- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rubicon wall
- Rubicon wall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
seems only a un-notable wall Melaen (talk) 23:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A not particularly noteworthy rock climbing site with little in the way of sourcing. Off with it, Sven Manguard Talk 01:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. I really don't like having to ring this one up. Will userfy/incubate on request if someone thinks they can find something that was missed here. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maranatha Care Children
- Maranatha Care Children (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable local charity; violative of WP:NOBLECAUSE because fails WP:CORP Orange Mike | Talk 23:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - There is insufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The "This is Plymouth" article provides some coverage, btut that;s not enough, and I cannot find much else. -- Whpq (talk) 16:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There is not enough coverage yet. I have only found (this which discusses this charity and three other ([1], [2], [3]), which discuss Harrison Nash, the founder of it. Armbrust Talk Contribs 19:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3D Studios Oakland
- 3D Studios Oakland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find any significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 23:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 23:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Couldn't find a single reliable & notable source.--Artlovesyou (talk) 05:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No reliable coverage for a non-notable company. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no coverage in reliable sources. Armbrust Talk Contribs 18:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aleksi Lepistö
- Aleksi Lepistö (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unable to find any reliable sources to verify the contentents of the article or judge notability. The article says that he played in Korisliiga, which I suppose would pass WP:NBASKETBALL, but that would be a stretch and I am unable to find a source to confirm that he played in the league and we don't even know what team he was on. His 'official website' is of photography, which the article lists as his hobby. The only Google News Archive hit is for a different individual. Does not meet WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 22:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 22:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 22:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator. No references in Finnish-language media either. Google search "aleksi lepistö" topo produces a few results but no basis for an article. --hydrox (talk) 00:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete after excluding other folks with the same name and Wikipedia mirrors (some of which are printed as books via Books LLC), I could find no sources for this article via Gweb, Gnews, Gbooks. --j⚛e deckertalk 05:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't find anything to verify the info in the article, which is pretty much abandoned. Even if we found sources, the claims in the article aren't especially impressive. Finland isn't even ranked by FIBA, and it would be a big stretch to call all Korisliiga players notable. Zagalejo^^^ 08:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Maybe when this article was created he passed notability guidelines, and there was even potential for him to become a good player at a top tier level. Since then, however, the article's been abandoned and this player doesn't seem to have done anything to justify his entry. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete does not meet WP:ATHLETE let alone WP:NOTABILITY from what I can find via searches. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –MuZemike 22:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Miltos Kambourides
- Miltos Kambourides (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete No indication of notability. The sources cited are mostly either not independent of the subject or make only brief mention of him. There is no substantial independent coverage. In addition, there is sufficient overlap in phrasing with http://www.dolphincp.com/index.cfm?page=1156 to raise doubts about the copyright status. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –MuZemike 22:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete certainly his existence is verified as a rich man who buys shares [4]. but no indepth coverage about him as a person like his education, career etc. LibStar (talk) 05:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Responsive process management
- Responsive process management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Term seems to be a neologism and the article is original research based upon that. The term seems to have been created by a software company called 'progress software' who have a piece of software that they want to sell. None of the sources used in the article mention the term, no reliable sources seem to mention the term (note if you google it don't get it confused with Emergency Response process management or Disaster Response process management - entirely different things not described in this article).
In summary, the term has no currency and is not mentioned in RS. Cameron Scott (talk) 20:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete based on a Google check this appears to be a promotional term used by a single software company, though this doesn't seem to be mentioned in the article, making this at best a neologism and at worst sneaky spam. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not significantly covered by RS, uses references to RS that don't mention the term. Peter Karlsen (talk) 21:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - reeks of original research, and looks suspiciously like a coatrack from here. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. A neologism with little reliable coverage used/coined by a company. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unreadable twaddle only masquerading as English:
a distinctive form of business process management characterized by a high degree of real-time responsiveness to operational conditions and events. RPM derives its heightened operational responsiveness from its integration of several technology-enabled capabilities.....
The foundation of responsive process management is the ability of process owners to see what is happening across the organization and in key parts of the operational environment, in real time. This comprehensive real-time visibility spans geographic locations, organizational divisions, and technology systems.
Also driving the responsiveness of RPM is the continuous analysis of real-time visibility data so as to render the data operationally meaningful. Because responsive process management places a premium on rapid, intelligent response to a high volume of constantly shifting information, the analysis of real-time visibility data is ongoing and highly automated.
. Responsive process management leverages enterprise visibility and continuous analysis to optimize process execution in real time. To the extent possible, the organization’s operational processes are automated or semi-automated, and process execution is designed to incorporate the real-time operational intelligence that the platform continuously generates. Where appropriate, the process execution system triggers operator participation, again leveraging real-time operational intelligence.
More might endanger your sanity. This sort of typing is patent nonsense even if it is superficially correct in syntax. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I'll bet it also can "mesh synergistic paradigms". -- Whpq (talk) 16:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- speculation It can probably reverse the polarity of the neutron flow, too! --Orange Mike | Talk 21:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy Keep per nominator withdrawing AfD, (and unanimous keeps based soundly on policy.) Sven Manguard Talk 21:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of hospitals in Belgium
- List of hospitals in Belgium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Pointless list - I just deleted a slew of ELs linking to individual hospitals, etc. leaving a link to all the hospitals in Belgium - what is the point of the article if all we need is a link at Belgium? Dougweller (talk) 19:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I would consider hospitals, some small and private clinics aside, inherently notable as you will almost always find significant coverage in local and regional media if you dig deep enough (in this case in Dutch and French). Hospitals in xxx, where xxx is a state or country seems an excellent encyclopedic topic for stand alone lists. That this particular list is in bad shape and made mostly redundant by an external link is not a reason for deletion, it just shows there is still plenty of room for improvement on this area of wikipedia. Yoenit (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep WP:ALMANAC Dream Focus 04:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's a list of lists, not even a guideline. Dougweller (talk) 05:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Clear inclusion criteria for a notable topic and part of the wider scheme of Category:Lists of hospitals by country. Lugnuts (talk) 07:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Perfectly valid list of a very notable topic.--Oakshade (talk) 03:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Reasonable and useful list, no policy-based deletion rationale has been articulated. Jclemens (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw Ok, I'll withdraw the nomination. Dougweller (talk) 19:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Mkativerata (talk) 20:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apaadi
- Apaadi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
this article fails to establish notability for films. article fails WP:GNG & WP:NF. sources on the page are unreliable. Amsaim (talk) 19:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are the only sources that are available for Apadi(I actually saw the movie and have the DVD at home) and 99% of nollywood movies. That incomplete list that you have in the Nollywood movie section will keep staying that way because majority of Nollywood movies plus this movie I put don't have westernized sources like Hollywood movies are(some don't have any references at all, they just released them after they are made and Nigerians but them). the first article I put is reliable, and it was a article on a interview with Funke Akindele about the movie I mentioned. I know a lot about Nollywood movies and have seen hundreds of movies from Nigeria but as I said most don't have references except critic reviews or interviews of the actors/actresses that are in the movie. One of the other references I mentioned which is called Nollywood forever:http://nollywoodforever.com/a-z-movie-review-index/
- has more Nigerian movies that can fit in you less then 20 Nigerian movies you put in the list under Nollywood movies: wow very good since 1990 till 2010. I can't stop you from deleting the movies but those movies are real and what surprises me is that you think you know more then me about most of these movies, especially when nollywood doesn't operate in the westernized world way when it comes to sources or references. Sorry to burst your bubble but you are not going to get BBC or CNN news articles and references on 99% of nollywood movies like Osufia goes to London. My intentions were genuine and I tried to add to that list because frankly that Nollywood film list in wikipedia has been made fun of by many Africans and Nigerians specifically because a lot of movies have been out since the movie IJE, and hasn't been updated. At least I know now that Nollywood forever and African movie sites has more updated information then your site. Good luck in adding to your Nollywood film list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Solarlove (talk • contribs) 19:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The interview linked in the article was also carried by a reliable source and here is a review in a reliable source. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I also note that this film was nominated for African Movie Academy Awards in three categories, including best African language film.[5] Phil Bridger (talk) 13:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per fine work after nomination by Phil Bridger showing notability. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep nice work by Phil Bridger. ϢereSpielChequers 22:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jairo Romero Sanchez
- Jairo Romero Sanchez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
unsourced and no indication of notability. Google search finds only 13 hits - none on google scholar. JR Sanchez has some hits but nothing that I can tie to this individual. The original google translation was not professor but teacher. Nothing to suggest that Venezualan university baseball is notable. noq (talk) 18:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The user page of the original author of the page, User:Lealsan, states that he is "Andres Alberto Leal Romero". Perhaps the two individuals are related and this was his way of a tribute? --Muboshgu (talk) 20:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment He already stated he is a cousin. And yes if you look at the original text it is a eulogy. noq (talk) 23:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The person is not notable in any way that I can tell. Also, Wikipedia is not a memorial site. -Dewelar (talk) 03:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedily delete. Fails to assert notability. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There is no coverage in reliable sources. Armbrust Talk Contribs 17:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete of course. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 10:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 20:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abu Obeida
- Abu Obeida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. No source gives any information about this person besides quoting him as a spokesman for the military wing of Hamas. No source even says this is his real name. With not one source discussing this person, this article fails WP:N and WP:BIO. Nableezy 18:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I was unable to find any sources discussing this individual either. Article therefore fails WP:GNG. Content currently appears to consist of nothing but randomly selected quotes. Gatoclass (talk) 08:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nomination. Anotherclown (talk) 10:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Agree with nomination, there is no real notability, and I'm uncomfortable with the alias. I believe there is precendent to say that being a spokesperson does not confer sufficient notability in and of itself (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buck Humphrey and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Gerard for examples). bahamut0013wordsdeeds 15:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 20:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shlomit Lir
- Shlomit Lir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Shlomit Lir is a non-notable researcher. She doesn't even have a Ph.d degree. There are many young researchers in Israel with an academic record much like her. The claims about women for presidency in Israel aren't a cause for notability as well. We all know how much influence it had during the last presidential elections. Her activity for peace isn't notable as well because her group in Van Leer doesn't have a lot of influence (try searching information about them in the major newspapers). Also, google search gives very few results.
