations. No independent, reliable sourcing. Negligible reliably sourced biographical content Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet notability requirements for this profession.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Since she is the first Latina contract performer for a notable studio, I feel she is an exception to the PORNBIO guideline. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You have independent reliable sources for that? Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's already there in the Career section. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The phrasing here is a bit misleading; she is merely reported as the first Latina contract performer for one particular porn studio, Wicked Pictures, not for the industry as a whole. The sourcing is not independent/reliable; the relevant references are both touched-up reposts of Wicked Pictures promo material -- and the original press release describes here as their first "full-fledged" Latina contract player, a rather curious bit of phrasing indicating there were previous Latina contract girls at the company, just not of 100% Latin heritage. Note that as of right now, IAFD lists her as born in Burbank, ethnicity Caucasian, nationality/heritage American. As sourced content at Catalina Cruz makes clear, porn industry ethnicity declarations may well reflecting marketing decisions. This looks to have a pretty substantial kayfabe component to it. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HW, nothing has been misrepresented. Its accurately represented in the article as described by the authors of both sources. As for your analysis of the interview with Catalina Cruz (a primary source at best) on the Lukeisback website, who are kidding with "porn industry ethnicity declarations may well reflecting marketing decisions" when it actually states, "AF: I was doing research before I called you and I found a thread on a forum for The Best Latin Porn stars, you are on the list. So do movie companies call you and ask you to be in their Latina titles? C: Not really." --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 09:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete BLPs must have proper sourcing, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails PORNBIO as the nominator states. Fails GNG without non-trivial coverage by independent reliable sources. The three AVN and XBiz citations appear to be reprints of the same Wicked Pictures press release, sharing verbatim whole paragraphs in places. The Luke is Back citation is unreliable. The significance of being the first Latina contract performer at Wicked needs to be acknowledged by an independent source. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the press releases were the sources, I could understand the objection, but 2 different industry trade publications are the source. Even if they were a 100% reprint, its still acknowledgement. As for the wording, find me ANY publication that completely rewrites press releases they receive. The realities of the publishing world (mainstream, porn, et.al.) are such that its a standard practice to reprint things like this. If the publication did not think it was newsworthy, they would not print it and its not our purpose to second guess a source or invent any intention behind it. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No, she's definitely not the first Latin contract girl considering Sky Lopez and Daisy Marie preceded her. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At Wicked or for the industry? That's where the confusion seems to be. Its stated in the article that she's the first Latina contract star for Wicked, no claim is made about the industry. Do we know who the actual first Latina (industry) contract star is? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you're arguing that she satisfies criteria 2 of WP:PORNBIO by simply being the first latin contract star for Wicked then I disagree. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per 2 of PornBio, no. In my Keep vote (above) I recommended that she be an exception to the guideline because of the status that her ethnicity gives her with Wicked. Within the logic and confines of WP, Wicked Pictures is a WP:NOTABLE studio, so the unique status she has with regard to that studio should be taken into consideration in an AfD. Obviously opinions/interpretations differ, this is mine. This is with regard in part to my participation and understanding of the WikiProject Countering systemic bias. I am not of Latino descent, but as an Editor I should do what I can to counteract the affect of that on my editing with regard to an article about someone who is. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Preis

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

Unreferenced WP:BLP created by Defender miz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). — Cirt (talk) 05:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Problematic edit history includes prior creation of a hoax article, discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boxing' Joe. — Cirt (talk) 06:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable voice actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For what it's worth, I don't think this is a complete hoax, because of [19]. I'm not sure that I've seen coverage that reaches WP:GNG, but I did at least want to comment on the hoax concern. --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I skimmed the snippets on [20] and clicked about five links. [21] has two sentences to support WP:GNG, but the pattern is that the topic is listed in indiscriminant collections that don't support WP:GNG. However, there are 15 references to the topic in the encyclopedia, which indicates that the history of a stand-alone article or a redirect for this topic on Wikipedia will not end with a delete here. It has been mentioned before that voice actors are under-represented in the popular press. This topic has been presented to the public over many years in voice credits, which by itself is a form of wp:notability, so perhaps a biography will appear in an authoritative history book to provide the viewpoint we need for a BLP. Unscintillating (talk) 14:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 22:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anthropecology

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

The article itself states why this word isn't notable: "“Anthropecology”, a new term introduced in the world of Environmental Science". There are sources in the article, yes, but they are only journals that use the word, not coverage about the word itself. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My !vote is based on reading the article. The claim is made that this is a new branch of science, but the statement has no inline citation that allows me to WP:V that this is not WP:OR. Nor is there a source for a claim that a specific individual coined the term. Unscintillating (talk) 16:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO $Erebus Morgaine (Talk)$ 17:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NEO. The term appears only in (1) a handful of uncited papers and books by Dwivedi and (2) a one-line mention from Russia claiming it is pseudoscience. Not notable. -- 101.119.15.121 (talk) 23:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia Mall (Missouri)

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

Non-notable shopping mall Me5000 (talk) 05:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have evidence that it is non-notable? Unscintillating (talk) 13:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have evidence that it is notable? DES ^(talk) 14:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't made any claims that the topic is or is not notable. I posted this question before your !vote and I have not studied your !vote at this point. If the nominator has no evidence, then his/her !vote will be judged accordingly. Unscintillating (talk) 15:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article and the sources provided do not assert notability. A google search for "columbia mall missouri" finds no reliable sources. Article fails WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS. Me5000 (talk) 18:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that lack of evidence of notability is evidence of lack of notability. However, it is good practice for a nominator to indicate the WP:BEFORE work done on a nom, in my view. DES ^(talk) 16:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Unscintillating (talk) 08:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tagged this article with WP:PROD. It was declined, and i was in the process of nominating this for AfD when Me5000 did so as I was typing my nomination. This seems to me to be a run-of-the-highway mall, if larger than many. None of the currently cited sources seem to me to help establish notability. They are:
1. A story about a single store, apparently in the mall, that never mentions the mall by name and dose not discuss the mall as a while (*http://www.columbiatribune.com/business/street-talk/article_cc2e9c03-3ea5-56ee-9dbe-9f7676958146.html);
2. A rehash of a press release that merely announces that a particular store plans to open at the mall, and does not discuss the mall at all. Not independent, and no in-depth coverage. Does nothing towards notability (http://www.connectmidmissouri.com/news/story.aspx?id=968774#.UxH2r4UrhLl); and
3. An ad from the company that owns the mall (or perhaps just manages it) that touts the various attractions nearby in an effort to attract stores to locate at the mall. Also does nothign for notability, and probbably shouldn't even be included. (http://www.ggp.com/properties/mall-properties/columbia-mall)

A Google search I made found nothing better. Lots of store reviews, mostly at sites with user-generated content. Lots of directory entries. A few passing mentions. Nothing of significance, no in depth coverage, little that was even from a reliable source. Nothing that would come near passing the WP:GNG. Clearly this mall exists, and the article is apparently factual. But unless malls, like high-schools and villages, are to be considered de facto inherently notable, or unless someone finds and cites a better source than i found, this should be deleted. DES ^(talk) 15:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment I should add that I declined an A7 speedy on this yesterday, as out of scope for A7, and promptly added the Prod tag. DES ^(talk) 15:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
About #3, it is a primary source reliable for statements about itself. About #2, I see your point that much of this has been sourced by a news release, but if a WP:RS is sourcing a story from a news release, we depend on the WP:RS to do their fact checking. The term "Columbia Mall" appears in the headline as an object of familiarity that needs no explanation. The publisher is the CBS-TV affiliate in the area. Unscintillating (talk) 08:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep per WP:OUTCOMES. I dePRODed it because WP:OUTCOMES needs to be considered. See a recent mall AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Findlay Village Mall (2nd nomination). Added cites. Needs expanded with infobox, etc. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is essentially WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. The three sources you added do not establish notability, one is just a store locator from the Barnes and Noble website and the other two are just some directory listing. Me5000 (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, my argument is that WP:NPLACE clearly applies here (i.e, Larger malls are generally considered notable). In other words, large malls are usually kept by consensus. FWIW, Hoover's is generally considered to be RS. VMS Mosaic (talk) 10:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the second line of WP:NPLACE is what applies here "Very small malls, strip malls, and individual shops are generally deleted unless significant sourcing can be found." I'm not disputing Hoover's as being reliable, but it is a directory, how does it establish notability? Me5000 (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A mall with 140 stores, five anchor stores and its own PO is the definition of a large mall. Per the International Council of Shopping Centers mall size classes, its 740,000 sq ft makes it a Regional Center. If it had another 60,000 sq ft, it would be classed as a Superregional Center. Claiming it is a "very small mall" is absurd. The Hoover's, etc. cites are mainly for WP:V purposes. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're really reaching now. A little research shows that this is definitely a small mall. Here is a list of 20 malls in the United States much larger with the smallest one on the list being 1.8 million square feet. Here's one in Canada that is 5.5 million square feet. Here(click helpful info tab) and here are some smaller malls that are still 1.3 million and 1.2 million respectively. Me5000 (talk) 03:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? We aren't talking about extremely large or mega malls. The List of largest shopping malls in the world lists only ~60 very large and mega malls (some of which are less than twice the size of this one). A "very small" mall would be in the class "Neighborhood center". A "Regional center" (this one is at the upper side of that class) is two sizes larger. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice how everything smaller than "Regional Mall" isn't referred to as a mall anywhere in the document? Heck, in the concept section of Community Center(the category below regional mall) it even says "The center is usually configured in a straight line as a strip, or may be laid out in an L or U shape, depending on the site and design." i.e. strip malls. Malls start at 400,000 square feet, this mall is only 340,000 square feet bigger than that compared to the list you linked to (which actually proves my point even more because it is even longer than what I found) and the smallest mall I linked to is still 460,000 square feet bigger. Face it, in the realm of malls this is a small mall. Is it the absolute smallest mall? Obviously not, but it is certainly still a small mall. Really, I'm not trying to insult you here or anything, but you are really grasping at straws. Me5000 (talk) 05:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then I guess the Wikipedia Shopping mall article needs a major rewrite since it refers to all of the sizes as malls. If you believe that this mall qualifies as a very small mall, then I'm afraid we will simply agree to disagree. 06:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