Also, I would like to comment that based on my own personal experience, Shlomit Lir tries to use the wikipedia platform to promote herself and her agenda. This should not be permittes. Broccoli (talk) 17:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the reason ברוקולי goes against Lir is that she criticized the Hebrew Wikipedia in one of Israel's most prominent tv shows: (you can see the show in the following link Politica). She also organized a convention on women and the internet at Bar Ilan University which hosted a wikipedia participant who raised questions on why does the Israeli wikipedia conceal knowledge. In addition, she wrote a few articles on the issue of the Israeli Wikipedia biases which got lots of responses. If you check you will find that there are hundreds of Google responses to her name in Hebrew, English, Arabic and a few more languages. Lir is a also a peace activist which might be an additional reason for this wish from her Israeli "colleague". 85.65.119.63 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.65.119.63 (talk) 09:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if it was true (and it isn't), this doesn't change the facts. She likes to speak (its her right of course), but there is no proof whatsoever to her influence. This isn't the first time she (or is it you, miss Lir?) tries to abuse the wiki platform for self promoting. BTW, in the secondary headline it is said that she has a Ph.d, but the article says she's just a candidate for the degree. So, whats the truth? Broccoli (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Broccoli.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Article is basically a recitation of her activism – no reliable sources, no citations (1 GS hit). Only visible academic contribution is editing a book, which is held in ~25 institutions. Created by a WP:SPA with edits only on this article. This strikes me pretty much as a vanity/promotion page. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 22:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete A completely non-notable PhD student. She belongs to various campaigns, but anyone can join campaigns. She led a non-notable political campaign for which I can fine very little coverage in any sort of reliable independent source. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Doesn't seem very notable to me Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! (Whisper...) 09:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Perhaps one day. But she's not there yet.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Albeit narrowly, consensus is that the coverage of this book doesn't quite rise to the level of notability. While many here think it does, some comments are not much more than mere assertions of "it's notable", which carries less weight than most "delete" opinions that discuss the level of coverage. Sandstein 04:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Irrational Atheist
- The Irrational Atheist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Putting an article I created back in 2008 up for deletion. I still think it's a excellent book for its type, but as its so powerfully written its hard to provide a representative summary without the article acting in part as an attack page against atheists. Two editors also think most of the sources are not reliable so this might be another reason to delete (please see articles talk page) I personally think the sources are fine and the book is notable, so this nomination is only at weak delete strength. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The reason given by the nominator is spurious, and looks suspiciously like a WP:POINTY attack on other editors. Also, whether the nominator considers the book "excellent" and "powerfully written" is beside the point. The point is, does the book fulfil the criteria specified in WP:NB? I reckon not. It's been reviewed in a couple of religious blogs, but there is no evidence that it has been "the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works..." Where are the reliable sources reviewing the book? Where has it been noticed other than by a narrow-minded clique of like-minded people? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 17:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Gosh! No attack is intended on the two other editors, I disagree with them but still think their view on the sources is credible. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification – I didn’t mean that you were attacking those particular editors, but that by making the extremely curious assertion that the book is so powerfully written that a full article about it would be "an attack page against atheists" you seem to dismiss all atheist editors who might pass this way, and it looks as if you are trying to make some sort of nice point that actually has nothing to do with the matter in hand. How can it be impossible to write a balanced article about a book, whatever that book says, or however well or badly written it is? The persuasiveness or otherwise of the book’s arguments has nothing to do with the topic of this discussion, which should concern itself purely with whether the book passes the WP:GNG and WP:NB guidelines. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 15:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I didnt mean to imply most atheists would be offended, but a few might especially ones who are sensitive due to living in the Bible belt or similar areas. I agree theres a borderline case the article fails WP:NB but IMO it passes GNG hence my vote is only weak delete. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification – I didn’t mean that you were attacking those particular editors, but that by making the extremely curious assertion that the book is so powerfully written that a full article about it would be "an attack page against atheists" you seem to dismiss all atheist editors who might pass this way, and it looks as if you are trying to make some sort of nice point that actually has nothing to do with the matter in hand. How can it be impossible to write a balanced article about a book, whatever that book says, or however well or badly written it is? The persuasiveness or otherwise of the book’s arguments has nothing to do with the topic of this discussion, which should concern itself purely with whether the book passes the WP:GNG and WP:NB guidelines. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 15:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Speaking as an unoffended atheist: sufficient encyclopedic treatment of a high profile book. I personally don't care much for the "Every Book Gets an Article" approach, but it's reasonably well accepted among the community and this page is no better and no worse than bargeloads of OTHER STUFF that EXISTS. The book is to be found in 118 libraries listing on WorldCat and that's more than enough to certify that this is more than an itty-bitty self-published title, but rather a sufficient subject for encyclopedic treatment. —Carrite, Oct. 6, 2010.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, significantly covered by sufficiently reliable sources for the purpose. Peter Karlsen (talk) 21:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, the grouping of positive reviews without clarifying what position they take, is POV pushing. I fixed that in this edit. Otherwise it is fine and is certainly notable. Sadads (talk) 22:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Putting this article up for deletion has been on my list of things to do for a while now. The above keep comments don't get to the heart of the issue--this book doesn't meet either WP:GNG or WP:BK. There are 3 reviews, but all of them are for limited (not general) audiences, and WP:BK states that in order to qualify on reviews alone, at least one and preferably more must be for a general audience. I have argued that at least one of those doesn't even qualify as a legitimate source, as it's hosted on a blog, not a news source. One reference states that it was part of the 2007 NOR Christmas recommendations for NOR, but that article recommends several dozen other books, so the coverage is hardly signoficant. The only other reference isn't even about this book but about where the name comes from. As such, this book has not met our notability criteria, and must be deleted (unless, of course, others find more references). Qwyrxian (talk) 22:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The book is sufficiently notable for an encyclopedia. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 23:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: While I'm not sure that they'll check back in, if they do, I'd like to request the keep people who are saying "it's notable enough for an encyclopedia" to please explain how it meets either of the relevant notability guidelines--WP:GNG or WP:BK. To simply assert that it is notable is not enough. As a side note, that it's in 118 libraries is also insufficient, as that's not one of our criteria (and, to be honest, I'd argue that only 118 libraries actually practically proves a lack of notability, as that is a tiny number in my opinion--and the very fact that we disagree shows why that's not enough to verify notability). Qwyrxian (talk) 23:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Qwyrxian's points are far more convincing than the bald assertions of notability from the keep side here. This is a book of very limited circulation (only 118 libaries!) and has not been subject of reviews independent of the Christian media. The Christian media will, understandably, endorse the content of the book and so can't be considered independent sources for the subject of the article. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not really well established. I counted 138 copies in WorldCat, as opposed to over 3200 for The God Delusion, (or 1869 for the Kitty Kelley biography of Oprah.) No scholarly works or news hits that would be of use either. Sven Manguard Talk 23:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AGN International
- AGN International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence of notability, per contested PROD by Kinu Google searches only find press releases and trivia. Only active editor has removed maintenance tags and contested PRODs without improving the article, and has only edited this article. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per my original PROD. No significant coverage in WP:RS; most information found through searching is press releases, trivial mentions, or irrelevant information about Allergan Inc. (whose ticker symbol is AGN). Does not appear to meet WP:CORP. --Kinu t/c 20:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I have searched extensively, and found only sources dependent on AGN, trivialpassing mentions etc, no substantial coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
David Naughton (producer)
- David Naughton (producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
nn unreferenced vanity piece, notability is not inherited, working with notables does not make one notable Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 15:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG. No ghits for his name with names of notables he has allegedly worked with. Eddie.willers (talk) 15:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete He doesn't seem very notable, only sources are external links to myspace and allmusic. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 15:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete working with a megastar like Robbie Williams would seem to be a pretty ironclad claim of notability, but when investigated he seems to be credited as "Assistant Mix Engineer" on "Sing When You're Winning", and that isn't enough for me. Note that when looking for sources there's a far more notable actor/singer with this name, who has an article here at David Naughton (actor). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Revelation (disambiguation). There is a clear consensus to redirect, but not as to where. I recommend further discussion, preferably at Talk:Revelations or similar discussion venue to establish a consensus on where the redirect should be. –MuZemike 22:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Revelations
- Revelations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Editor keeps changing the redirect to an article--for a non-notable song. It wasn't a single, it's not famous, there are no references that indicate its notability. The only thing I could find is [6], on PopMatters, which mentions a live version of the song on Life After Death. Basically, I bring this here to get the community's input on whether this should be an article or remain a redirect. Drmies (talk) 15:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as appropriate - not enough material for a stand-alone article. Eddie.willers (talk) 15:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect, not significant enough coverage to get an article in decent shape out of it. C628 (talk) 18:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect and can an admin please fix this? The editor changed the Revelations redirect to be a Iron Maiden song article even though there's already Revelations (Iron Maiden song) which redirects to the album (as it should.) The page at Revelations needs to redirect to Revelation
(disambiguation)as it did before the editor replaced it with the Iron Maiden content; the content that's being AfD'ed here needs to be moved to the Revelations (Iron Maiden song) page as it's wholly inappropriate for the Iron Maiden song to usurp the Revelations redirect page. 28bytes (talk) 11:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]- I've fixed this, but to clarify, prior to the redirect becoming an article, it redirected to Revelation. I've no opinion on the ideal target. –xenotalk 14:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - As it was previous to the article. If the notability of the song can be established at some point, then it can become an article. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect back to Revelation (disambiguation). Entirely non-notable as a song; even if it were it should be at Revelations (Iron Maiden song), but by WP:SNOW it would be equally non-notable there.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 14:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Administrative note:: I've split out the new revisions and merged them with Revelations (Iron Maiden song). Revelations has thus reverted back to being a redirect to Revelation. Discussion continues with respect to Revelations (Iron Maiden song). –xenotalk 14:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Just to clarify, now that the page has been moved, my "redirect" !vote above is intended to mean that Revelations (Iron Maiden song) should be redirected to Piece of Mind, the album's page. 28bytes (talk) 15:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with all of you. Let's have a group hug--and we may as well ask for SNOW. Drmies (talk) 02:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to the album Piece of Mind, just to help build the consensus. The song does not stand on its own nor does it need to if it is discussed in passing at the album article. Also, if the stubborn editor keeps de-redirecting and messing up the namespace for the much more important Revelations (from religion), is there a salt-like process to prevent similar moves in the future? This discussion here might not discourage the guy, until he gets bored and goes somewhere else. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've got Revelations watch-listed. I don't think the editor intentionally broke things, I think it's just a matter of misunderstanding where the article should have been created. If it happens to a high-visibility redirect again I think we can safely just revert the change and explain on his talk page warn without needing to go the AfD route (although I've got no complaints with Drmies' handling of the situation.) 28bytes (talk) 16:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Loudoun County Public Schools. Merge any relevant sourced content from the history. Sandstein 04:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seneca Ridge Middle School
- Seneca Ridge Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This page is about a Middle School. It bears no references, and has no claim to notability--only existence. While there is often a presumption that "all" high schools are notable, this presumption does not, as far as I know, apply to middle schools, which must demonstrate notability per WP:GNG. Full disclosure: I did just delete a lot of text from the article per WP:NOT, but that just listed all of the teachers in the various departments, so no effect on notability. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- redirect per this earlier AFD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belmont Ridge Middle School, unless reliable sources are found that show the school meets WP:GNG. Yoenit (talk) 14:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect. No evidence of notability. Figureofnine (talk) 14:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per longstanding precedent. No need for an AFD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per standard practice for non-notable schools below the secondary level. —Carrite, Oct. 6, 2010.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/Redirect to Loudoun County Public Schools per general precedent on non-secondary schools, and there is nothing here now that establishes independent notability. Alansohn (talk) 18:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete as A3 by Dabomb87. NAC. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 01:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TIDE Editor
- TIDE Editor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable project, Google test only shows posts by project's members advertising the project, no reviews or significant (or any) media coverage, the article amounts to little more than an advertisement for the project — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 13:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable and the article doesn't even claim any notability. We really should have a CSD for completely NN software. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:44, 6 October 2010 (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) 20:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The article creator just moved the article into his user-page. I think this closes the discussion, although the left-overs should be cleaned up properly (there's still a Talk-page, etc.) --DanielPharos (talk) 20:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close it's been moved and the accidentally left redirect was speedied (which I probably did wrong). Maybe the talk page should move with the article? Otherwise I think we're done here. Hobit (talk) 00:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
David Lindley (palaeontologist)
- David Lindley (palaeontologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Maybe palaeontologists aren't widely covered on the web, but apart from a couple of mentions in The Geological Society of Australia Inc newsletter about his research and a few items on google scholar, there doesn't seem to be much in the way of reliable sources to prove this guy's notability. Note that I'm pretty sure that he is not the co-author of the "Jurrasic Park, how to build a dinosaur" cloning book. The-Pope (talk) 13:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 13:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 13:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete in the absence of any evidence of scientific impact for his research or business impact for his company. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, highest cited (and possibly only) paper; 13. Abductive (reasoning) 19:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Overall consensus seems to suggest that, while possibly borderline, the levels of notability demonstrated through reliable-source coverage are insufficient for an article at this time. ~ mazca talk 00:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mark A. Cooper (author)
- Mark A. Cooper (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable. Self-published author who has managed to hype himself but not yet reach mainstream notability. Only sources are minor local newspapers and database sites that list everything submitted to them, notable or not. Currently this article is essentially just a self-promotional space for the author. If his work ever has true mainstream notability then we can have a Wikipedia article. DreamGuy (talk) 18:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - this has been part of a concentrated effort on the part of the author, or people working on his behalf, to insert promotional material about himself (a minor self-published author) into Wikipedia. There has been a history of falsehoods put forth surrounding both him and his "hit" book to try to make the subjects appear more important than they are. MikeWazowski (talk) 23:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now - if the guy can pull off a good Kirkus review for his book, he may be edging toward notability, whether or not he has used WP inappropriately in the past. If Steed sinks without any more ripples, we can revisit this in the future.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are of course correct past misuse (real or imaginary) should have no bearing on this, it's a question of if the material is appropriate for wikipedia and therefore enhances it. However you seem to suggest he hasn't reached notability in which case surely it's a deletion now and potential restoration where that "edging towards" become "just reached". It's quite possible that an author's book reaches notability without the author becoming notable - the Kirkus review is of the book and the book alone. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Past history of abuse notwithstanding, it seems he's gotten some press for his writing, even if that is through relentless self-promotion VASterling (talk) 18:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Query Is Sourcebooks self-publishing? I don't know that one. Peridon (talk) 19:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Infinity, the original publisher, was self-publishing, but Sourcebooks seems to be a step up from that. They publish a lot of PD reprints.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep On the basis that he's now professionally (what is the opposite of self-published?) published. I don't think all that many manage to cross over. Peridon (talk) 22:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And how does that meet the notability criteria? If it's unusual and the world at large takes note of that, then it'll be written about in reliable sources. Which is the point of the notability guidelines to remove the issue of notability away from what you or I think is important and into the realm of what the world does. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I originally worked on this. Most of the newspaper articles have been removed, they say it could have been another Mark Cooper. One of them had a picture of the author? How could that be another Mark Cooper if it shows a picture of him? Anyway I found another article on his work, this time in Scotland, a registered charity site Young Scot, it gives a review of 2009, best website, best book and so on. It names us (Wikipedia) and the Jason Steed book. http://www.youngscot.org/e-zine/?ss=66&s=113&sr=198&ID=27905 maybe not notability again, but if we find him in newspapers around in England, Scotland, USA, every book website that exists, KIRKUS reviews and he seems to be winning awards, indie, fiction reviewer, how long do we ignore for? Just my 2 cents worth.(Oliver Spy Fan (talk) 03:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC))— Oliver0071 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- The references removed were trivial coverage (they weren't about him just noting him at the person involved or quoting him) so wouldn't be useful for notability purposes. One may have had a picture, but wikipedia editors evaluating pictures to say this is/isn't the same person is a pretty hit and miss way of doing it. How long do we ignore it for? Well how long does the mainstream media ignore it for? We aren't here to make the discovery that no one else is willing to make. So far there have been no substantive independant writing about him. Many book websites (Not all by any means and mostly blogs in this case) simply review whatever is sent, there is no discrimination, so inclusion indicates nothing. Kirkus reviews on a similar basis, they do however have a stronger criteria and as such are a more compelling source, but one on it's own doesn't show much and indeed they review 1000 upon 1000 of books every year. It doesn't make the book notable, less so the author. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 11:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep:I have re-added two newspaper articles about the author, which had mysteriously disappeared fom the article. One of his books has also won, and been a runner-up in, two awards - but those details have mysteriously disappeared too..-- Myosotis Scorpioides 13:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- from what I remember from the AFD for the book, the awards were not considered notable. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Quoting the added source [7]: "His book has taken the place of rival teen agent Alex Rider and is currently number thirteen on Amazon. Now Pinewood Studies have shown an interest and will produce ‘Fledgling Jason Steed’ the movie in the summer of 2009." So why can't we find anything about this movie? Why is he currently ranked around 400.000 on Amazon? [8]. This obvious bullshit, so I am removing the source again. Yoenit (talk) 15:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It also claims he was then under contract to write 3 more, whereas he didn't even sell the rights to the first one (and the subsequent) until the following year. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The second source added to the article is apparently from the Sunderland Echo, but for some reason I can't find the article online [9], while the newspaper publishes their articles on their website. Quack quack? Yoenit (talk) 15:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Quoting the added source [7]: "His book has taken the place of rival teen agent Alex Rider and is currently number thirteen on Amazon. Now Pinewood Studies have shown an interest and will produce ‘Fledgling Jason Steed’ the movie in the summer of 2009." So why can't we find anything about this movie? Why is he currently ranked around 400.000 on Amazon? [8]. This obvious bullshit, so I am removing the source again. Yoenit (talk) 15:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand your Quack Quack comment. Anyway, the article is not on line - hence the reference to the date of the story. A copy was added to, and accepted by, Commons a few weeks ago.[[10]] However, it was deleted after a number of editors (some listed here I believe) claimed it added nothing to the Wikipedia project. The story isn't a fake as you claim, and should be added back.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 16:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- from what I remember from the AFD for the book, the awards were not considered notable. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Was apparently never listed -- added to today's log. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was not aware of that, for I was not involved in any earlier discussions about this article. It's back in the article now. I assume you agree with my assessment of the other reference?. Yoenit (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for putting the Echo one back - the article appeared, period. (Although I think I'm fighting a losing battle, cos it has just been taken out again). As to your question - the answer is yes - after seeing your summary, I do agree with removing the other newspaper quote as it is pretty trivial (not to mention inaccurate).-- Myosotis Scorpioides 23:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't understand why the Center spread of the Sunderland Echo has been removed yet again. This is not a story on Cooper, but a story on Twilight, Harry Potter, Robert Muchamore's YA books and a story on the succes of Mark A Coopers book. It never mentions awards. It's a notable article, but for some reason has been removed again and again without reason. Other than 82.2.40.7 explaination that it was removed before, but only by himself. While the 'Talk' is going on, it should at least be listed for it can be 'talked' about.(Oliver Spy Fan (talk) 04:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- FWIW that wasn't one of the references I was referring to and haven't removed it. My reply was to yours which said "...could have been another Mark Cooper", which were the ones I was referring to, the ones which just specified a name and made no mention of writing books etc. The Sunderland Echo article I don't give much weight to (restricted locality of distrubution, circulation of <0.1% of the national population etc.), but that doesn't mean it is invalid for the article --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't understand why the Center spread of the Sunderland Echo has been removed yet again. This is not a story on Cooper, but a story on Twilight, Harry Potter, Robert Muchamore's YA books and a story on the succes of Mark A Coopers book. It never mentions awards. It's a notable article, but for some reason has been removed again and again without reason. Other than 82.2.40.7 explaination that it was removed before, but only by himself. While the 'Talk' is going on, it should at least be listed for it can be 'talked' about.(Oliver Spy Fan (talk) 04:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Thanks for putting the Echo one back - the article appeared, period. (Although I think I'm fighting a losing battle, cos it has just been taken out again). As to your question - the answer is yes - after seeing your summary, I do agree with removing the other newspaper quote as it is pretty trivial (not to mention inaccurate).-- Myosotis Scorpioides 23:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was not aware of that, for I was not involved in any earlier discussions about this article. It's back in the article now. I assume you agree with my assessment of the other reference?. Yoenit (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Re the awards. The relevance of these is marginal at best. I won a colouring competition as a child from a major toy maker, means nothing of course, the nature etc. of the competition/award is a factor. If anything they would contribute to the notability of the book, where they weren't considered particularly persusive (given it didn't win one and the other seemed to be at least in part promotional (indeed it's a paid award where the organisers stated benefits of entering is promotion). --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:BIO - The coverage is trivial (going off the sources actually used in the article). --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete All I see is one article in a local newspaper, which fails my interpretation of the WP:GNG. Yoenit (talk) 14:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not a notable author, and the persistent and increasingly desperate Wikipedia spam campaign doesn't exactly help any either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain how Mr Cooper himself has been involved in this as you state. Does anyone know if he is even aware of this discussion or page? (Oliver Spy Fan (talk) 04:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- I went digging a bit and found this [11]. I am not sure if it ever was established that it was Cooper himself (haven't read most of it), but there was definitely somebody trying to promote this guy and his book on wiki (and elsewhere, see the reviews here. Yoenit (talk) 09:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep. Someone is desperate enough to spam this book that they created several sockpuppet accounts to do so. Simple logic tells us that nobody other than Cooper, or someone acting under his instructions, would have any motive whatsoever to do that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think editors should be really careful before making statements such as "nobody other than Cooper, or someone acting under his instructions, would have any motive whatsoever to do that." You have no proof of this. Therefore such statements are spurious at best, potentially libellous at worst. Why can't this AFD just be decided on reasonable arguements, rather than descending into what amounts to playground arguements?-- Myosotis Scorpioides 15:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oliver Spy Fan asked for elaboration and was duly given it. And while we're on the subject, while Oliver's user page explicitly claims they're not Cooper ("I have so far made one page, for my favorite author") and strongly implies they're a kid ("Wikipedia is an awesome tool for homework"), I note that their first edits were to promote a self-published book about watches by none other than... Mark A. Cooper! How interesting. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think editors should be really careful before making statements such as "nobody other than Cooper, or someone acting under his instructions, would have any motive whatsoever to do that." You have no proof of this. Therefore such statements are spurious at best, potentially libellous at worst. Why can't this AFD just be decided on reasonable arguements, rather than descending into what amounts to playground arguements?-- Myosotis Scorpioides 15:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep. Someone is desperate enough to spam this book that they created several sockpuppet accounts to do so. Simple logic tells us that nobody other than Cooper, or someone acting under his instructions, would have any motive whatsoever to do that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I went digging a bit and found this [11]. I am not sure if it ever was established that it was Cooper himself (haven't read most of it), but there was definitely somebody trying to promote this guy and his book on wiki (and elsewhere, see the reviews here. Yoenit (talk) 09:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain how Mr Cooper himself has been involved in this as you state. Does anyone know if he is even aware of this discussion or page? (Oliver Spy Fan (talk) 04:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Delete Notability for authors is two books published by major publishers. Infinity does not appear to qualify as one. Critical coverage is all trivial. Off with it, Sven Manguard Talk 00:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sourcebooks have agreed two books. Plus Turkish book publishers Artimise http://www.publishersmarketplace.com/login.php/cgi-bin/dealmaker.pl%3Fid%3D12949 have agreed to publish a revised translated version of Coopers Jason Steed series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oliver0071 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - just plain doesn't meet the standards. Assertions to the contrary seem to be based on misunderstandings of what constitutes notability, or more credence than I'm willing to give to a bunch of poorly sourced assertions of movie deals and the like; plus some pretty obvious sockpuppets, meatpuppets or naive fans. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - based on the above {{find}} search, and the references included in the article, it seems there isn't significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If we ignore the newspaper articles and major publishers, A kirkus review is an RS. (Oliver Spy Fan (talk) 15:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Do you mean this review? While it's better than nothing, I don't consider that it provides significant coverage about the author. PhilKnight (talk) 16:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If we ignore the newspaper articles and major publishers, A kirkus review is an RS. (Oliver Spy Fan (talk) 15:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ann Marie Buerkle (Politician)
- Ann Marie Buerkle (Politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Biography of politician currently running for office. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG and borders on WP:SPAM. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