What information the shopping mall article contains is completely irrelevant to this discussion, but after quickly looking at it some of it and its sources, I do see some original research. Either way, the article clearly distinguishes between strip malls and malls, so I have no idea why you cited it. You seem to want to group strip malls and malls together in order to call this mall large in comparison when even the page you originally cited, WP:NPLACE, also cleary distinguishes between strip malls and malls,"Larger malls are generally considered notable. Very small malls, strip malls, and individual shops are generally deleted unless significant sourcing can be found." Very funny the way you suddenly changed to strong keep when nothing significant on the mall article has changed since you changed it to keep. Frankly, that's pretty childish and passive-aggressive. Me5000 (talk) 07:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to strong because the argument for deletion now appears WP:UNDUE and fails WP:MNA. BTW, the article, for its size, has undergone significant change since my Keep. Also, you need to review WP:FAITH given that you appear to be accusing me of bad faith, so I think this conversation has ended. VMS Mosaic (talk) 09:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the problem is notability. Adding an infobox isn't anything that would warrant a change from keep to strong keep, it is pretty obvious that you are getting annoyed with me because I won't agree with you. You changed from keep to strong keep in the same edit you were replying to me and the reply was a little passive-aggressive as well. It would be a good idea for you to read WP:FAITH as well. Me5000 (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need you to agree with me. I simply find it absurd that someone who appears to be intelligent is even capable of calling this a "very small" mall. I changed it to strong after having gone thru a lot of info on mall size and by reviewing a number of other mall AfDs during this discussion. It is now clear to me that deleting this would be to completely ignore long standing consensus, and that discussing the meaning of "very small" should not be done on every mall AfD per WP:MNA. Consensus has already been reached on that issue per previous mall AfDs, and discussing changing that consensus should be done at WP:OUTCOMES so that WP:NPLACE can be properly reworded. Please understand that consensus can override notability as it does here. BTW, I am not the one being unWP:CIVIL by making personal attacks. Continuing to personally attack me is not helping your arguments. VMS Mosaic (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The size of mall is irrelevant anyway, We are arguing semantics over WP:OUTCOME which isn't even a reason to keep articles, it says this on the outcome page,"This page is not a policy or guideline, and previous outcomes do not bind future ones because consensus can change.". "all articles on all subjects are kept or deleted on the basis of sources showing their notability, not their subjective importance or relationship to something else", and "Avoid over-reliance on citing these "common outcomes" when stating one's case at Articles for Deletion. While precedents can be useful in helping to resolve notability challenges, editors are not necessarily bound to follow past practice. When push comes to shove, notability is demonstrated by the mustering of evidence that an article topic is the subject of multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in trustworthy independent sources." Additionally, you have proven your agrument is WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, because you are saying since articles in the past on malls haven't been deleted this one shouldn't either. WP:OUTCOMES specifically addresses this,"Avoid weak or illogical arguments, such as "Notability is only an optional guideline" or "We always keep these articles". In regard to the "personal attacks", please explain what the purpose of stating "Then I guess the Wikipedia Shopping mall article needs a major rewrite since it refers to all of the sizes as malls." serves other than passive aggression. Me5000 (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Give it a rest already. I suspect no one but us is reading any of this at this point. My "Strong keep" stands, so you are just wasting your time even if my individual keep was all that important anyway. Not long ago I urged an end to another useless discussion like this, so I am trying to take my own advice now. FWIW, being a little sarcastic about a discussion point is not a "PERSONAL" attack against the individual, but is instead an attack on the point being argued. Please learn to tell the difference. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't blame you there, my reply completely invalidates your strong keep, there is really nothing you could say in reply. Also, you need to review WP:SARCASM given that you seem to think your sarcastic remark was harmless. Me5000 (talk) 04:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Day; Jacob Barker (1 May 2009). "Transportation development districts use sales tax money with little oversight or regulation". Missourian. Columbia, MO. Retrieved 2014-03-04. Or try to get to Columbia Mall on a Saturday during the Christmas shopping season. You might be stuck on Worley Street...while the traffic light changes from green to red...five or six times. The congestion has been a problem for years...
Jacob Barker (August 25, 2013). "Mall businesses to boost levy after TDD, city reach new deal. Revenue goes for lot, roads". Columbia Daily Tribune. Retrieved 2014-03-04. Sales taxes are set to rise for Columbia Mall shoppers under an agreement between its transportation development district and the city of Columbia that was approved last month.
Andrea Gonzales, KOMU 8 Digital Producer (Nov 7, 2013). "H&M Coming to Columbia Fall of 2014". KOMU-TV8 and the Missouri School of Journalism at the University of Missouri-Columbia. Retrieved 2014-03-04. <Article has a picture of the Columbia Mall sign.>{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
Keep In Google searches this mall is buried in links about the notoriety of the Columbia Mall in Maryland, so it helps to add a "-maryland" to a Google search. Another useful search was ["Columbia Mall TDD" OR "Columbia Mall Transportation Development District"]. I also found some leads on Google Images using ["Columbia Mall" Missouri -maryland]. Sources show that this topic with its 140 stores has the status of a regional landmark. ~~You can see in the KOMU-TV headline above that the headline writer refers to the mall with just the word "Columbia".~~ Topic passes WP:GNG, and it has attracted the attention of the world at large over a period of time. In addition, Wikipedia has a need to cover such a topic as a part of the gazetteer. I'm not seeing any problems with WP:V and WP:RS, so any such problems need to be tagged for resolution. Unscintillating (talk) 08:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do any of these sources establish notability? None of them go into detail about the mall.The first and second sources are about traffic around the mall, not the mall itself and the third source is just a brief article about an H&M coming to the mall, nothing about the mall itself. How are these sources significant coverage of the mall? "I also found some leads on Google Images using ["Columbia Mall" Missouri -maryland]." Like what? I found absolutely nothing. "Sources show that this topic with its 140 stores has the status of a regional landmark." Now you're getting into WP:WEASEL, please provide these sources that you mention. "You can see in the KOMU-TV headline above that the headline writer refers to the mall with just the word "Columbia"." Why is this significant? Now the way a title is worded is a basis for notability? "it has attracted the attention of the world at large over a period of time." Doubtful, you need a source to back that up. "In addition, Wikipedia has a need to cover such a topic as a part of the gazetteer." That sounds like WP:EVERYTHING. Me5000 (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely played. However, closer analysis shows a couple of holes in your preparation, which I will get to. Where did I say that those three sources "establish" notability? Although, I suppose you could make the argument that those three alone satisfy WP:GNG. The one that you say has "nothing about the mall itself", is a report with half of the report consisting of a picture of a mall sign that says "Columbia Mall", where the sign is using a font measured in feet rather than points. One of those articles is tremendously in-depth, even drilling down and reporting sales tax revenues for the mall. With that info and along with the tax rate, you can calculate WP:RS gross sales via WP:CALC. So in your viewpoint, a WP:RS talking about traffic on Worley on Saturday's over a period of years during the Christmas shopping season is not reporting about the mall? There is just a non-notable black hole causing the traffic? So the parking lot is not the mall, and the parked cars are not the mall, and I guess the architects who built the mall, that is not the mall, and the paint on the walls and the shoppers and the employees and the owners, that is not the mall? What can reliable sources say about the mall that is the mall? Your next comment is one of the two preparation holes, because I already gave you an example of something I found via Google images. Your report was "I found absolutely nothing". When I report that the topic is a "regional landmark", and I don't say "IMO", I am indicating that although it is my opinion, I also consider it to be fact. In the first search you reported at the start of this AfD, you didn't report that the search for sources was confounded with a similarly named mall in Maryland. This is something you could have expected other researchers to encounter. You also did not note that there is a book called Columbia about the Columbia Mall. Since the Google snippet on the book Columbia doesn't quickly report what state the mall is in, you could have helped out other researchers by mentioning that this book was about the mall in Maryland. Is there a good explanation for not mentioning the other mall? So your preparation is in question here. If you haven't been able to duplicate my analysis that this is a regional landmark, you need to show that you have studied this topic enough and reviewed enough sources to recognize that there is a point to my statement. In your next sentence I see that you are not familiar with the nutshell of WP:N, which I recommend. You can say on this talk page that the nutshell is doubtful, but doing so doesn't change the nutshell. As per the nutshell, your claim, when you say that this topic is not notable, is that this mall has not attracted the attention of the world at large. Your argument, that something like only the 20 largest malls in the world should have articles, this is not a notability issue but a WP:NOT issue for WT:NOT. Until you get that changed, this will not be a policy-based argument unless you cite WP:IAR. The second preparation hole is that of not spotting an error of mine, which is that the headline writer of "H&M Coming to Columbia Fall of 2014", probably by "Columbia" meant the city and not the mall. I have redacted the statement. As for the idea that headlines and headline writers don't or can't give attention to topics, this is an oxymoron. Unscintillating (talk) 04:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You never specifically said "those 3 sources establish notability", but since the concern is notability why else would you post them? Half the report is a picture because the "report" is 5 sentences long. The picture is trivial and does not equate to significant coverage. The first two articles are about things relating to the mall and its surrounding area(taxes and traffic), does this make the mall notable? How about an article about the history of the mall? The wikipedia page's history is simply when it opened and that a single new store is coming to the mall. Surely this extremely notable mall has some more information about the history than that. Just for comparison I did a search for Walmart in the same area. I quickly and easily found 5 articles about it in the first two pages: [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]. This brings up two points, one how is this mall that has been around since 1985 so sparce on sources if it is so notable when a new Walmart that has only been open for 2 months already has 5 articles? Correct me if I'm wrong, but individual Walmart stores are not notable and do not get their own article on wikipedia, yet by your logic this Walmart passes GNG and should get its own article. I didn't realize the H&M report was from a Google images search as you didn't say that. I thought you found it with a regular web search and were talking about something else you found on google images. Still, you say you found "some leads" on Google images, indicating more than one. My search on Google images, yes shows a few pictures of the mall, but other than the one you linked, nothing reliable or independent (Apartmentfinder, flickr, etc.). I did not mention the other mall because it did not show up on my search, I simply searched columbia mall missouri without quotations and it appears you put columbia mall in quotations for your search. Without quotations the maryland mall only comes up once. The regional landmark thing sounds like original research, you are going to have to explain to me why you think this in detail and why this isn't original research, because the sources do not give any indication of it being a regional landmark. Okay, I completely misunderstood what you were talking about when you said the world at large comment, but the sources do not meet this criteria as I explained in this reply. I never said only the 20 largest malls should have articles. I knew they weren't referring to the mall when they said columbia, that's why I didn't know why you thought it was significant, I just didn't express it very well. As for the last bit, again it is because I knew they meant the city and didn't understand why you thought this wording was significant. Me5000 (talk) 07:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Five references for the Walmart means that the Walmart topic likely passes WP:GNG. This does not mean that the Walmart topic passes either WP:N or WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Your sources show that the store size is 3700 square feet, and that there are three other Walmarts in Columbia. WP:GNG states, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article..." But looking further shows, " 'Presumed' means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article..." There is also the issue that the topic has not been shown to attract attention over a period of time.

As per World Wide Web, the first formal proposal for such is dated 1990. Since this mall was opened in 1985, I suggest that you look for archives of Columbia newspapers online; and if those are not available, either work with your local library to locate physical archives, or plan to visit a library in Columbia. You can also look at the reference I added today, that shows that the mall opening was still generating news 22 years later. Unscintillating (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Using the phrase "extremely notable" is a strawman. Unscintillating (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We can agree that "some leads" is equivalent to "a few pictures". Unscintillating (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments about "regional landmark" don't show movement. Calling it "original research", as if this is content we are discussing for an article page, is a red herring. You yourself in this AfD have used the word "research" to apply to your work. Unscintillating (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Beck (April 21, 2007). "Development along Stadium pioneering, but contentious". Columbia Business Times. The Business Times Company. Retrieved 2014-03-08. ...called regarding a proposal from General Growth Company to build the Columbia Regional Mall....Before the mall would be built, however, there were several years of debate and various proposals for a regional mall location...
Comment Another name for this mall is "Columbia Regional Mall". Unscintillating (talk) 15:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Following [27], and based on Typical GLA Range (Sq. Ft.), # of Anchors, Typical Number of Tenants, and Trade Area Size; it is my opinion that this topic is either a large "regional mall", or a "super-regional mall".

According to [28], this topic is a "super-regional center". Unscintillating (talk) 02:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 22:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Wetherell

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

Having culled the article of uncited statements, or statements not actually referenced by the "references" provided, I don't see evidence of notability.

We can establish that he founded an estate agent that's big in a small (albeit expensive) area of london. We can establish that he's been a talking head on occasion. And, er, that's about it. I can't find coverage that isn't of the talking head format, and that actually discusses him as an individual.

TL;DR fails WP:GNG. Ironholds (talk) 04:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Subject appears non-notable; no reliable sources provide coverage of him. Hot Stop 06:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a NN estate agent. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 22:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haruki Umemura

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested without addressing the delete rationale. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. This is a young player just signed to a team in a fully pro league listed in WP:FPL. He did not play in the first match of the season [29], but given he's only 18, that's not surprising. There's a good chance he will play in the season, but no certainty. WP:NFOOTBALL does not allow for considering the "possibility" of appearing, so I cannot vote "keep," but it does not make sense to delete an article that might be revived satisfying WP:NFOOTBALL very soon. Michitaro (talk) 14:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFOOTBALL doesn't allow for the "possibility" but WP:CRYSTAL does (requiring almost certainty rather than certainty). Throw in a bit of WP:COMMONSENSE and there's little point deleting the article now, and then haveing to recreate it ... particularly as I've noticed that when articles are recreated, the edit history is seldom restored. The deletion and later recreation and then even later correction of the edit history is a complete waste of everyone's time. BTW, do you have any thoughts on how this fits into the Japanese notability rules? There's an article in the Japanese version. Nfitz (talk) 14:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there are many reasons a player signed to a team will never appear in a match for that team, including injury, I don't think WP:CRYSTAL is enough to override WP:NFOOTBALL. WP:GNG can be used when WP:NFOOTBALL fails, but with Umemura, all I've been able to find in terms of RS on him in Japanese are these two brief reports about his signing: [30] and [31]. One would be pressed to argue these satisfy WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 15:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 19:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Binghamton University Art Museum

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

non-accredited museum, fails wp:museum as nothing warrents stand-alone article at this time (has a section at Binghamton University ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there some reason that this article should be deleted? If there is no argument for deletion, this is the wrong forum. Unscintillating (talk) 12:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems consistent with wp:museum, which is a draft guideline only. There is plenty of news coverage of exhibits and so on at the museum. I just added a couple of 2014 news items. The article is brand new and needs editing (it was written with a review-like / judgmental tone) but the subject is notable. There is no requirement in wp:museums or anywhere that a museum must be accredited. Museums are public institutions that are almost always notable by their nature. And here, there is more that is said, and that could be said, than is appropriate within the main university article. The "section" mentioned is an unreferenced couple of lines. Developing a proper article is a step forward for the wikipedia. --do ncr am 13:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article has been edited by someone else, dropping this reference I had added about a recent exhibit. The exhibit, which seems to me to be possibly from the museum's permanent collection (not sure), included Albrecht Durer and Salvador Dali works. I don't particularly care about what shows in the article now, but this is evidence of some importance for the museum, whether the works are in the permanent collection or not. --do ncr am 03:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a break-out from Binghamton University, and I marked the main article. It would help to have a history of the museum. I saw one reference going back to 1969. The museum attracts the attention of the world at large with each new exhibit, as well as from its permanent collection. I added a reference that it receives 25,000 visitors per year. Other names on which to search are "BU Art Museum" and "Binghamton Art Museum." Unscintillating (talk) 03:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This needs a separate page to highlight specific facets of the permanent collection of this university art museum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lrwolfgang (talk • contribs) 22:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as noted by attendance, identity separate from the University, and consistent with other museum articles.Jllm06 (talk) 16:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) Mz7 (talk) 23:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hero Certified Burgers

AfDs for this article:

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

Looks like an advertisement written primarily by two people on different years (Northamerica1000 and originally created by Pocopocopocopoco) Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 01:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It doesn't look like an advertisement. And the claim that "written primarily by two people on different years" seems quite bizarre as a reason to delete. Lots of articles are written mostly by one person in one year. So what? Andrew (talk) 09:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, this article has introduced me to poutine which sounds quite disgusting! I see they do salmon burgers too, which I've written about but don't fancy either. Chacun à son goût. Andrew (talk) 09:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In addition to the multiple WP:RS in the article, I've found this from Canada Business Review, and there are certainly far more offline pieces as well. The article is also not really that much of an advert, in the grand scheme of things. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic passes WP:CORPDEPTH per the independent, reliable sources in the article that provide significant coverage. Furthermore, the article is written in an encyclopedic manner with a neutral point-of-view. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet GNG and support an article. Gong show 15:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial (film)