She has received significant press coverage in National Review. What's the deal here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markbrown1988 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment One line in an article about the GOP political position in general does not constitute significant coverage. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum Based on the fact that the article has been deleted twice before, I suggest the title be salted, at least until after the November 2010 United States Congressional elections. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete. Unambiguous use and abuse of wikipedia for political campaigning. Total failure to meet notability guidelines. And, yeah, that "extensive coverage" in the National Review basically just acknowledges that she's running for office - the article is NOT about her. I agree with salting the article until after the 2010 elections (because, if she wins, she would then be notable). --Quartermaster (talk) 14:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to note that I added some other outlets in which she was covered Markbrown1988 (talk) 15:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with those who think this needs to be deleted. It is cited in several different places now, and it appears that she is sufficiently noticeable. It's not going to hurt anyone for the page to exist; it's not like its overtly political or biased other than just stating the simple facts about the race and where she stands on issues. If anything this page is a service for those in CD-25 in NY. Imagefactory101 (talk) 15:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - it seems to me that the subject fails WP:POLITICIAN unless there is consensus on whether the media coverage so far is sufficiently reliable and widespread to pass the GNG. I am leaning towards a weak deletion but will refrain from actively promoting that opinion. Eddie.willers (talk) 15:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:POLITICIAN directs that articles about a candidate that fail notability guidelines should be redirected to the relevant article about the seat for which the candidate is running, with relevant sourced material added to that page (
New York's 25th congressional districtUnited States House of Representatives elections in New York, 2010#District 25 in this case). Based on that, I would recommend the redirect. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for pointing the merge rational out WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!!. --Quartermaster (talk) 16:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete redundant article. Ann Marie Buerkle already exists and redirects to United States House of Representatives elections in New York, 2010#District 25 as it should per precedent (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Weber, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rami Bader (politician), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naheed Nenshi, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billy Coyle, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Kelly (Pennsylvania), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Johnston). I interpret routine election coverage to fall under WP:NOTNEWS and the coverage that exists is in the context of the election, so (per WP:BLP1E and WP:Wikipedia is not a source for election candidate biographies) redirect to the election article. Location (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in New York, 2010#District 25 per WP:POLITICIAN. It's a plausible search term, notability is not there. Seeing as there appears to be an effort at self-promotion, it might not be a bad idea to protect the redirects until after the election. RayTalk 16:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect: Ms. Buerkle is not notable, but the election is. Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in New York, 2010#District 25. In the meantime, remove campaign puffery. Arbor832466 (talk) 21:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete and redirect per WP:SNOW and WP:OUTCOMES. This new article was created that overrides the redirect in violation of our standard procedures. If and when she gets elected, then she will be a politician. She is not even that yet, but a candidate. Bearian (talk) 23:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete as an unsourced BLP per WP:BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Darren Parkin
- Darren Parkin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Minor radio presenter with no significant coverage in reliable sources. The-Pope (talk) 13:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 13:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 13:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not notable.--Grahame (talk) 00:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per the above comments, not notable. Sven Manguard Talk 01:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete per consensus and as an unsourced BLP per WP:BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Camilla Connolly
- Camilla Connolly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lots of ghits to art websites, but I don't think any of them are that reliable - most I think are either self-published or related parties. Seems to also have a "troubled past" that has been reported on a reliable news website, but isn't mentioned in the wikipedia article. More than happy for it to stay if those who know art more than me think that she is notable enough, and can supply suitable references. The-Pope (talk) 13:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 13:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 14:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Some success in open competitions [12], doesn't meet WP:ARTIST. Not enough third party coverage to meet WP:N.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not notable.--Grahame (talk) 00:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete as the consensus indicates. Moreover, the rationales on the deletion side seem to be stronger and guideline/policy-based than on the retention side. –MuZemike 22:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Judaism and bus stops
- Judaism and bus stops (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
OK, I really have no idea whether this article should be kept or deleted. I do know, however, that it's been prodded (and I suspect should be de-prodded because I assume that the article creator contests the prod) and that it's been nominated for CSD as a hoax. I feel there's going to be more heat than light at the article until the situation is resolved, and that an AfD would be the best solution - whatever is ultimately decided. I'm therefore taking the article to AfD, while noting that I have no view about deletion either way. TFOWR 12:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because it is a meaningless intersection of topics. This violates SYNTH by its very existence because it implies that there is something special about these two topics in relation to each other. I suspect this has something to do with the dispute on the Judaism and violence page, though I tagged this with PROD on its own merits, as part of my regular new page patrolling, without looking at the debate on the other page. —Soap— 12:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The topic "Judaism and bus stops" did not receive significant coverage in reliable sources. Doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. As a Joke it is quite funny though. Marokwitz (talk) 12:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the reasons given by Soap and Marokwitz. Yoenit (talk) 12:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. But wait a minute—both Judaism and bus stops are sourced. This is similar to Judaism and violence in that regard. You mean we can't create billboards on Wikipedia in the form of articles to advance positions? Bus stop (talk) 12:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources need to cover both 'Judaism' AND 'bus stops' - and if the sources at J&V don't, there's a problem there. Dougweller (talk) 12
- 59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. But wait a minute—both Judaism and bus stops are sourced. This is similar to Judaism and violence in that regard. You mean we can't create billboards on Wikipedia in the form of articles to advance positions? Bus stop (talk) 12:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note There's a move request to rename it to 'Judaism and transport'! Dougweller (talk) 13:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, but wouldn't that obligate other articles to exist, such as Christianity and transport, and Islam and transport? Bus stop (talk) 13:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Hoax is probably not quite right. Disruption to make a point (of some sort) would be better. Trivial cross categorization would be another (no meaningful connection between judaism and bus stops). Demonstrating incredibly poor judgement on the part of the article creator would be yet another. The creator of the article admits on the talk page he did this to make a rather sophomoric point about the Judaism and violence, Islam and violence etc... category of articles. As bad as those articles are (mostly because of the IP keyboard warriors and wikipedia's dysfunctional editorial system), they are nowhere near as prima facie foolish as this article. Religions are, after all, ethical systems, most of them seek to regulate violence within that framework, have occassionally used violence in their history, have opponents/supporters that claim they are fundamentally violent/peaceful, etc... "Bus stop" is just a noun. Reccomend a brief block of the creator if he keeps on with this kind of crap.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bali ultimate—I think this article is no more silly and improper—from a Wikipedia article-creation point of view—than the Judaism and violence article. Bus stop (talk) 13:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you think of Islam and violence?Bali ultimate (talk) 13:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The question would pivot upon what sources were available. Always, on Wikipedia, the question comes back to sources. What do sources say? That will be the answer to article-creation validity (or invalidity) in relation to the question you pose. Bus stop (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure, but I'm reasonably certain that you just made my point. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The question would pivot upon what sources were available. Always, on Wikipedia, the question comes back to sources. What do sources say? That will be the answer to article-creation validity (or invalidity) in relation to the question you pose. Bus stop (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you think of Islam and violence?Bali ultimate (talk) 13:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bali ultimate—I think this article is no more silly and improper—from a Wikipedia article-creation point of view—than the Judaism and violence article. Bus stop (talk) 13:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I seem to recall a policy against creating articles to prove a point. Perhaps Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. Regardless, BusStop's point is valid. If he can source his information about Judaism and his information about Jewish bus stops (or bus stops in Jewish law, or bus stops in Jewish culture), it should stay. This interpretation of WP:N and WP:RS has been debated over at Judaism and violence and the community seems to be ok with it. Joe407 (talk) 13:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- RENAME: I have suggested a page rename to expand the subject matter. This will possibly increase the "significant coverage in reliable sources" needed. Chesdovi (talk) 13:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is a very clear example of WP:POINT, knock it off. Yoenit (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this article is so WP:POINTY i Almost accidently got stabbed just reading it. that being Said I almost want move it into user space and put a link at WP:SPIDER and WP:POINT to give an example of such articles. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As I told Yoenit on the article's talk page, I quite agree with you. Creating this article is a vio of WP:POINT. It is a brilliantly funny violation but a violation nonetheless. The scary part is that as I am turning this over in my head, I'm not sure why we couldn't create a legit article covering J & Transportation. There definitely is more than enough sourced informations and topics to discuss. I'm sure it would not be the first joke article to be taken seriously. As I stated on the AFD, the problems with a J&T article are the problems with J&V. Namely, there is plenty what to talk about but the line between a WP article and a lecture or position paper become quite blurry. If the community is willing to come down on the side of ___ & ___ articles can stand, than J&T can be a respectable article. Joe407 (talk) 14:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, per WP:OTHERSTUFF what happens to this article is utterly irrelevant to what happens with any other articles. The community is not coming down on any side of the ___ & ___ argument, they are just saying this particular article needs to be deleted. Yoenit (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As I told Yoenit on the article's talk page, I quite agree with you. Creating this article is a vio of WP:POINT. It is a brilliantly funny violation but a violation nonetheless. The scary part is that as I am turning this over in my head, I'm not sure why we couldn't create a legit article covering J & Transportation. There definitely is more than enough sourced informations and topics to discuss. I'm sure it would not be the first joke article to be taken seriously. As I stated on the AFD, the problems with a J&T article are the problems with J&V. Namely, there is plenty what to talk about but the line between a WP article and a lecture or position paper become quite blurry. If the community is willing to come down on the side of ___ & ___ articles can stand, than J&T can be a respectable article. Joe407 (talk) 14:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Joe407 (talk) 15:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggestion: Could I suggest a cease-fire? I propose that Bus Stop move this article to his/her user space and that an AfD be opened on Judaism and Violence. This would allow the discussion to take place on the true topic at hand. Once the J&V AfD is resolved, if the consensus is that WP policy allows for ___ & ___ articles of this types, Bus Stop would then return this article to the main space and if needed, this Afd would be reopened. Would that work for everyone? Joe407 (talk) 15:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No let's just delete it. What happens with this garbage is of no bearing to what happens with other articles (except that it will reinforce the long standing consensus that trivial cross categorization doesn't make for articles). If you have arguments that some other articles are an example of trivial cross categorization, go deal with those articles.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, this article should be deleted since it is not a notable topic. The notability of every article is judged on it's own merit. Marokwitz (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It is not a notable topic - I think that's pretty clear. Other articles don't matter. And Bus Stop didn't create the article, Chesdovi did. Dougweller (talk) 15:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll add that comparison articles can exist where the comparison itself has been written about in reliable sources, and sources used must make the comparison. Dougweller (talk) 15:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There seems to be a point being made comparing this article to the Judaism and violence article, but if this article was made to argue that "both should be deleted or neither should be deleted, these two are essentially parallels!", we have a WP:POINT violation. A plausible case can be made for the Judaism and violence article, because violence is not "loosely associated" from Jewish history, European history is all too replete with horrific violent atrocities committed against Jewish people culminating in the madness of WW2. Further, the teachings of what is justifiable violence and not has discussed in religious and ethical contexts for many religions and viewpoints, including Judaism. However, I can see nothing, nothing at all, which establishes a connection between the topics "Judaism" and "bus stops" beyond the trivial fact that buses are used by Jews. None the "sources" establish anything else than trivial connections like that. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What about horrific violent atrocities committed against Jews waiting at bus stops in Israel? There have been many. Chesdovi (talk) 17:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Judaism is a religion. Bus stops are transportation collection centers. How the hell are these possibly related? This article has the same logical connection as pages like Buddhists and golf or Muslims and water treatment would have... Unless, of course, the POINT is that terrorists like to attack gatherings of people and that bus stops are handy in that regard. In which case, this becomes yet another in the unending series of POV-driven articles on the Israeli-Palestinian Civil War. —Carrite, Oct. 6. 2010.
- What about horrific violent atrocities committed against Jews waiting at bus stops in Israel? There have been many. Chesdovi (talk) 17:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article actually establishes a connection between the two and is well sourced to first class reliable sources. It is only because we "know" that it is a joke do we want to delete it. There is an article which connects Scientology and suicide, even though Scientologists really have a much lower suicide rate than the general public -- especially people of the age and background that are attracted to things like Scientology. Somehow we "know" that that article is not a joke. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, we know it's not a joke because there have actually been studies done on the link between Scientology and suicide. Meaningful sources actually exist and can be cited. That is not the case with Judaism and bus stops. We have plenty of sources about Judaism (some of which might even mention bus stops in passing), and we have plenty of sources about bus stops, but we have no sources which significantly and specifically discuss the relevance and importance of bus stops in Jewish culture. This is the definition of WP:SYNTH. SnottyWong soliloquize 14:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You may be correct in your assertions, but the guideline does not establish that articles must be unsynthesised, only that points made within the article itself must not be. There is a notable connection between the two, whether or not sources specifically discuss the importance of bus stops in Jewish culture. Eg. Source A: "Religious Jews campaign against advertisements displaying bacon products". Source B: "There has been a 25% decrease in bacon sales since 2010." Neither sources link the two, but using both in the article would imply that the Jewish campaign reduced sales. I have presented sources which state that bus stops were defaced by Jews for religious reasons. This is not SYNTH. Indeed, references in the source material need not be the main topic of the source material. Chesdovi (talk) 15:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, we know it's not a joke because there have actually been studies done on the link between Scientology and suicide. Meaningful sources actually exist and can be cited. That is not the case with Judaism and bus stops. We have plenty of sources about Judaism (some of which might even mention bus stops in passing), and we have plenty of sources about bus stops, but we have no sources which significantly and specifically discuss the relevance and importance of bus stops in Jewish culture. This is the definition of WP:SYNTH. SnottyWong soliloquize 14:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:VERIFY says: "Drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the no original research policy. If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Bus stop (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the novel position being made here? There is none. It is a fact that Judaism has influenced the way Jews use and treat bus stops. Third party sources are used. That would be the books which used secondary media reports of various occurances. Chesdovi (talk) 16:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:RELIABLE says, "If a topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Bus stop (talk) 15:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:VERIFY says: "Drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the no original research policy. If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Bus stop (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete silly WP:POINT article, which stops being funny when you realise it's exactly the kind of thing that attracts ridicule to Wikipedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sometimes ridicule is a good thing. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 16:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Borderline hoax, textbook violation of WP:SYNTH. Do Jews go to bus stops? Yes. Is that notable? No. It is as notable as Jews walking on sidewalks, Jews going up and down stairs, and Jews riding the subway. SnottyWong comment 16:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is is not notable that Jews give charity at bus stops? Or destroy them if they have a poster of a mayonaisse jar? Chesdovi (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 'It is as notable as Jews walking on sidewalks' That itself becomes a notable topic, if we have to consider whether the sidewalk is inside an eruv. The point here is whether the way Jews use bus stops is in any way different to gentiles. I'm prepared to accept that it could be, although sadly this article just isn't good enough to show me one way or the other. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well it's a good start. Why are Jews and gentiles different when it somes to bus stops? 1). Jews do not use them on Saturdays. 2) Jews campaign against offensive bus stop advertisements. 3) In London there are cigarette stub boxes attached to bus stop, in Jerusaelm, charity boxes. 4) Which other religion makes separate bus stops for men and women? 5) Which other religions holiest site is served by a dedicated bus stop? Chesdovi (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. Ultra-orthodox jews don't use anything outside the home/eruv, practically, on Saturday. So what? We have a whole series of articles about the Sabbath. 2. Christians, Muslims, and Hindus have campaigned against offensive advertising as well. Believe it or not, not just "jewish" bus stops have advertising. 3. So fucking what? The "Israeli" custom of collecting charity at bus stops aint jewish, and it aint particularly interesting. I highly suspect that "non-jewish" bus stops sometimes do this -- at least i've seen a salvation army guy collecting at a bus stop once. 4. Islam at least, and i know that in india they have separate public transport for men and women to prevent "eve teasing." 5. There is a bus stop for St. Peters, for Mecca, for almost every major Shiite shrine you can name, for the varous pilgrimage sites for catholics in Europe, for major Hindu Temples, etc...Bali ultimate (talk) 18:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So is there any way in which both Jews' use of bus stops is different from gentile use and also Jews' use of bus stops (in particular) is different from their use of many other things, on the Sabbath. I think we need to demonstrate both before this can really claim notability. A simple prohibition of something's use on the Sabbath is interesting, but it just belongs under Sabbath, not unless there's some specific aspect to that device's use or behaviour. It's not impossible. Look at the prohibitions on producing fire (and indeed, electrical sparks) and the notable innovations or practices that has given rise to. The charity box idea is interesting, but isn't that just charities placing their boxes (as they've long done) where people are going through their loose change.Andy Dingley (talk) 18:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Subjects are not assessed whether or not they induce interest. I agree that my answer, compiled in haste, was misleading in that it tried to make a claim of notability by purporting exclusive usage. However, this is not about whether Jews use but stops differently to the general population or not. This article documents the influence Judaism has had on bus stops and visa-versa. And if similar occurrences happen in other circles, let’s have them too. (That was one of the main arguments used to keep the Judaism & violence article – because similar ones exist about other religions. Do not nominate this for deletion because other similar articles do not yet exist.) Beside from the point, which I concede is not a solid connection, regarding the bus stop at religious sites, all other material is sourced in reliable secondary sources, meaning that the subject is notable whether you like it or not.