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

~~A short film on YouTube, winning a very minor award.~~ DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC) Withdrawing the request, on the basis of MQS' comment. This is certainly a field where I accept him as expert. DGG ( talk ) 16:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've cleaned the article and removed one source: the YouTube video, which was removed due to copyright reasons. This isn't an argument for or against deletion, just letting incoming editors know that I've edited it from its original version. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely weak keep While it's true that the award this film won isn't that well-known or prestigious, it nevertheless resulted in a decent amount of coverage in Indian newspapers [32] [33] [34] as well as some coverage completely unrelated to the award: [35] Jinkinson talk to me 01:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:23, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep has just enough coverage and commentary to meet WP:GNG and thus WP:NF. [36][37][38][39][40][41][42] A film does not have to Star Wars to be notable. Project will benefit from it remaining and being improved over time and through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks good to me! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Valentine Stockdale

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

This article reads more like a CV than anything encyclopaedic. I can find no mention of this person on Google News, all results seem to point either to this page, social network profiles, or IMDB entries. Parrot of Doom 12:12, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There seems to be a weak consensus that this doesn't work as a disambiguation page, and that hatnotes should be used instead. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zav/Zavah

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

Not disambiguation, as correctly noted in the last edit to this page. Used to be an article about these two terms in one. No necessary since sufficiently interlinked. Debresser (talk) 17:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - currently there's not a single article that links to this page (see here), but I changed its design a little and think it could stay as a directory. Shalom11111 (talk) 23:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep For some reason I feel that the page is quite helpful; two closely spelled terms of somewhat different meanings pertaining to Judaism. No harm in keeping it. --CyberXRef^☎ 23:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I am commenting after Shalom11111's update to the page which made it much more useful. --CyberXRef^☎ 23:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not sure why there are two pages for what is the same word and concept but in masculine and feminine form. However, a disambig page seems unnecessary, since both sufficiently link to each other and are thematically virtually the same. I think a WP:HATNOTE would make much more sense here. Also the title of the page only makes sense in the context of being a previously created page. mikeman67 (talk) 19:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete the function of this page could be equally served with hatnotes, as the page title seems an unlikely search term. --j⚛e decker ^talk 22:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Per WP:CSD#G5 and the CCI on the creator. January (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pan American Society for Clinical Virology

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

Fails WP:ORG. The only independent mentions of this organization I can find are trivial: citations of papers presented at their conferences, listings of their conferences on calendars, and so on. The only remotely plausible reliable source, cited in the article, is Huising's history of the group. However, that's essentially a selfie since it was published in J. Clin. Virology, which is published by this organization. The fact that they find it appropriate to publish a history of the society in the society's own journal doesn't count for much.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article was created by the User:Scholarscentral sockfarm -- which has a history of copyright violations -- and may be presumed a copyvio per Wikipedia:Copyright violations. MER-C 12:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Devotion (Anberlin album)

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

A compilation album that does not meet WP:NALBUMS Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I must do WP:BEFORE before posting. I saw nothing for Dancing Between the Fibers of Time and assumed this would be the same. It wasn't.

I found other sources and reviews, but they don't meet WP:RS. Feel free to vote keep. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:46, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Given the sources provided above, there looks to be enough material for a standalone article, though I would be okay with a merge into Vital (Anberlin album) since the two releases appear so closely related. Gong show 15:37, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dancing Between the Fibers of Time

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

A compilation album that does not meet WP:NALBUMS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:46, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. slakr^\ talk / 09:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aseptic Void

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

Author removed PROD, my original concern was "All sources given, while at first glance appear to be notable, are actually blog links." While I'm hesitant to nominate this for deletion given the links in the article, except for the two The New Noise links (reliablity unknown) and the Ondarock and Necroweb links (which look promising, although I don't know if either is considered a reliable source, but they are occasionally used as sources), the other sources are self-published blogs. If someone finds anything else reliable, ping me and I'll withdraw this AfD. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PAY ATTENTION: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Max000damage (talk • contribs) 23:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC) Aseptic Void is a famous international artist. I have removed the ”””wrong links””” (blogs that aren't self-published, anyway). The Cryo Chamber Label of Atrium Carceri (boss label of Aseptic Void and one of the most prolific and famous Dark Ambient artists in the world) and the slender's woods links are very notable sources. There are a lot of reviews, appearence and citations on the web. For how long this thing will be called into question? just try searching with google.[reply]

- MARK ( Max000damage )

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article was previously declined at AfC [43] but was then posted to main article space. AllyD (talk) 10:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am not finding reliable sources independent of the subject; fails WP:NMUSIC at this point. AllyD (talk) 10:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Below I am reinstating comments that had been added while removing the above contributions to the AfD (AllyD (talk) 22:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)):[reply]

Aseptic Void is a famous international artist. I have removed the ”””wrong links””” (blogs that aren't self-published, anyway). The Cryo Chamber Label of Atrium Carceri (boss label of Aseptic Void and one of the most prolific and famous Dark Ambient artists in the world) and the slender's woods links are very notable sources. There are a lot of reviews, appearence and citations on the web. For how long this thing will be called into question? just try searching with google. - MARK ( Max000damage )

Strong delete. Nothing in the article indicates that the subject meets WP:NMUSIC, and there are not enough reliable, independent sources to meet WP:GNG. —C.Fred (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in this case, the inability to find reliable sources is strongly influenced by lack of knowledge of some people towards music, because is very simple to find reviews, appearences and indipendent citations of the artist in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Max000damage (talk • contribs) 00:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it were simple, I'd have expected to find something on Google. However, a Google news search turns up no hits whatsoever; a Google web search turns up no independent, reliable sources on the first page of results. —C.Fred (talk) 01:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Ok, find something on google: https://www.google.it/search?q=aseptic+void&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:it:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb&gfe_rd=ctrl&ei=GHQaU8z8JYve8gfEgoHwBg&gws_rd=cr can you read? I see a lot of independent and reliable sources about Aseptic Void, in every pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Max000damage (talk • contribs) 01:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC) — Max000damage (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Facebook is a primary source. Soundcloud and Bandcamp are treated as primary because the page is set up by the band. Tumblr is primary. Discogs is unreliable (user-editable). The pattern pretty much holds. No professional reviews, no write-ups in Billboard or the like, etc. —C.Fred (talk) 02:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looking at the history of the AfC submission, it was originally contributed by User:AsepticVoid. When it was declined, noting COI, the subsequent edits on the same day were by new user User:Max000damage. AllyD (talk) 07:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm a fan of Aseptic Void and an ambient music listener. All the reviews (Ondarock, Necroweb, Headcleaner, The New Noise, the interview on cryochamberlabel.com and the others) are written by PROFESSIONAL reviewers. so, there are professional reviews. Billboard is mainly pop music! It makes absolutely no sense to speak of Billboard in this case! You're not a musician, not an ambient music listener, how can you be reliable? you can't address a topic that you don't know well. You demonstrates lack of knowledge. I'm really sorry that there is this kind of behavior on Wikipedia.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model. If anyone wants to source this in the future, they are free to split it out into a separate article again. The consensus here seems to be that it is better to merge the article than to leave it unsourced. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MSSM Higgs Mass

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

Maybe I'm being overly bold. This article has been tagged as unreferenced since December 2009. Is that reason enough for deletion?Buster79 (talk) 22:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - It is unreferenced but it seems notable, maybe merge it with Minimal_Supersymmetric_Standard_Model? Seems like it would fit under there with the article being a specific part of the MSSM. ~~ Sintaku ^Talk 22:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Keep or Merge ~~for now, and~~ tag article (if kept as article). Google scholar links various cited research articles on this topic that are published in peer reviewed journals [44]. I am seeing one citation rate of 417 for the fourth article down on the first page. Also, other citation rates that over 100 for different published articles (second article down on the first page). Flip through the first Google Scholar pages for this topic and it can be seen that some citation rates are over 100. In all, there a various citation rates throughout. Additionally, this topic seems to have received a lot of coverage. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 07:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Its important but it is a subpart of MSSM. So it will be better to merge it with MSSM Unatnas1986 (talk) 15:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus to delete following relisting The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Loyang Avenue

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

Article is unsourced and notability isnt established Flat Out let's discuss it 06:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only passing mentions in sources and mostly transport related. No indication of notability.--Charles (talk) 11:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable road, Fails GNG. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability, no WP:RS. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus to delete following relisting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lentor Avenue

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

Fails WP:GNG. Notability not established Flat Out let's discuss it 06:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only mentioned in passing by sources. No indication of notability.--Charles (talk) 11:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable road, Fails GNG. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability, no WP:RS. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus to delete following relisting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tampines Road

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

Fail WP:GNG. Not notable Flat Out let's discuss it 06:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability.--Charles (talk) 11:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would an American road of similar size be kept? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable road, Fails GNG. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No clear indication of notability and no WP:RS. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ThaCorner

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

Wikipedia is not a web directory-not all websites deserve Wikipedia Pages. This website is a forum. This site provides little potential as an article. There is little information regarding this site and much of it is user based/I find little third party information to improve this page. I see little evidence that this article meets notability requirements in general or the website notability requirements. For these reasons I nominate this article for deletion Aeroplanepics0112 (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails notability requirements. Hot Stop 06:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Polycose

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

Based on the material presented, I do not see how this non-distinctive tradname for a common products is notable. DGG ( talk ) 17:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Stub consisting of two sentences, one of which is Original Research. In a search I found an occasional reference to this product [45] but not enough to make it Notable. --MelanieN (talk) 14:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

A second nomination can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews and Communism (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 no consensus. Oy vey, what a mess. The first thing I had to do here was slash and burn my way through the mess of ad-hominem attacks, accusations of sock puppetry, use of obscenities, and violations of WP:CIVIL to find the actual policy-based arguments. What this boils down to is (in rough order of popularity):

Arguments for keep:

well sourced
topic meets WP:N
not a POV fork
controversy is not a reason to delete

Arguments for delete:

POV fork (by far the most common argument)
Attack page (anti-semetic)
Not written from NPOV (and unrepairably so)
Fails WP:OR and/or WP:SYN

I don't think anybody would claim that the article is not well sourced, or that the topic is not notable. I think there's a fair argument that the article does fail WP:NPOV, but (even assuming that's correct) that's something to be solved by editing, not by deleting. So, what this really comes down to, is this a POV fork of Jewish Bolshevism? I don't see a clear enough consensus in the arguments presented to answer that one way or the other, so I'm going to have to call this no consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jews and Communism

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

This article is a "point of view fork" of Jewish Bolshevism. While Jewish Bolshevism is about the conspiracy theory that Communism was a Jewish movement for world domination, this article attempts to prove that. While there may be room for a neutral article about the relationship between Jews and Communism, it would be better to scrap this article and start again TFD (talk) 00:37, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Emphatic Delete. Unequivocal POV attack-page.--Galassi (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, check the PRODUCER and the DIREKTOR for sockpuppetry.--Galassi (talk) 14:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Urgently. -Yambaram (talk) 20:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I kindly ask you to remove or strike your baseless sockpuppet accusation. Without any evidence whatsoever to back the accusation and the fact that a checkuser was already conducted [46] it appears to be a bad faith personal attack and an attempt undermine a user's reputation. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 13:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, where do you see any accusation made by Galassi here? Why does candidly asking to "check the PRODUCER and the DIREKTOR for sockpuppetry" mean "baseless sockpuppet accusation" to you? Also, should merely agreeing with such a concern/request be considered a form of 'accusation' or 'bad faith'? No. Yambaram (talk) 22:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Though the invididuals mentioned may have been of Jewish ancestry, no evidence is offered that they were practicing Jews. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources specify them as Jews. I won't get into a "Who is a Jew?" discussion. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 08:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should, if you want to keep this article. The word is in the title. What does it mean? USchick (talk) 00:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is in no way appropriate for an encyclopedia. Hot Stop 06:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not censored. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 09:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is about Jews and Communism. There is no mention of Jewish world domination via communism, at most it is said a "disproportionately important role" (historian Norman Cantor) was played by Jews in the movement. The allegation that this article attempts to "prove" the "conspiracy theory that Communism was a Jewish movement for world domination" is thus utter nonsense. The assertion that it's "better to scrap this article and start again" is poorly cloaked WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 08:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Cantor has no expertise on Jewish history and his writings on the subject were not published in the academic press. See the review of one of his books books on Jewish history by the Director of Publications for the American Jewish Committee. It says that he claims to correct the false Jewish history which is promoted by rich and powerful Jews, and anti-Semitism has been aroused by Jewish actions.[47] TFD (talk) 09:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Cantor, who himself is a Jew, went to Princeton, was a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford, and taught at Columbia and other universities. The person you're citing on the other hand is the publications head of a lobby organization. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 09:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thinly disguised anti-Semitic ranting that Jews pushed the Communist agenda. Nothing is lost by deleting it. 68.9.121.226 (talk) 13:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pov attack page by someone who failed to get their pov at Jewish Bolshevism. Dougweller (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with that assessment. Creating a new article was actually recommended on Talk:Jewish Bolshevism. The information was rejected there solely on the grounds of it being outside the scope (which is the conspiracy theory). -- Director (talk) 15:50, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Wikipedia is not censored. This article is well-sourced and the sources support its content. This is a typical case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. 23 editor (talk) 15:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Emphatically strong", even. This article is not a WP:POVFORK from Jewish Bolshevism, since that article, by consensus, concerns itself exclusively with the Nazi conspiracy theory [48]. In fact, the information presented here was removed from that article on precisely those grounds, as promoted by TFD. Creating a new article was a suggested course of action on the talkpage. Now, TFD wishes to delete this article - because his apparent goal is simply to suppress this data from Wikipedia, no matter how convoluted the reasoning. He means to do it through distastefully implying some kind of anti-semitic bias. Constant accusations, implied or otherwise, regarding anti-semitism, Nazism, and the like - are a discernible pattern at this point with the user. PRODUCER is the fourth respectable Wikipedian I've seen against whom TFD has used such means to have his way on articles. If I were accused here of supporting an antisemitic Nazi conspiracy theory, TFD would already be explaining his reasoning on the relevant admin noticeboard.

This article, so far as I can gather, follows sources to the letter. Respectable, mainstream sources. I know this is a sensitive, ideologically-laden topic - but this is Wikipedia. If its sourced, if its notable - it can't be deleted. Or shouldn't be, at least, not without some kind of backing in policy. And in the end, even if you disagree with the content or tone of the text, take that to talk and change it up - what matters is that the topic is noteworthy. The nominator pretty much admits that. Strangely, though, he seems to advocate reworking the article - through first deleting it entirely, never mind that its sourced to the bone.. -- Director (talk) 15:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- DIREKTOR: You are making some serious mistakes, and I will just point out a few from your own words, you state "This article...follows sources to the letter" but you fail to realize that there are many layers of meaning to words and when one invokes the word Jews it then automatically means a whole multi-layered set of possibilities. What does the article therefore want to accomplish? Does it want to just list Jews who were communists? In that case communists come from every region and race not just Jews. Does the article want to blame the Jews for Communism? Make that part of the History of communism and put it into perspective with the total picture not just say group XYZ is to blame for everything that happened which is what this article as it stands now implies. Remember, Jews have been blamed for every ill under the sun. They have been the christ-killers, the bringers of plagues, arch-capitalists, arch-communists, just read Mein Kampf and one can see how to blame the Jews for everything except one's own failings. One can find sources for all that also, but it would not make it a worthwhile NPOV encyclopedia. Or perhaps someone here wants to dwell on the categorizations ad nauseum WP doesn't like that either, see WP:OC#EGRS. You state: they are "Respectable, mainstream sources" but yet again you fail to realize that combining the faulty wording of the title/topic with good sources does not make it "kosher for WP" it's like saying if a pig is slaughtered in a kosher manner it is therefore "kosher" when the truth is it is a pig no matter how it is slaughtered. Likewise if the wording of the title, the tone of the article and it's cherry-picking of data is biased then no matter how many good sources are dredged up, it is not an intellectually honest article. You admit that "I know this is a sensitive, ideologically-laden topic" no one is afraid to broach any topic provided that headings, titles and topics are clearly written so that NO confusion should occur, while the way this topic is phrased would be regarded as offensive or as showing bigotry to a particular nationality/ethnicity/people/group (intended or unintended). "- but this is Wikipedia" obviously, and that is why we are having this AfD and User PRODUCER (talk · contribs) the creator of this article [49] is in overdrive to defend it, the verdict will be in once it's over. You state: "If its sourced, if its notable - it can't be deleted" but if it turns out that this article violates WP:SOAPBOX (to preach against the Jews), WP:POINT (to prove that Jews are no good) and is just a cover for a WP:ATTACK page (against the Jews) it will be deleted. IZAK (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very well sourced, very well structured, article about a subject that can stand on its own. I don't see any issue here; it's not a fork, the Jewish Bolshevism article was not the suitable place for that content since it deals itself exclusively with the conspiracy (per this RFC which was initiated by the nominator of this AfD; Do I smell an WP:IDONTLIKEIT?). --CyberXRef^☎ 22:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unequivocal POV attack-page. USchick (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yah. More IDONTLIKEIT WP:VOTES. I had a look. Practically every single word and phrase is derived directly from sources. The authors being Jewish too more often than not. I think this is again the stupid mess of American politics seeping into Wikipedia. Apparently, in America, "Jews is commies!!" is a favorite antisemitic "line". Its not the mission of this project to "stick it" to the Republicans or whoever... -- Director (talk) 00:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to define "Jewish"? USchick (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why no, I wouldn't. See below. -- Director (talk) 00:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although this is a sensitive subject, but this article is well-sourced. --Norden1990 (talk) 00:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The title of the article is problematic. Jews can be just about anyone. The word has too many definitions to be meaningful. A person with a Jewish ancestor 5 times removed, who does not identify as being Jewish, was labeled as a "Jew" by a political rival, long after the person was dead and couldn't speak for himself, and then he ended up in this article and defined by Wikipedia editors. This is history revisionism. USchick (talk) 00:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how we write this project. We don't e-mail Einstein and ask him if he considers himself Jewish, we see what scholarly sources say. If reliable scholarly sources say someone was Jewish - he's Jewish as far as this project is concerned. Further, as was pointed out on numerous occasions - this article is sourced very, very thoroughly. I hope you don't expect users to conclude what is or is not "historical revisionism" based on your personal opinion.. against prominent scholars? -- Director (talk) 00:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Prominent scholars" is also a problematic term. Some people call them "political terrorists." USchick (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As opposed to "some people"?

I guess we better petition Jimbo to shut down this site then. I know I at least will have more free time on my hands.. No look, if you consider the cited sources unreliable, or "political terrorists" for that matter, pls present some kind of support. By all means, if this article is sourced by David Irving or his ilk, it probably ought to be deleted. Is it sourced with historical revisionist scholars? -- Director (talk) 00:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what I think, for every "expert opinion" there's a different opinion on this subject. This article is not balanced. It's POV. USchick (talk) 00:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If its a subject of historical debate - then its a significant topic. And if its unbalanced - then it needs to be balanced, not deleted. Though I'm not necessarily convinced this is contentious data. Its sensitive, and needs to perhaps be handled with considerably more tact. But as far as rough first(!) drafts of articles go, its rather impressive. -- Director (talk) 00:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The word "communism" in the title is just as problematic. The information contained in the article has nothing to do with Communism. It talks about the Bolshevik Party, Bolshevik Revolution, different countries, lots of things, but not Communism. Putting two unrelated words together is Original Research. USchick (talk) 01:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, #1 "Jewish" is not problematic: we go by sources on this project. #2 "communism" is not problematic either: the people mentioned here were certainly communists. And I can't even wrap my mind around your above post its so completely detached from everything.. How is anything here "original research"?? If you have problems with terminology, take it up with the source. If you have problems with the title, propose a move to whatever. -- Director (talk) 01:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish is a word and Communism is a word, but the information in the article is not about Jewish Communism. To put those 2 words together is SYNTH and the sources don't support it. I'm not going to argue with you, because now it's just who screams the loudest. You can be the loudest. USchick (talk) 01:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... no. There's no synth here. And I'm certainly glad we won't be arguing because frankly I still don't understand what you're still doing on these articles. -- Director (talk) 11:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this is a valid article subject, and there is a scope to build a good quality article around it. However, the present article presents the subject in a the most sensationalistic way possible. There is also no real lead nor context presented. --Soman (talk) 05:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There was a similar article called "Controversies related to prevalence of Jews in leadership roles in Hollywood", which was renamed "Jews and Hollywood", during the AfD.[50] Also "Jews and Money", which was retitled and deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Jews. The problem is that if an article presents a POV and uses questionable sources or is a collection of cut and pastes from other articles, then it cannot be rescued. The best approach is to delete. If someone later wants to write the article according to policy, particularly neutrality, then presumably it would survive another AfD. There is nothing of value in the article to keep. TFD (talk) 06:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TFD If this is a worthwhile topic, alleged bias is not a valid deletion rationale. POVFORK would be. But you're the one who vehemently argued that this topic is not included in Jewish Bolshevism, so I guess you're moving away from that rationale at this point? But let me spell that out again: you're the user who ejected this data from the Jewish Bolshevism article on grounds that its a separate topic [51], and have now posted an AfD on grounds that its a "POVFORK" of Jewish Bolshevism. In my book, that's shameless POV-pushing and borderline disruptive editing. "I think this article is biased and can't be rescued" is not a policy-relevant AfD rationale, its just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If you believe the sources are questionable etc., which so far as I can see is not the case - feel free to bring up your concerns on the article's talkpage. -- Director (talk) 11:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While it could be a legitimate topic, it is written from a POV that cannot be corrected. It begins for example, The lead for example provides alleged examples where there were more Jews than non-Jews, but ignores other examples, such as China, where there were few Jews, or Stalin's purging of Jews in leadership positions, or that Jews in Russia were also "overrrepresented" in liberal parties, or that in Germany they were underrepresented. No mention that right-wing parties often did not allow Jews to join, or that these "Jews" were non-practicing. When the article begins by saying a "near majority" of Bolshevik ,leaders and the secret police were "most Jewish", there is no way to get back to neutrality. TFD (talk) 13:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the lead of this article could use work... clearly therefore the article must be deleted?? This is a first draft, TFD. And for a first draft its rather impressive, as they come. If this "could be a legitimate topic", and if its not in fact a POVFORK - then in reality we have nothing more to discuss on this deletion request. Take your concerns about the lead to talk, or better yet - rework the lead and whatever else you object to. I'm sure you're not actually nominating this article for deletion because you don't feel like editing? Btw, if you no longer contend this article is a "POVFORK", then you should probably ~~strike~~ that in the nomination. -- Director (talk) 14:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A good solution to divide what is a conspiracy theory (Jewish Bolshevism) and what is Jewish history in the communist movements, indeed as long as both articles make the distinction very clearly. This article is well-sourced so there is no problem in that. It is an odd thing to say that "this article attempts to prove the conspiracy theory" although this article just states the referenced facts unlike the other article's scope. And for this article to be an attack page, communists would have to be bad people by definition, which I don't think is the case. The article should be expanded to cover the Soviet Union's later anti-Jewish attitudes (e.g. Doctors' plot) too. --Pudeo ' 06:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this argument is that Soviet Union fell apart long before it achieved Communism. As a result, Jews and Communism are not any more related than Christians and Communism. WP:SYNTH. USchick (talk) 07:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for goodness sake.. You don't have to actually achieve a perfect communist society to be a communist. -- Director (talk) 11:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You become a communist when your enemy labels you as a communist, so they can kill you. That's how you become Jewish also. USchick (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete the article is unrepairable. There are issues of involvement of the Jews in Russian Revolution, but the article is heavily based on cherry-picked sources which leave an impression of antisemitic bias. The title is arbitrary juxtaposition. Why not Jews and social democracy, Jews and laborism, Jews and psychoanalysis, Jews and music? - Altenmann >t 07:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The juxtaposition is clearly not arbitrary, as, again - it is derived from sources, who make the same juxtaposition [52]. Though perhaps the title might be changed into something more appropriate, the subject is certainly covered in sources to such a degree that it warrants an article (not so with other topics you mention). -- Director (talk) 11:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them seem to be about "Jewish Communism" canard. And the article covers the sources in a highly biased antisemitic point of view. For all claims there are known counter-arguments. So indeed, this article now is just a fork of "Jewish bolshevism". - Altenmann >t 16:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jews and music would be a sensible topic as this was the subject of coverage just recently, on account of a new BBC series. And look, we already have Jewish music, list of Jewish musicians and more. Andrew (talk) 00:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bad example. Communism is not Jewish, unlike Jewish music or Jewish musicians.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no need for separate article just to emphasize that "Jews played a "disproportionately important role" in Soviet and world Communism until the early 1950s". It can be done with one single sentence within articles on Communism and Jews. Having a separate article could mislead readers to believe that Communism is attributed to Jewish people which would be incorrect and wrong.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV fork. There is a valid topic buried in here somewhere but main contributor PRODUCER has demonstrated the inability to portray it in an encyclopedically neutral manner. The article should be purged (irony intended) of all current text and references, ideally by deletion and redirection to Jewish Bolshevism. If some more neutral editor were to approach the subject with objectivity I could see its revival. That editor should start with books PRODUCER does not cite such as Dark Times, Dire Decisions: Jews and Communism, The Myth of Jewish Communism: A Historical Interpretation, In the Shadows of the Holocaust and Communism: Czech and Slovak Jews Since 1945 and Why the Jews?: The Reason for Antisemitism, among many others. Binksternet (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you specify what this "inability" is? I've created numerous FA and GA articles and have gotten compliments from numerous users for just the first draft. Why the purging? This "I don't like it, purge plz" nonsense is irrelevant. Do those book titles irk you? Aside from the first source you mentioned, which is published by Oxford University Press, none of the rest you mentioned are in the article, but that wouldn't be an issue. All the works you choose to despise because of their names were written by scholars published by Stanford, Transaction, and Simon & Schuster. "Inability" would be too soft a term to leave the task of improving the article to someone who creates a absurd blanket judgement of sources simply based on naming aesthetics. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 18:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Binksternet is saying that those are the types of sources that should be used, rather than a discredited history of the Jews by an otherwise respected historian of feudalism. Why by the way do you think it is important to point out that Cantor is Jewish? But as it says in the intro to Dark Times, Dire Decisions, p. 8, "The truth is that, as of today, there is still no study examining the overall history of Communism and the Jews." That presents a serious obstacle to writing this article. TFD (talk) 20:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then Binksternet can contribute sourced information from the books that's relevant even though I'm the "main contributor" of the article's long three day life. Are we not allowed to acknowledge that Cantor is a Jewish historian like many others? I did not use solely one source for the entire article and it was certainly not "discredited" by the publications head of a Jewish/Israeli lobby group. That's hilarious. Another user, Pudeo, said that the article simply "states the referenced facts", but how can that be the case if I'm trying prove a "conspiracy theory that Communism was a Jewish movement" as charged by TFD? You previously recommended a new article be created in order to remove similar information from Jewish Bolshevism and now have requested its removal a day after the article was created. It appears the information is simply too inconvenient and disliked by some, and as such it must be deleted en masse. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 21:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your behavior in this matter is odious, TFD. I was the user who pointed out that such an article as this might be a POVFORK [53]. To which you replied - that it would be a (quote) "separate topic" , followed by your RfC whereby you pushed the same notion.

"The fact that some Jews became Communists and the conspiracy theory are two separate topics." --TFD, 11 September 2013

Be advised that if this article is indeed deleted per your nom for being a "POVFORK" of Jewish Bolshevism, I myself will re-introduce it there. Then you can post another RfC about how its outside the scope. I do believe you should be reported and sanctioned for instigating this whole farce, not to speak of all these "antisemitism" accusations. Frankly its quite clear you are simply out to suppress this data from the project, by any means necessary. -- Director (talk) 22:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PRODUCER. why do you think it is important that Cantor was Jewish? TFD (talk) 01:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A provocation disguised as an (irrelevant) question, intended to imply antisemitic bias. The kind you used to ask me as well. I must say, it doesn't take very long to discern these sort of rhetorical habits.

If I might venture a guess, I imagine its because you've accused him of (quote) "attempting to prove a Nazi conspiracy theory".. and are employing such underhanded methods to incite outrage to delete this article. Pointing out that the alleged antisemitic article is based on a scholar who happens to be Jewish - seems more than appropriate given your "tactics". But since we're asking personal questions, would you care to explain for all participants here your sudden 180 flip regarding what is or is not a POVFORK? Or will you ignore the question for a third time? -- Director (talk) 02:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. ◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 18:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 18:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. ◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 18:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. ◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 18:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 18:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. ◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 18:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. ◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 18:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 18:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User PRODUCER (talk · contribs) you have left out another 100+ WP:DELSORT pages since Jews have lived in dozens of countries and have been part of every type of movement. You may as well place a notification on EVERY WikiProject Deletion Sorting page. Communists who have Jewish lineage have been part of art, movies, academia, science, etc etc etc, and lived in almost all countries, Egypt, Iran, Yugoslavia, Italy, South Africa, Chile, etc etc etc -- it is therefore absurd to place notices on every country and project page. There should be a limit to the number of notices at various countries WikiProject Deletion Sorting pages (please use your common sense because at this point you have already entered the realm of WP:SPIDERMAN) or else you are clearly and deliberately violating WP:SPAM and WP:CANVASS as well as WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. Cool it. IZAK (talk) 21:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no canvassing here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bushranger: Posting to eight WP:DELSORT pages is excessive. Can you please cite other times when so many WP:DELSORT pages were notified of an AfD? Thanks, IZAK (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'The Bushranger', but I you hope agree that canvassing is about an editor's intention. So of course we should give PRODUCER the benefit of doubt, but it's okay for us to make the assumption that it's canvassing - no side can really prove the other as wrong. In accordance with PRODUCERS' broad usage of WP:DELSORT, I'm now adding Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel to here as well, since Jews and Israel are obviously strictly related, and communism has even played a role in that country. -Yambaram (talk) 23:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE to closing admin, see the related discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive831#Delsorting removal. User/Admin The Bushranger (talk · contribs) is advised to avoid the perils of WP:INVOLVED and WP:COI while this AfD is ongoing. Please be reminded that this a WP:AFD an not a WP:ANI. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 14:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IZAK is reminded that WP:COI, referring to Conflict Of Interest, is utterly irrelevant to this AfD. IZAK is also reminded to please assume good faith and requested to not imply that others are incapable of discerning which board they are on. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The Bushranger: You have still not responded to my first questions. User PRODUCER (talk · contribs) posted to eight WP:DELSORT pages and would no doubt like to post to more because "Jews" who mutate into "Communists" and vice versa can be found in a lot of countries and almost all fields (even under some people's beds if they look hard enough) so that the question then becomes how many times can PRODUCER keep on doing this? Eight times is already overdoing it by any standard of AfD discussions and then veers into WP:CANVASSING by default because a lot of editors who share PRODUCER's POV are thereby being summoned to come join the fray here. Can you cite any WP policy that allows unlimited postings to WP:DELSORT pages that pure common sense and experience says is excessive. And can you show examples of any AfDs when eight WP:DELSORT pages were notified by one editor trying to defend his controversial article in addition to the three others that got those notifications. Thanks in advance. IZAK (talk) 18:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not "respond to [your] first questions" because my initial statement answered them: they are not canvassing. Period. There is no policy that prohibits "unlimited" postings to DELSORT pages. If "Jews and Communism" is a subject that affects 20 different nations, then posting it to 20 different DELSORT pages is entirely appropriate. I'm not going to show any examples, because it isn't necessary - it is not canvassing, it is not prohibited, and I strongly suggest you stop beating this dead horse. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Yambaram (talk) 23:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Communism (not speaking Soviet Bolshevism) had a strong appeal to the Eastern European intellectual tradition including Jewish. Quite a few were jailed in Poland, where that intellectual community gained strength under duress. Of course, there were other groups to which communism appealed as well. It should be possible to discuss this topic in a scholarly manner outside "Jewish Bolshevism" and its primary role as an anti-Semitic meme. That makes this topic completely separate. That said, it should be more than a compendium of (non-practicing) Jews who played a historical role in communism. It would be helpful also to compare and contrast with other ethnically/culturally identifiable groups which also played a similar role. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I concur with you that the subject of Jews and Communism is valid, but the article, as it stands, is irreparable confusion. - Altenmann >t 04:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- On a related note, by the way, since the Polish communist administration is one of the subjects of this article. I asked one of my friends at the University of Łódź for his opinion: he said that this topic was mentioned by a history professor on a lecture as well, telling many of these names and that it is well-known in Poland but there is nothing too controversial about it. His criticism for this article was that it starts like a leaflet. I agree, the lede is not very good at the moment and words like "dominated" sound a bit sensational. But as said, that should be improved - not a reason to delete the article. --Pudeo' 05:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Polish Communist administration, which had few if any Jewish members, is not mentioned in this article. The vast majority of Polish Jews were murdered during the Holocaust and the vast majority of the survivors emigrated. The article mentions the Polish Communist Party, which was a tiny organization in the interwar period (it got 0.4% of the vote in 1930), but fails to mention that its membership was purged and the party disbanded before the establishment of Communist rule in Poland under the "Polish United Workers' Party", which had no signficant Jewish membership. There is however a perception among some that the Jews were behind the regime, which is properly covered in articles about anti-Semitism. But where is the source that tells us why most of the few hundred members of this party were Jewish while few if any of the millions of members of the Communist Party of China were? Without sources, it requires original research to provide the comparison. TFD (talk) 07:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, it seems it only concerns the pre-war movement, but it could be expanded as what you say is not true. A number of Jews returned to Poland after World War II – and for example Stalin's right-hand in Poland Jakub Berman was Jewish. He led the secret police, the Ministry of Public Security (Poland). The secret police's organization of 1944-1954 was 37.9 % Jewish (referenced in that article, Szwagrzyk 2005). But the Jews were even more strongly represented after World War II in Hungary: the first two state leaders were Jewish: Rákosi and Gerő despite Jews being a 2 % minority. So it is a well-known fact people of Jewish descent had a lot of powerful positions post-war communist countries until Stalin started to express anti-Semitic attitudes. A notable historical development that easily fits the scope of this article, so there is room for expansion. --Pudeo ' 08:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't confuse Stalinism with Communism or Socialism. USchick (talk) 08:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide any source that compares the number of Jewish Communists in Poland and China? Such a source is necessary in order for us to connect the two by putting both into one article. Otherwise all the information about Communism and Jews in Poland can remain in the articles about Polish Jews and Polish Communism. And since most Polish Communists were from Catholic backgrounds, why is it only notable that some of them were Jewish? TFD (talk) 11:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is only the first draft of the article. I will say it again: simply because you don't like the style and content of the article as it stands now - does not mean it should be deleted. It means it should be edited, and fixed. That's not a valid, policy-derived reason for deletion. If we all agree that the topic and scope of the article are noteworthy, the discussion ends there. A lazy attitude by which the (reliably-sourced) data in this article is to be deleted, rather than worked on, is imo unbecoming a serious Wikipedian.

In fact, it seems nothing more than an attempt by TFD to delete said data through various underhanded means, as an alternative to challenging it fairly on the talkpage. Which, I think, is the difficult option considering the careful sourcing. And thus we have this AfD and the previous RfC on Talk:Jewish Bolshevism. First its not part of the scope of Jewish Bolshevism, and now its a POVFORK of Jewish Bolshevism... If its restored to Jewish Bolshevism it'll be outside its scope again, no doubt. Anything to get rid of it. -- Director (talk) 12:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you not put it into articles about the relevant articles, Communism in Poland, Polish Jews etc. since the sources are about specific Communist parties or Jews of specific nations? TFD (talk) 13:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. This topic does not merit a separate article just because TFD once said its separate topics from Jewish Bolshevism.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, certainly not. The problem is that TFD can't seem to decide whether this is or is not a separate topic. On this page he's says it isn't one, on Talk:Jewish Bolshevism he says it is. As the circumstances warrant, I imagine. I said this topic might be a POVFORK [54], and that it may not warrant a separate article. TFD went to great lengths to establish a consensus to the contrary... now he's done a 180 degree flip and says its a POVFORK (see nomination, Antid).

Thing is that, TFD has established said consensus, which everyone respects (or rather respected). This topic, by TFD's own consensus - is not a part of the Jewish Bolshevism article. Of course, if its deleted per this nom on grounds of being a part of the JB article, said consensus will obviously be void because so many oppose the notion - not least its main proponent. I certainly look forward to the rhetorical acrobatics that will ensue in such a scenario. -- Director (talk) 13:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This topic does not merit a separate article just because TFD once (correctly) stated it is a topic separate from Jewish Bolshevism. TFD clarified that it can be moved into "the relevant articles, Communism in Poland, Polish Jews etc". --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So the article is not, in fact a fork of Jewish Bolshevism and the entire nomination is fraudulent? But no. See the nom: "there may be room for a neutral article about the relationship between Jews and Communism", and see above comments. That's the further weird thing about this nomination: everybody seems to agree its a WP:NOTABLE topic for an article. Its just that TFD wants to delete this text from the project. -- Director (talk) 18:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. This topic does not merit a separate article. Regardless of what "TFD wants...", of "TFD's own consensus..." and what TFD promotes, what TFD decides, what TFD established, what TFD this and TFD that. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're entitled to your opinion. I tend to disagree, alongside the majority of participants here. -- Director (talk) 23:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I removed unrelated information from the article to see what was left. My edits were reverted. If anyone else is interested in the article, please go revert back to what I had, and see if the remaining information warrants an article. USchick (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, ok USchick. I for one will certainly create a separate Jews and Marxism article, because Marxism is not to be confused with communism... Right? -- Director (talk) 18:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you haven't done it already. USchick (talk) 18:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just might do it to give TFD more work :). But no: Marxism is a form of Communism. Its like apples and fruit. Like travelling between California and Pasadena. -- Director (talk) 18:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

USchick, those movements were communist and the countries were led by communist parties: it is another political debate on how far they achieved communist goals (in comparision some people refute criticism of capitalism because "no truly free market systems have been achieved"). Both arguments are of 'no true scotsman' type. But we have reliable sources which discuss communism and the Soviet Union, so please don't remove information on the basis that communism has nothing to do with the Soviet Union. --Pudeo ' 23:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The whole purpose of this article is to make anti-Semitic conspiracy theories more palatable. Steeletrap (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bah.. another IDONTLIKEIT WP:VOTE. -- Director (talk) 23:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is clearly notable; see The Cambridge Dictionary of Judaism and Jewish Culture, for a piece by Marci Shore which is quite encyclopaedic in tone and so sets a good example. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion, per our editing policy. And one needs to consider other articles besides Jewish Bolshevism, which seems rather narrow in scope. The article Jewish left seems more relevant in setting the general context for this topic. Andrew (talk) 00:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article is completely based on reliable sources and notable events. Some points maybe controversial, but that is not a valid reason to delete. Noteswork (talk) 07:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Although I'm sceptical about the value of "X and Y" or "The relationship between X and Y"-type articles, which you can invent about more or less any combination, as noted, there is an arguably valid topic here, which has been the topic of genuine dispassionate academic inquiry – and one which is distinct from the Jewish Bolshevism topic, which is specifically about the conspiracy theory and therefore it need not be a fork. However, as also noted, this page is currently written as if intended to "prove" that conspiracy theory and hence is not only a fork in practice but is a grossly offensive one. It simply lists a whole load of cherry-picked statistics, assertions and quotes which zero in on showing how many Jews were communists and vice versa. Even in the lead, for example, it used phrases such as "counter to the denial of American Jewish publicists". I guess it could be rewritten but there are really serious issues here. N-HH (talk) 10:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. This article needs a lot of work, particularly in explaining why Jewish people, as an oppressed minority, were drawn by the appeal of communist movements - and we do need it explicitly stated that it had nothing to do with any sort of conspiracy. It is a comparatively brief article, though. I'd be fixing it up right now if I knew it'd be worthwhile. -- Director (talk) 13:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep info/merge to Jewish Bolshevism and Jewish left as appropriate: [Added later after more comments read, I do think it's censorship to remove from Wikipedia any valid (and not WP:Undue) analysis of any group if there are sufficient WP:RS about the topic, and especially if there is a lot of public interest in that groups behavior in whatever area that needs to be approached in an intelligent manner. There are such articles in Wikipedia. Unfortunately, articles about the behavior of some groups of Jews only has been allowed if it is couched in terms of "antisemitic canards". More skilled editors aren't going to rewrite this article because they know that some editors will start inferring they are antisemites and start messing with them. So editors who may be more biased may create and edit articles in a less than encyclopedic fashion.

For example the AfD'd Allegations of Jewish control of the media (a middle range title between canard and "Jews and") was moving towards being a good article that used good sources to talk about "over-representation" of Jews (including material from the ADL!!) but making the point that over-representation doesn't necessarily mean control. However, once some editors finally realized the article's originator had not been trying to slam those who had alleged control, but may have supported that view, there was a 190 degree turn against it and former supporters wanted it AfD'd! That is just irrationally absurd! Some editors evidently fear that any such information on Wikipedia will lead to automatic worldwide pogroms, or something. Yet the censorship is far more likely to lead to negative attitudes than balanced information.

Since both Jewish Bolshevism and Jewish left do survive, the first being a "canard" article and the second a largely unsourced puff piece, I think it would be appropriate to add factoids from the better sources on the topic to both of them, as appropriate. If an editor with the guts and integrity to do it can be found. (Don't look at me; I've tried to do my part and taken enough lumps.)

I'll leave my original comments in parenethesis because they were a reaction to the "censorship" issue. (The article probably needs tweaking for more viewpoints and sources (like those provided above) and some more politically correct language. Facts are the best way to confound bloated conspiracy theories. Removing it just reinforces idea Wikipedia is censored. Jews and the slave trade is probably a more controversial historical topic and that has never even been AfD'd. Jewish left is another one you might as well AfD if you are going after this one. And then there are those dozens of articles about historical facts about members of other religions we can start AfDing. When does it stop?) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It seems to be well-sourced and meaningful. Saying it's anti-semetic seems misplaced. I suppose it depends on how you feel about communism. Some cultures disproportionately contribute to certatin movements. Whether they should be blamed or credited is in th eye of the beholder. The criticisms smack of false accusations of anti-semetism, serving as a thin varnish on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John2510 (talk • contribs)

* Delete. Completely non-encyclopedic article and it contains major POV violations in just about every section. Just because there are verifiable facts in the article does not make it appropriate. This is essentially an essay, devoid of any context or neutral thrust, masked by a copious amount of sources. The topic may belong, but at this point, it badly needs to be blown up. mikeman67 (talk) 19:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Strong delete. After reading and considering the numerous comments on this page, I no longer believe any page is appropriate at all. The article violates WP:NOTESSAY and WP:OR. Unfortunately it seems that a source of most of the comments on this page in favour of keeping it is coming from someone with a direct WP:COI as the article's author. Among the many excellent points on why this article badly needs to be deleted, I'm convinced that the logic behind keeping this article would be just as strong for writing other pernicious articles like Hispanics and crime and Muslims and sexual abuse and so on (and I certainly do not think there is any valid reason for an article like that, even if there can be sources that incidentally discuss the existence of such a phenomenon). mikeman67 (talk) 19:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Also, for anyone who's using the vote counter tool, please note my vote is being counted as keep for some reason. mikeman67 (talk) 19:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While I now agree this title isn't too good, FYI, there is an article called Islam and domestic violence that Muslims and domestic violence forwards to. There's also Jewish religious terrorism, so there are ways of writing articles about these topics that can be done in an NPOV encyclopedic way. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If "Jewish terrorism" was about how the Jews have been behind every act of terrorism from Sarajevo to the Weather Underground, then I would say delete and start again. But that article is only about terrorism motivated by Jewish religion. Communism is not motivated by Jewish religion, unless one believes it is part of an international Jewish conspiracy for world domination. But we already have that article, Jewish Bolshevism. TFD (talk) 11:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, looking at the article more closely after my first "no censorship" opinion, I saw a lot/too much work would be necessary to correct the negative POV/title and it was best to transfer what was of interest to the other two relevant articles (Jewish left and Jewish Bolshevism, as relevant). But it also brings up the "Who is a Jew" issue again. Just to dance on heads of pins with angels, if you had a lot of groups of proud secular Jews who still called themselves Jews and they were committing terrorism, you might have the basis of another article. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. While the topic suggested by the title would make for a perfectly valid Wikipedia article, the text as it stand now is just an original synthesis of cherry-picked facts of the type often found on antisemitic websites. Unless there's a major rewrite (basically a new article is created under the same title), this article has no place in encyclopaedia that seeks to be neutral.Anonimu (talk) 20:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First of all, why has this debate been included again in the list of Austria/Germany/Hungary/Romania/Poland/Ukraine/US related deletion discussions? Only Judaism, politics (and maybe Russia) should be listed, and they are already have been [55][56]. I've reverted DIREKTOR once again now.

As explained above, this is a non-encyclopedic antisemitic POV-attack article, and in addition it clearly violates the no original research policy. Just because it's claimed in multiple sources that there was a high percentage of Jews during the "Russian Bolshevik Party's first twenty years" doesn't mean there should be an article about it. By PRODUCER's logic there might as well be articles titled "African Americans and crime", "Mexicans and illegal drugs", "Muslims and child abuse", Jews and Wall Street and so on. So while user "Director" keeps accusing everyone who think this article should be deleted of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, there is in fact no legitimate policy based argument for keeping it.

I'd like to suggest a new proposal: The content of this article is already found in many related pages. So the article, or parts of it, should simply be merged with Jewish Bolshevism#Jewish involvement in Russian Communism, particularly in the section Jewish Bolshevism#Jews in the Bolshevik party, as the creator of the article attempted to do not long ago. - Yambaram (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. The nominator already stated that this text can be moved into "the relevant articles, Communism in Poland, Polish Jews etc".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please acquaint yourself with WP:UNENCYC, WP:BELONG, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and WP:RUBBISH as it addresses most of your post. It's a "clear WP:CANVASS attempt" and also "clearly" violates the WP:OR policy? The historically significant events being discussed in the article take place in those countries. Of course the delsort was entirely appropriate as there was no "mass", "biased", "partisan", or "secret" posting. Where's this information in the article "for which no reliable, published sources exist"? Your vague groundless complaints do not even remotely resemble being "clear". The "Jews and the slave trade" article also apparently exists under "PRODUCER's logic" and, as another user pointed out, it "has never even been AfD'd" though you're certainly welcome to try. Really this is just a vapid post merging and parroting all the WP:IDONTLIKEIT posts above wrapped in a anti-semitism accusation for good measure. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 00:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Jews and slavery is mostly about the antisemitic theory that Jews had dominated the slave trade industry for centuries, a theory which the article shows has been debunked. The fact that it exists does not justify creating a new article about a certain ethnic group's involvement in any particular field they may have had a major involvement in, even if some sources discuss it. But again, you continue with your blatant accusations of "IDONTLIKEIT" whenever someone disagrees with you. Regardless of the fact that this article is just an antisemitic piece, it's clearly not notable enough to remain - and as some users have said, the proper locations for its information are History of communism and Jewish Bolshevism, to which it should be merged and redirected.

Besides, does anyone else here agree that these countries shouldn't be included in this deletion discussion? They are obviously not relevant enough, just like (as I explained) I wouldn't link this deletion discussion to "list of Israel-related deletion discussions" because Jews live and are associated with this country, or "list of crime-related deletion discussions", because communism has caused a lot of deaths and crime. Yambaram (talk) 20:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's an obvious attempt at Wikipedia:Canvassing. USchick (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, perhaps a way forward could be to work on a new draft for an article on this title. The present article is highly problematic, and the "x, y, z were Jews" arguments, if not directly antisemitic, abets an antisemitic narrative. The interesting aspect is not to list who was and wasn't Jewish in the communist movement, rather it would be of interest having an article dealing with the issue of 'why?'. It would be commentary on the situation of Jews in 19th Europe, the appeal of secular movement to a minority, the appeal of revolutionary opposition against Czarism, etc., and how this fascination gradually waned (not the least as Zionism and Communism became increasingly incompatible in the Cold War era). There are two other aspects, which would require some attention; 1) seemingly 'Jewish sections' were set up in several communist parties during the Comintern years (such as Yevsektsia, Central Jewish Bureau, Communist Party of Poland, etc., but have also found mentions of such sections in Austria, Argentina, etc.). Was this a consistent policy with Comintern backing? I haven't found anything to back that up, but it would be typical that these sections would have been part of a larger policy of the international. 2) The appeal of communism towards Jewish intellectuals and workers in the first half of the 20th century was not an exclusively Western phenomenon. In the early phases of the communist movement, Jews were disproportionately represented in the leaderships of communist parties in the Arab world, Latin America, South Africa, etc.. In fact only in Eastern, South-Eastern and Southern Asia was this a non-issue. --Soman (talk) 07:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- See my response to your earlier comment. It is much easier to just delete and if someone wants to recreate these articles following NPOV, then there is nothing to stop them. But who wants a misleading article? TFD (talk) 08:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for your concern of ease. Yes, actually putting in the effort to contribute reliably referenced information that you feel is lacking rather than commanding others "recreate" articles can take some effort. If you are looking for a first draft of any article on Wikipedia that's completely definitive then you won't find it, but of course this article is being held to that standard. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 11:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Soman, you say it's "directly antisemitic" or "abets an antisemitic narrative" because it mentions who were Jewish communists in a article regarding "Jews and Communism"? What am I reading, honestly? It's apparent historians find it a very "interesting aspect", especially Yuri Slezkine who "lists who was and wasn't Jewish in the communist movement" for numerous pages. Is Slezkine's book "directly antisemitic"? Does it "abet an antisemitic narrative"? Also since when do we cater articles based on personal sensitives? I've seen at least half a dozen of such empty anti-semitism accusations being thrown around liberally and the article being called "offensive" or "inappropriate" for simply existing. Such "arguments" are not rooted in Wikipedia policy. If reliable sources exist for the claims you've made then by all means they should be added to the article. The "why?" aspect should certainly be discussed. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 11:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to History of communism because as this title stands now it is basically a crude attempt to smear the Jews and not much else. There is a subtle very fine line between presenting facts objectively in NPOV fashion versus using facts in a tendentious manner to paint an obviously derogatory picture of an ethnic group that has had many characteristics attached to it by its enemies, thus violating WP:NOTSOAPBOX in the process with unwanted tones of a favorite slander thrown at "Jews" when, note, the truth about Jews (look up the term) is that they are an ethnicity but overlooks the fact that when connected to Judaism it opposes secular atheist ideologies which is what Communism is. Thus those Jews who were part of it were more accurately RENEGADE Jews, which this title does nothing to make clear. No normal person would post about Germans and Nazism since objectively no fair person would want to slander the German people as a whole to associate all of them with the implication of being Nazis, unlike this article which implicates all Jews willy-nilly, by not having any qualifiers of any kind at any point! Likewise no normal person would write up an article of Italians and Fascism or Italians and the Mafia because that would obviously DEFAME all Italians by association implying that Italians have a predilection for Fascism or the Mafia. While many Jews were part of Communism's early history and founding, it should be part of the history of communism and not mis-represented as being a "by-product" of Jews (always worrisome when articles like this pop up), no more or less than no normal person would write a blanket article implying that Germans are somehow or other the only prime motivators for the rise of Nazism, or implicating Italians as having some kind of monopoly over the causes promoting the rise of Fascism or the birth of the Mafia. Take heed, this is a slippery slope... IZAK (talk) 17:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- But those articles do exist: Italian mafia, Italian fascism, also mentioning that American mafia was an offshoot from Italian immigrants. --Pudeo ' 19:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- All I'm see is a whole lot of appeal to emotion and no true Scotsman arguments. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 19:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - To Pudeo: One must be very careful and read carefully and click carefully since firstly there is NO article called "Italian mafia" it redirects to Sicilian Mafia, and while no one denies that there is such a Mafia, there is NO SUCH article that makes a blanket connection between the Italian people and the Mafia as would Italians and the Mafia or Sicilians and the Mafia. That is why Jewish Bolshevism is barely okay because there was such a phenomenon, but the minute you state that it's "Jews and Communism" by connecting two UNRELATED diverse topics (a violation of WP:NOR and WP:HOAX or worse) without any qualifiers you are directly implicating and stigmatizing ALL the Jews because the title just says "Jews" meaning that all Jews have a potential, real or whatever fantasy one wants to cook up, connection to Communism which is a slander and just stupid. Likewise if Sicilian Mafia were to be called Sicilians and the Mafia it would rightly be a slur on all Sicilians because it implies that there is a direct connection between Sicilians and the Mafia which there is not, the majority of Sicilians, or Italians, have NOTHING to do with the Mafia. For some people reading comprehension and word usage is not their specialty and they should therefore NOT be editing serious WP topics and certainly not defending them. Same thing with Italian Fascism that is RIGHTLY not named Italians and Fascism because the latter implies and implicates that somehow there is (correctly) a denotation in those words that all Italians are somehow connected to Fascism which if it were proposed would be rightly not just rejected but also condemned as an outright ethnic slur and racist outlook or worse. What do you say about Germans and Nazism? Using your "reasoning" shouldn't there be a huge article about that by now? -- LOTS of excellent sources for that topic by now, yet no one has come up with that bright idea, sources or no sources, in all of WP's existence, why not?! IZAK (talk) 20:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blatant POV fork. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - guys, please take a look at something. Here's a Google search for "jews and communism". Check out all the first 10 websites that come up. All of them are antisemitic websites (Jew Watch, Institute for Historical Review, Metapedia, and more). And on top there's of course the Wikipedia article Jewish Bolshevism, which discusses it. So what does it mean? The subject of Jews and Communism is notable solely because antisemites make it so, which is why only the article 'Jewish Bolshevism' should cover it all. The same thing goes for Jews and lies [57] -there are certainly a lot of talks about it, but should that article be created? Jews and Communism's equivalence for this matter is Jewish Bolshevism just like Jews and lies's equivalent would be On the Jews and Their Lies. If this article (Jews and Communism) is allowed to stay, the next thing that happens will indeed be the creation of the article Jews and lies. Well, I'll say no more now. -Yambaram (talk) 23:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It's probably true that the conspiracy theory has made the historical review of Jewish involvement in communist movements more notable: pretty much how like Holocaust denialism has intensified scholarly writing of those who refute the denialist claims. Jewish studies and history is an academic subject. The historical situation in 19th and early 20th Century Europe was interesting as there were Jews who wanted completely assimilate to European nations and then international communism sort of represented the opposite (many Jews felt outcasted by European nationalisms), as Soman above points this situation for example is explanatory. But what makes it antisemitic? Can you point out a single non-factual statement? I just can't understand why a, b, and c being communists can be an offense. Even my own relatives include people who were communists and party members. Lastly, there are plenty of articles that deal with Jews in different walks of life: Category:Lists of Jews. --Pudeo' 23:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Offensive is not the problem here. It's not accurate to claim that all Jewish people were involved with Communism. Especially since it's not clear Who is a Jew. USchick (talk) 00:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Indeed: "Can you point out a single non-factual statement?" Where is it claimed "all Jewish people were involved with Communism"? Such straw men. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 00:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Agree with USchick. The ultimate solution would be merging this article with the articles/sections suggested above. Yambaram (talk) 00:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing nonfactual in the website "Republican sex offenders." Clearly there are Republicans, such as Ted Bundy who were sex offenders. But the purpose of the website is to persuade the public that there is a connection between being a Republican and being a sex offendor. Perhaps there is, but we cannot create that article here unless there are sources that support the connection, in which case there would be other sources to counterbalance the theory. TFD (talk) 01:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that this article is not titled "Jewish Communists." Maybe it should be? USchick (talk) 02:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are lots of refs for the assortment of cherry-picked facts, but the article as a whole is just a smear with no scholarly source to justify the encyclopedic connection between the topics in the title. Johnuniq (talk) 04:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't help but believe you haven't bothered to even read the article when you make a claim as ridiculous as "just a smear with no scholarly source". --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 10:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
jesus fucking christ delete -- there's a lot of crap on Wikipedia, but this is pretty close to the worst thing I've seen here. Notability is not really the point; the question is whether this sort of thing has any place in an encyclopaedia. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't create articles on topics such as "Blacks and crime" , "Latino people and Hooliganism" or "Hispanic people and Sexism‎", unless reliable sources exist to support a meaningful relation. In this case reliable sources do not support any meaningful connection between Jewish ethnicity and Communism. This article is nothing more than thinly disguised racism, very similar to antisemitic websites such as "Jew Watch". [58] Marokwitz (talk) 07:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Except they certainly do and it's a part of academic inquiry. Hell the entire book Dark Times, Dire Decisions: Jews and Communism by Oxford University Press is dedicated specifically to this topic with contributions from numerous scholars in it. Please stop comparing a political movement with crime, hooliganism, and sexism. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 10:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why not compare them? They're all based on Systemic bias. USchick (talk) 12:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, please see the comment I just posted below. In it, I responded to the two points raised here. Yambaram (talk) 12:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's interesting how little mention there is of Soviet anti-semitism. It's interesting that the article doesn't mention the Doctor's Plot, probably the most famous incident in the Jewish-Soviet relationship. There's no mention of Natan Sharansky and the Refusenik movement. There's no mention of famous Jews who became disillusioned with communism, for instance Emma Goldman or Arthur Koestler. Many prominent revolutionaries were Jews, but where's the context? Orlando Figes writes in A People's Tragedy, his history of the Russian Revolution: "Although, of course, it must never be forgotten that while many revolutionaries were Jews, relatively few Jews were revolutionaries. It was a myth of the anti-Semites that all the Jews were Bolsheviks. In fact, as far as one can tell from the elections to the Constituent Assembly in 1917, most of the Jewish population favoured the Zionist and democratic socialist parties. (pg. 82)" There's a complicated history here but this article is basically just a laundry list of who was Jewish. As others have pointed out, the implications are troubling. WP:TNT. GabrielF (talk) 07:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is a first draft and admittedly focuses mostly on pre-war. If every article was ironically purged on the suspicion of lacking material then there would be no Wikipedia to speak of. Figes can certainly be added and there is nothing stopping you. It's already noted that "most Jews were unassociated" with Kun's regime in Hungary and there was "little support in the wider Polish Jewish community" for the Polish communist movement. This isn't another list of Jews though if it were one can't delete it simply because it deals with communism. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 10:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Even setting aside everything that happened after Stalin came to power, the article as you wrote it is telling a completely different story than Figes (quoted above) and, I'm sure, other historians would tell. The article is essentially saying "Many prominent revolutionaries were Jews". Figes would say that many prominent revolutionaries were Jews, and there were a number of reasons why Jews were attracted to left-wing movements, such as a history of oppression at the hands of Russian authorities (and that this was true of other ethnicities such as Georgians), and that these Jewish revolutionaries were somewhat iconoclastic within the Jewish community, which generally had different political ideals and feared the repercussions of Bolshevism (Figes has a nice quote from the Chief Rabbi of Moscow: "Trotsky started the revolution but the Bronsteins will pay the bill") and that Jewish revolutionaries generally put class interests ahead of nationalist or religious interests and that the whites and others exaggerated the role of Jews in Bolshevist circles for propaganda purposes. This isn't a case where you just need to throw in a few details and the article will be fine. It's pretty clear to me that the article is missing the most fundamental piece, context. Without that context the article is intellectually dishonest and it doesn't pass NPOV.GabrielF (talk) 11:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - There are seven countries covered, one could likely find something to nitpick about any of them. I've said before the "why?" aspect should be discussed, but a lack of the "why?" aspect, detailing both reasons you mentioned and did not, does not automatically mean there are claims that the Jewish role in communism was "evil" or that "all Jewish people were involved with Communism" as some state. You seem to be insinuating I purposely left material out. There is also no mention of Jewish involvement in Narodnaya Volya (which contained "Jewish terrorists of socialist conviction" as historian Erich Haberer put it) nor their role in the assassination of Alexander II (real or suspected) nor, as historian Elias Tscherikower argued, their "congeniality" to political terrorism in Russia. I can just as easily also put you on the spot for not recommending those suggestions or those historians. Of course more context would be helpful and I'd be willing to cooperate with you on making a background section of sorts, but deletion is not a substitute for work and WP:BATHWATER should quite obviously be followed. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 14:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are many books about the disproportionate representation of Jews in many fields, but articles titled Jews and ___ do not exist, and for a reason. Instead of Jews and science, we have "List of Jewish scientists and philosophers. Instead of Jews and Internet, we currently have List of Jewish American computer scientists. Instead of Jews and Chess, the article List of Jewish chess players exists. And there're plenty of other examples of lists, not only on Jews. Why is that? as Marokwitz (talk · contribs) said above, sources do not "support any meaningful connection between Jewish ethnicity" and whatever field/aspect it may be. These are individuals who happened to be Jewish for one reason or another. I have a lot of "Jews" in my family, but trust me they have nothing to do with "Communism". So, after properly merging the misleadingly titled "Jews and Communism" article into the proper pages, the Jews listed there need to be added to the List of Jews born in the former Russian Empire#Politicians, just like it's done for any other ethnic group/religion/race on Wikipedia. Opinions, please? -Yambaram (talk) 12:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This would solve the systemic bias problem. USchick (talk) 13:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. Marokwitz (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Though on first glance the title alone might seem like an attack page, Jews really did play a major role in developing Communism. I don't think that "Jews and ----" is a worthy article in many cases, but in this case Communism had such a huge influence on the world, and the importance of Jews in developing Communism was important enough, that the article is worthy of existence. It's an interesting phenomenon that has been the subject of published works, and is worthy of an encyclopedic article. I do wish that there was discussion of Jewish criticism of Communism or something along those lines. Orser67 (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge The article is highly POV (the whole lead should be blanked for that), and misses the huge issue of Antisemitism. There's a lot of specific verifiable material here which could amplify History of the Jews in Russia#Jews in the revolutionary movement and History of communism and I'm not even opposed to Jewish Bolshevism#Jewish involvement in Russian Communism being expanded to an independent, NPOV article. Separately, since Communism is a largely atheist ideology, we need to clarify the use of "Jew" in the lead of any such article.--Carwil (talk) 17:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

This article is a splendid example of what Wikipedia is, and is not.

Wikipedia is not about truth. Wikipedia is the "wisdom" of the crowds (i.e. not just one singular crowd).

In this instance, there is (in real life) different & sizeable crowds having different perspectives.

To the ones saying "Delete": Why not either improve the article to include your view(s), or create an alternate article providing your perspective.

(Deleting the witch, by burning at the stake - is kind of old, and hasn't really proven viable ... though maybe you got a different memo on that.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.92.76.56 (talk) 17:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be the peculiar feeling that to says that the Jews were active in a particular movement is derogatory to the Jews, or inherently anti-Semetic. It's true that this can be discussed from various prejudicial angles, and I am not sure the presentation here is as objective as it ought to be--the concentration on numerical statistics rather than explanations is capable of misinterpretation. (I would present the data as showing the successive elimination of minorities from Society political life, and I would interpret the data as an indication of the perceived value that many Jews in the period thought Communism would have for them, and discuss it in terms of the reasons for them to have adopted this position--It is after all only rational that any oppressed people would have looked for help from the best organized of those opposing the current regime.) To regard the inherent nature of Communism so evil that it is a smear of Jews that they adopted it, is as bigoted as the nazi propaganda that the inherent nature of Judaism was so evil that the association of Jews with the Communist party proved the Communist party to be evil. The role of various ethic groups in the various phases of Communism, both before and after 1918, is a topic for serious research and discussion, and to regard any discussion of the subject as inherently prejudicial to the Jews is absurd and overprotective, any more than to regard discussion of the WWTwo alliance of Finland with Nazi Germany as a proof of anti-Finnish prejudice. DGG ( talk ) 06:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- User:DGG, I agree that the topic itself should not be taboo. The problem is this that this specific text does not accurately represent the scholarship on the topic. Consider, for instance, citation 34, to Richard Pipes' Russia Under the Bolsheviks. The article quotes Pipes as saying that Jews "furnished 95% of the leading figures in Bela Kun's dictatorship", Pipes wrote that, but Pipes then spends the next page and a third qualifying the idea that Jews were highly represented in pre-war Communist ranks. He discusses how Jews were prominent in many other ideological movements of the time period, how the majority of the Jewish population did not support Communism and some of the rationale for Jewish support of Bolshevism after the Revolution.[59] To cherrypick one specific fact from a secondary source and then ignore the author's analysis of the facts is just plain POV editing. This cherrypicking of facts is a fundamental problem with he article beginning with the lede section.GabrielF (talk) 13:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - You keep bringing up cherrypicking accusations yet you refuse to respond to me when I give an explanation. It's already stated "most Jews" were "unassociated with them" though it should have been said more explicitly as in the case of Poland where it's stated "had little support in the wider Polish Jewish community and about 5 percent of all Jewish voters supported the Communist movement". To reiterate "the "why?" aspect should be discussed, but a lack of the "why?" aspect, detailing both reasons you mentioned and did not, does not automatically mean there are claims that the Jewish role in communism was "evil" or that "all Jewish people were involved with Communism" as some state." Again I could just as likely complain about it's lack of material regarding the Rosenberg incident, the Communist Party of Great Britain, role in Soviet academia, the Lithuanian Communist Party, etc. It goes both ways. In the amount of time it took you to complain about it you could have just repaired the deficiency. We both see the article as needing work, but we don't agree on the methods to use to go about repairing it. Suspected "POV editing" is not an excuse for deletion. WP:BATHWATER --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 13:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I guess I don't understand why you chose to write this article the way you did. If you genuinely believe that the context was important, why didn't you include it? You clearly read the page in Pipes that you quoted, why didn't you use anything from the subsequent few paragraphs where Pipes offers his analysis of the facts? GabrielF (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This page serves no purpose whatsoever, other than to fan the flames of antisemitism. I believe this article should be terminated forthwith.Evildoer187 (talk) 22:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A particularly nasty synthesis. Ankh.Morpork 22:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Carwil and other commentators that the article is highly POV and it is easy to see why it could be perceived as antisemitic. Merge any information into other articles that are not POV and kiss this one off. Topdiggie (talk) 22:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly think WP:VOTES like these should simply be disregarded. I really do: they have no contact with policy. If the topic itself is significant, and the tone of the article is inappropriate - then edit the article. Make the tone appropriate, correct the "nasty antisemitic rantings" or whatever, and give Wikipedia a new article covering an interesting subject. Don't delete it because you're "outraged" with its current state.

Um.. "Topdiggie" appears to be an WP:SPA created for the purpose of voting here. -- Director (talk) 12:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Bias What I see as the most significant bias here, is the much greater coverage of the large number of Jews in the 20s and early 30s, as compared to the space devoted to the rapid decrease thereafter. Not just in the USSR where they were actively removed, but in the US the many who left because of the Nazi-Soviet pact. Among the key points not mentioned, is that within the Communist Party is Russia, the Jews were especially prominent in the factions opposed to Stalin, the Left (Trotsky) and Right (Kamenev and Zinoviev) Oppositions. One that is mentioned but not adequately discussed, is the large proportion of Jewish communists in the USSR who were part-Jewish but classified as Jews, and that essentially all the Jews in the party were Jews only by descent, not positive affiliation. (The Jewish left that were in any cultural sense Jewish were likely to be Bundists, and the Bund was very early on eliminated from Soviet political life.) The high number of Jews in the NKVD is attributed here to their desire for power--I would suggest it more likely to be desire for self-preservation, at least until it was realised that membership in that group was not actually protective. There is also the repeated word "disproportionate". Disproportionate to what? To the overall population, to the educated intelligentsia, to the overall body of politically active Russians and Poles in 1918? DIREKTOR, if you really want to keep this article, would you be agreeable to it being edited only by others than yourself? DGG ( talk ) 15:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete naming names and lists of Jews. Anti-Semitic in effect even if it was not in intent (though I have a hunch that it was). --GHcool (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it is forbidden to say that a particular person was a Communist and a Jew, how could any article on the subject be written? The people mentioned were unquestionably Communists, and most of them officially classified or generally considered as Jews and discussed in books on the subject as such. If in doubt, that needs to be proven--but as it can be complicated, it's best done in the article on the person. DGG ( talk ) 17:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record I'm the first to jump at my own ethnic group for nationalist bias, and I'm not implying anything... but once this article is (deceptively) presented as an antisemitic attack against Jewish people, Jewish people are likely to oppose it; that's just an obvious fact, I think. GHcool is ofc Jewish; and I think it especially vile that such lowdown tactics are used on this project by the likes of TFD, who's shown he's perfectly willing to do a shameless 180 degree flip just to further the agenda of deleting this (reliably-sourced) info wherever it may be posted, and by whatever means available.

@To answer your above question DDG: I naturally don't own this article, anyone can certainly edit it, and will. I think it needs a thorough overhaul to bring its topic into historical context, and to bring the rhetoric down to a neutral level. If I were PRODUCER I would have started small, and introduced new content gradually and in collaboration with other editors. But that does not diminish the impressive research that went into this. As I said, though - it lacks context as provided by many sources), and could use trimming with regard to some of the more controversial figures. I hesitate to waste effort on an article under an AfD, though. -- Director (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You guys have a few misconceptions. When editors said this article should be deleted because it is a POV fork/antisemitic/not encyclopedic, the few defenders of this article consistently replied back accusing such editors of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:UNENCYC, WP:BELONG, WP:RUBBISH and so on. What it ultimately does is it falsely labels their legitimate reasons for the deleting this article as though they are simply based on a conflict of interest. Your argument that Jews played a major role in Communism and that it's backed by reliable sources and books is true, but I and other editors (see IZAK's comments too) have proved that no article titled Jews and Communism has a place on Wikipedia according to its own policies. Since you (those supportive of this article) have ignored the latest points I raised above and since three different users (USchick, Antidiskriminator, and Marokwitz) explicitly said they agree with me, let me bring it again: There are many books about the disproportionate representation of Jews in many fields, but articles titled Jews and ___ do not exist, and for a reason.

Instead of Jews and science, we have "List of Jewish scientists and philosophers.
Instead of Jews and Internet, we currently have List of Jewish American computer scientists.
Instead of Jews and Chess, the article List of Jewish chess players exists.
Instead of Jews and economics, the article List of Jewish economists exists.
Instead of Jews and visual arts, the article Lists of Jews associated with the visual arts exists.
Instead of Jews and fictional characters, the article List of fictional Jews exists.
Instead of Jews and gays, the article List of LGBT Jews exists.
Instead of Jews and Communism, we should have List of Jews born in the former Russian Empire#Politicians. Jews and Communism is not an exceptional topic!

And the same thing is done with other articles as can be found at Category:Lists of people. Why is that? As 'Marokwitz' rightly put it, sources do not "support any meaningful connection between Jewish ethnicity" and whatever particular field/aspect it may be. Before it's deleted, some information from this article could of course be implemented into History of communism, History of the Jews in Russia#Jews in the revolutionary movement, or Jewish Bolshevism#Jewish involvement in Russian Communism. But unless there is a double standard or some one and only exception for this article while ignoring similar articles on different ethnic groups/religions/races on Wikipedia - and there should be none - this article cannot stay. -Yambaram (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, albeit I have expressed concerns about the article in questions, I find that several of the 'delete' comments in this AfD borders historical revisionism. The existence of a Jewish communist movement (within the wider communist movement) is not fiction, but a historical fact. I suggest a reading of scholarly literature on the subject;
- First of all, Jerusalem on the Amur: Birobidzhan and the Canadian Jewish Communist..., "Jewish Communism was a combination of socialism and secular Jewish nationalism, though the latter was often only a subterrean form of discourse. They complemented one another: proletarian Jewish culture (especially in Yiddish) for Jewish Communists constituted the most authentic expression of Jewish being, of a secular Yidishkayt. [...] Rejecting religious and traditional Judaism, the Jewish Communists believed they could advance their cultural self-identity with a Marxist-Leninist framework, [...] Even while being part of a larger Communist "family", the extensive network of groups fashioned by the Jewish Communists enabled them to create a focus for Jewish socialist integration that was independent of the Communist Party. [...] The Jewish Communists emerged from the same historic and economic conditions as did the other Jewish socialist movements of the time. They all were products of the Jewish enlightenment, or haskala, the growth of Yiddish as a language of culture and literature, the proletarization and impoverishment of the Jews in the Russian Pale of Settlement before 1917, and the organization of Jews into trade unions and other resistance organizations as response to pogroms and persecution." (pp. 7-8). this, in short, would have been a perfect intro for an article on Jewish communist movements. Page 10 is also very interesting.
- British Jewry, Zionism, and the Jewish State, 1936-1956, pp. 91-92 (albeit the author ignores the existence of Jewish CP sections in Latin America, Austria, etc.)
- Dark Times, Dire Decisions : Jews and Communism, has already been mentioned a few times, the introductory chapter makes a good reading.

My suggestion for a way forward would be that 1) DIREKTOR & PRODUCER could take a step back, as those comments seem mainly to fan the fire and that 2) a group of the other commentators on this page get together and work on a draft that would be less conspiratorial in its tone, less of a "Who's Who" of Jews in communist parties and more focused on Jewish communism as a movement with distinct characteristics and its role in contemporary history. The article title could be worked out in a consensus process and possibly different from the current 'Jews and Communism'. Any takers? --Soman (talk) 01:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Soman, you raise an interesting question about a possible topic, but that's not what the present article is about. The present article is not about a Jewish-communist movement (I deliberately use a small c, because I think it's more neutral in this context). The influence of socialist, or even Marxist socialist ideology, or even the ideology of those who had been once members of the Communist Party before that party became overtly anti-semitic, on the early period of the Jewish state is a real topic, but it's not topic of this article. The role & motivations of the Israeli Communist Party is also a real topic, but it's not the topic here. Birobidzhan a is an interesting topic, and the motivations for its founding and its relation to Zionism is an interesting topic, but also unrelated to the contents of this article. This article is about the role of Jews in the mainstream Communist Party in the Soviet Union and the other national Communist Parties under its influence. That is also a real topic--the question here is whether this article is salvageable on that topic. (There are indeed some people in the discussion above who do not see it as a real topic, and , quite frankly, I agree that it's a try at avoiding the realities of history. (Just as the content of the present article seems to be a try to slant the realities). There's room for several articles. DGG ( talk ) 01:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Times, Dire Decisions, p. 8, says, "The truth is that, as of today, there is still no study examining the overall history of Communism and the Jews." British Jewry, Zionism, and the Jewish State, 1936-1956 is about British Jews, Zionism and Israel between 1936 and 1956. Jerusalem on the Amur: Birobidzhan and the Canadian Jewish Communist is about Jews between 1921 and 1956 who supported both the Russian Revolution and the creation of the state of Israel.

We have lots of sources that examine the connection between Jews and Communism at various times and in different countries. What we lack is a comprehensive study that ties it all together. Is there something about Judaism that draws them to Communism? Is Communism inherently anti-Jewish, or did Communist governments become anti-Semitic as the reality of governing actual nations forced them to abandon internationalism? Interesting questions, but without sources that address them, writing the article will be challenging.

Even if sources did exist, WP:TNT applies. If we begin with an article that attempts to show the Jews were behind Communism, repairing the article will be challenging if not impossible. It would be better to delete and if someone wants to pull together the sources and create a neutral article, good for them. But do not assume that editors will jump into this article and bring it to good article status.

TFD (talk) 15:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Yes, the sourcing is well done but I fail to see the importance of this article, as it doesn't seem to have a point other than "look what percentage of early Soviets were Jewish!" which isn't surprising given the huge Jewish population of the Russian Empire. The article's intent does seem to veer close to Jewish Bolshevism. Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 16:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is clearly not a "point of view fork" of Jewish Bolshevism. Jewish Bolshevism article is about supposed conspiracy theory only, which is different topic. --DonaldDuck (talk) 08:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Vindheim

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG.. not guaranteed that this player will make his first-team debut soon. JMHamo (talk) 00:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 00:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - removal of the PROD was borderline POINTy; article clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In what way was the Prod removal borderline pointy? Nfitz (talk) 05:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, the suggestion that he will play soon inferred by the removal of the PROD is without any merit, there are no reliable sources to suggest, let alone confirm this. As such the player does not pass WP:NFOOTY let alone GNG. Fenix down (talk) 17:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject does not meet WP:NFOOTY at this time. ///EuroCarGT 01:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes GNG. Isn't there a requirement for participants in a deletion-discussion to actually search for sources before claiming a topic fails GNG? This article from the regional newspaper, Bergens Tidende, and this article from the national broadcaster NRK both addresses the topic directly and in detail. Vindheim has also received a lot of coverage in local papers when he signed his first professional contract, when he was training with French club St. Etienne, when he was wanted by the French club and when he rejected the French club offer - but those shouldn't be counted towards notability. WP:NFOOTY is just a rule of thumb, and we all know that playing one match in a fully pro league has no real impact on passing the general notability guideline, which is the most important notability guideline - but I must say that nominating an article for deletion when he is expected to pass NFOOTY in a couple of weeks is also bordeline WP:POINTy. Mentoz (talk) 17:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article object appears to fail WP:NFOOTY. User:Mentoz86's suggestion of GNG are general transfere speculations. Wikipedia is no crystal ball: It is no guarantee the player will ever play a match even if he transferes. Grrahnbahr (talk) 00:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Grrahnbahr I believe you've misunderstood, his transfer to St. Etienne isn't going to happen, but he has signed a professional contract with Brann. As you might be aware of, local young players in the big clubs in Norway (Brann, Rosenborg, Vålerenga and Viking) tend to get a lot of coverage in the regional and local papers, and I'm not suggesting that Vindheim passes GNG because of the transfer speculations, but rather because of the coverage he has gotten in the pre-season; the articles in BT and NRK are pretty in-depth. I've struck the transfer speculation for clarity. Mentoz (talk) 09:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article in Bergens Tidene clearly states that it is not sure he will start any matches this year, because of not being regarded as the best player for the team at that position. The articles are beyong doubt about the player, but does not suggest any extraordinary events or preformances for coverage, just a young talent who may will get his start in a professional league this season. If he get some strange damage, making him unable to continue his career tomorrow, I would not at all support keeping an own wikipedia article about the person, based on the relevance criterias. That is where we are today with this player. The crystal ball argument still applies, even if he does not transfere. Grrahnbahr (talk) 21:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 01:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 minor planets: 343001–344000. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

343743 Kjurkchieva

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

Completely fails to meet WP:NASTRO; no defining characteristics whatsoever. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:Notability (astronomical objects) states, "If an asteroid stub is found with a notability tag on it, and a good-faith search has been done to locate supporting references, then it is appropriate to redirect the stub to the appropriate List of... article." Unscintillating (talk) 16:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Problem is, the list doesn't exist in this case, or I would've already redirected it. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of minor planets: 343001–344000 per usual practice. PWilkinson (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, how'd I miss that list...I was clearly too tired when I made this. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. I think everyone would have been comfortable with this being boldly redirected had the nom been aware of the list linked above. Stalwart111 11:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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