- Regarding the charity boxes, looking at the source again, it seems that is more than just a way of allowing people to dispose of their loose change. In accordance with Jewish belief, the boxes are placed specifically to allow for contributions to protect riders during their journey, i.e. placement stems from an active Jewish involvement by passengers who wish to donate before setting out on a risky journey. Chesdovi (talk) 14:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Subjects are not assessed whether or not they induce interest. I agree that my answer, compiled in haste, was misleading in that it tried to make a claim of notability by purporting exclusive usage. However, this is not about whether Jews use but stops differently to the general population or not. This article documents the influence Judaism has had on bus stops and visa-versa. And if similar occurrences happen in other circles, let’s have them too. (That was one of the main arguments used to keep the Judaism & violence article – because similar ones exist about other religions. Do not nominate this for deletion because other similar articles do not yet exist.) Beside from the point, which I concede is not a solid connection, regarding the bus stop at religious sites, all other material is sourced in reliable secondary sources, meaning that the subject is notable whether you like it or not.
- Well it's a good start. Why are Jews and gentiles different when it somes to bus stops? 1). Jews do not use them on Saturdays. 2) Jews campaign against offensive bus stop advertisements. 3) In London there are cigarette stub boxes attached to bus stop, in Jerusaelm, charity boxes. 4) Which other religion makes separate bus stops for men and women? 5) Which other religions holiest site is served by a dedicated bus stop? Chesdovi (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:SYNTH is in play here, as well as WP:GNG: I can't find evidence that the confluence of Judaism as it relates to Bus Stops is notable. No objection to userfication, if that's the consensus. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Did you know that...according to Jewish law, one may not walk to a bus stop on shabbat if one intends to take a bus as soon as Shabbat ends? Chesdovi (talk) 17:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a great fact to put in the Shabbat article, but doesn't mean we need a separate article on Jews and bus stops. SnottyWong converse 17:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have added sources at the talk page for an article documenting Juaism and transpotation, per Joe409. Chesdovi (talk)
- Delete as a compendium of trivia. Bus stops are used for advertising... Crowds of people are sometimes attacked at bus stops... Etc. etc. etc. Not an encyclopedia-worthy topic, plain and simple. —Carrite, Oct. 6, 2010.
- Delete per WP:SYNTH and as nonnotable pointy juxtaposition of nouns. Edison (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The subject title just drew me in and encouraged me to read on, but it is a bit pointy. And there appears to be a lack of references linking Judaism and bus stops. -- roleplayer 20:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - WP:POINT and where's the reference that Rabbi Lopian was even at a bustop in that image?—Sandahl (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He wasn't, according to Elyah Lopian. "Rabbi Elyah Lopian on campus at Yeshivat Knesset Chizkiyahu" is the caption there. Peridon (talk) 21:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep needs some work, but in the spirit of the new direction Wikipedia goes in, in which sources need not be found linking two terms in a title, but rather in which merely separate sourcing for each term is good enough. Bus stop (talk) 00:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment with regards to nouns and SYTH, we have Islam and clothing, Islam and dogs, Christianity and alcohol, Cattle in religion and Religious and spiritual use of cannabis. So why not Judaism and bus stops? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chesdovi (talk • contribs) [13]
- WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS Yoenit (talk) 06:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Whether it is WP:POINT or WP:SYNTH or WP:HOAX, it's just not kosher. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 01:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, very reluctantly, because Judaism does not have opinions per se about bus stops. This article seems to have clear problems of a WP:TRIVIA nature. This topic was not well thought out and it smacks of pettiness and sounds almost silly, which is why so many users seem to be upset about it and rightly so. Writing essays about Judaism and fire hydrants or Judaism and sidewalks would be equally trivial. On the other hand, Driving on Shabbat in Jewish law, that cites Jewish law and is an important subject in Shabbat observance, is a better example of how to go about things, while Judaism and violence speaks for itself as a very serious topic. The time is not ripe for Jewish trivia of this sort on WP. IZAK (talk) 06:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Neither Driving on Shabbat in Jewish law nor Judaism and violence are valid topics for articles on Wikipedia. The important difference between the two is that no editors object to one of those articles and several editors object to the other article. But neither of those articles are substantially sourced on the totality of the topic that the title indicates. In the footnotes of those two articles you do not find substantial treatment of the ostensible subject of the articles. Those are flabby ideas hatched by people who feel that such subjects would make good articles. Both lack the attachment to the discipline that reliance on sources imparts to article-writing. Bus stop (talk) 11:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree, because while the Driving on Shabbat in Jewish law nor Judaism and violence articles may not have all the best sources or even wording at this time, yet common sense aka sechel, tells us that there is a very big difference. That's why the human element is crucial in knowing the difference between a well-sourced trivial topic versus a poorly sourced excellent topic. One has to know how to use and apply WP:IGNORE as well. As I said, WP is not ready for this type of petty fogging of Jewish topics yet. Otherwise, prepare for Judaism and umbrellas, Judaism and bomb shelters, Judaism and tents, Judaism and rain coats, etc etc, no doubt one could find material on all this stuff, but they are not really truly encyclopedic topics, and alternately, perhaps in a few years when WP will welcome even the most utterly trivial piece of information there will come a time and place when these kinds of articles will be allowed to take their place next to everything else on WP. IZAK (talk) 05:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Material about Judaism's views towards unbrellas is mostly tied in to their use on shabbat and would therefore be placed, as you know, in Judaism and tents, which could also include ma tovu ohalehca yakkov and ohel le'tuma and the ohel moed, etc. But I doubt there are any source about bomb shelters and raincoats, except melbain on shabbat with raincoats. There is ample material, as shown, regarding J & BS. It may look trivial, but in fact this subject has aolid basis in RS, etc. This is like when the photo of a cheeseberger was removed from Milk and meat in Judaism because some editors thought it looked "too comical", something I just could not agree with. Chesdovi (talk) 10:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please have a sense of proportion! While the Milk and meat in Jewish law article is well-named, as the article is named, and not Milk and meat in Judaism, a silly photo was pulled. There is no need to almost mock what is ok for everyone but what Jews who keep kosher eat. Please keep perspective. Let's move on and edit more productively in a way that will harness WP:CONSENSUS rather than divide it. IZAK (talk) 08:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Material about Judaism's views towards unbrellas is mostly tied in to their use on shabbat and would therefore be placed, as you know, in Judaism and tents, which could also include ma tovu ohalehca yakkov and ohel le'tuma and the ohel moed, etc. But I doubt there are any source about bomb shelters and raincoats, except melbain on shabbat with raincoats. There is ample material, as shown, regarding J & BS. It may look trivial, but in fact this subject has aolid basis in RS, etc. This is like when the photo of a cheeseberger was removed from Milk and meat in Judaism because some editors thought it looked "too comical", something I just could not agree with. Chesdovi (talk) 10:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree, because while the Driving on Shabbat in Jewish law nor Judaism and violence articles may not have all the best sources or even wording at this time, yet common sense aka sechel, tells us that there is a very big difference. That's why the human element is crucial in knowing the difference between a well-sourced trivial topic versus a poorly sourced excellent topic. One has to know how to use and apply WP:IGNORE as well. As I said, WP is not ready for this type of petty fogging of Jewish topics yet. Otherwise, prepare for Judaism and umbrellas, Judaism and bomb shelters, Judaism and tents, Judaism and rain coats, etc etc, no doubt one could find material on all this stuff, but they are not really truly encyclopedic topics, and alternately, perhaps in a few years when WP will welcome even the most utterly trivial piece of information there will come a time and place when these kinds of articles will be allowed to take their place next to everything else on WP. IZAK (talk) 05:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Neither Driving on Shabbat in Jewish law nor Judaism and violence are valid topics for articles on Wikipedia. The important difference between the two is that no editors object to one of those articles and several editors object to the other article. But neither of those articles are substantially sourced on the totality of the topic that the title indicates. In the footnotes of those two articles you do not find substantial treatment of the ostensible subject of the articles. Those are flabby ideas hatched by people who feel that such subjects would make good articles. Both lack the attachment to the discipline that reliance on sources imparts to article-writing. Bus stop (talk) 11:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A way too trivial topic for an encyclopedia, and a mixture of unrelated topics; for the record, the claim that use of bus stops on Saturday is against the (Orthodox interpretation of) Jewish law is not sourced to anywhere. Some of the information might belong to other articles (probably as a few words, or a sentence at most, as an example), but the page itself cannot stay. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- They are not unrelated at all. All examples given relate to Judaism and bus stops. You think it’s trivial, but unbeknownst to yourself, Jewish law deals with the most "trivial" things. So much so, detractors of Judaism say Judaism gets lost in the ritual minutiae. Jewish ritual involves and applies to everything. From tying shoe laces to bus stops, etc. Lack of sources is no reason to delete. There is no doubt that the relation between the two is significant enough for wikipeadia. Even more sources will be found over time. Chesdovi (talk) 09:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lack of sources certainly is a reason to delete. It's one of our most important policies. If you can repair the article into a passable state I will change my vote to keep, but you have to do it now, not merely promise that it can be done later. You may want to work on it in your userspace if you don't have enough time now. —Soap— 11:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry. What I meant was if something isn't cited, a source can be found. There are for sure enough RS here already. Also, why are individual sources needed which make the connection with both? There is something very Jewish about the western wall. Surely the bus stop serving this holy site, in which tens of thousands of worshippers arrive each week, is connected to Judaism. The connection cannot be ignored because no source can be found that discusses “Judaism and the western wall bus stop” both in the same breath. This page is called and documents Judaism and bus stops. Why need they be discussed simultaneously in a single source for inclusion? It is not titled Jewish bus stops. Chesdovi (talk) 11:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lack of sources certainly is a reason to delete. It's one of our most important policies. If you can repair the article into a passable state I will change my vote to keep, but you have to do it now, not merely promise that it can be done later. You may want to work on it in your userspace if you don't have enough time now. —Soap— 11:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- They are not unrelated at all. All examples given relate to Judaism and bus stops. You think it’s trivial, but unbeknownst to yourself, Jewish law deals with the most "trivial" things. So much so, detractors of Judaism say Judaism gets lost in the ritual minutiae. Jewish ritual involves and applies to everything. From tying shoe laces to bus stops, etc. Lack of sources is no reason to delete. There is no doubt that the relation between the two is significant enough for wikipeadia. Even more sources will be found over time. Chesdovi (talk) 09:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the circumstances, I'd like to make my vote explicit: delete for reasons I have already given above, and as disruption to prove a point. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Granted, an amusing way to make a WP:POINT, but a WP:POINT nonetheless. And if not a WP:POINT, certainly WP:SYNTH. 28bytes (talk) 11:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We have passed the POINT stage. The article has come on leaps and bounds and is a good candidate for keep. WP:SYNTH does not apply in such an article because the two things are separated by an "and", and therefore do not need to be discussed in a single source, even thought we do have such sources included. This article does not propose that there is an intrinsic mystical aspect between bus stops and Judaism. All is does is discuss the notable relationship and interaction between the two. See Drugs and prostitution. Chesdovi (talk) 11:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Chesdovi—from where do you derive that "WP:SYNTH does not apply in such an article because the two things are separated by an 'and', and therefore do not need to be discussed in a single source…"? Bus stop (talk) 11:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's my own interpretation of SYNTH. The example given there does not really cover article page names themselves and the way content is soured for that subject, rather the material within the article. Anyhow, it seems that if the subject matter at hand is of a "serious" nature, the communtiy allows for such SYNTH for actual pages, as in the case of Islam and violence. Chesdovi (talk) 12:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The community doesn't allow for something if the community objects to something. Bus stop (talk) 12:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Concensus reached then. (some will always disagree) Chesdovi (talk) 12:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- At WP:NPOV I find:
- ""Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies, along with "Verifiability" and "No original research". Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus."
- Note that consensus is not deemed to be the most important principle under all circumstances. Bus stop (talk) 12:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a piece of garbage that's embarrassing, frankly. Orthodox Jewish law has no real views of "bus stops" -- it has views on mingling of the sexes, working on the sabbath, censorship/pornography etc... it applies these views to bus stops in the same way it applies them to ball parks, shopping malls, schools and sidewalks.Bali ultimate (talk) 11:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But that's the point. You don't like it because it has a trivial ring to it. But if a subject has notability, be it Judaism and ball parks, shopping malls, schools or sidewalks, then its belongs. Religion has many views on many different things. That's why we have pages like Religion and children, Religious education, etc. And we do have Hebrew school, Jewish day school. We don't have more articles like this because no one has been bothered to create them. Don't stifle wiki! Chesdovi (talk) 11:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a piece of garbage that's embarrassing, frankly. Orthodox Jewish law has no real views of "bus stops" -- it has views on mingling of the sexes, working on the sabbath, censorship/pornography etc... it applies these views to bus stops in the same way it applies them to ball parks, shopping malls, schools and sidewalks.Bali ultimate (talk) 11:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- At WP:NPOV I find:
- Concensus reached then. (some will always disagree) Chesdovi (talk) 12:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The community doesn't allow for something if the community objects to something. Bus stop (talk) 12:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's my own interpretation of SYNTH. The example given there does not really cover article page names themselves and the way content is soured for that subject, rather the material within the article. Anyhow, it seems that if the subject matter at hand is of a "serious" nature, the communtiy allows for such SYNTH for actual pages, as in the case of Islam and violence. Chesdovi (talk) 12:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Chesdovi—from where do you derive that "WP:SYNTH does not apply in such an article because the two things are separated by an 'and', and therefore do not need to be discussed in a single source…"? Bus stop (talk) 11:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We have passed the POINT stage. The article has come on leaps and bounds and is a good candidate for keep. WP:SYNTH does not apply in such an article because the two things are separated by an "and", and therefore do not need to be discussed in a single source, even thought we do have such sources included. This article does not propose that there is an intrinsic mystical aspect between bus stops and Judaism. All is does is discuss the notable relationship and interaction between the two. See Drugs and prostitution. Chesdovi (talk) 11:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There are two propensities at work here. I don't think the stifling propensity is endangered at wiki. I think the sourcing-requirement propensity is endangered here at wiki. Bus stop (talk) 12:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Hard to imagine that would clear WP:NOTABLE. NickCT (talk) 16:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. why lose all the valuable information and the time the person who made the article put into it ? also I found it very funny, and it said plenty about Judaism and bus stops =). If not keep, we could put a "Judaism and bustops" bit in Busstops, and a "Busstops and Judaism" bit in Judaism ?! If not, we should probably put some more work into making the article better instead of throwing it away. Nooba booba sooba looba (talk) 16:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As a user of both mayonnaise (and salad cream...) and buses (but not usually together), I found the article amusing. Although this may not have been the intent of the creator(s), I wonder if it could be preserved in the 'how not to' area? At bus stops, I look up frequently. This is nothing to do with God's providence. I know that, in some places, the drivers will not stop unless you give a signal. As it stands, the article puts me more in mind of a junk shop rather than of a museum. It is a congeries of information - I assume by now it has been checked through against misinformation, but as I cannot find the 'famous' anecdote about the rabbi on a certain definitely famous search engine, I am not so sure. Possibly the 'famous' story is only found in the printed source given. Peridon (talk) 22:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It was originally sourced here but was correctly removed. If you search, you shall find:
- aishdas: pg.3 col. 2
- Penimin on the Torah, pg. 138
- Rav Dessler, pg. 66
- " It is well known that when Rabbi Lopian would wait for a bus, he was so much in control of himself that he would not turn to see whether the bus was coming."
- probably in here too (not 100% sure)
- This blogger is reminded of the classic Kelm story of about Rav Eliyahu Lopian twice: in 2007 & here in 2008.
Chesdovi (talk) 23:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above arguments. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which precisely? Do you mean my arguments? In my responses I have shown there seems to be no problem with synthesis, notability or RS. Just people don't think it’s serious enough and view it as a joke. Well, let them. There is no policy stating that an article cannot cause the ends of ones mouth to slowly rise. Chesdovi (talk) 23:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article lede reminds me of a New York Times article on Jews and elevators Another Landlord Worry: Is the Elevator Kosher - which gives some credibility to WP:GNG on an overall topic and suggests that the above delete arguments based on SYNTH, OR, INDISCIMINATE are simply not valid. Indeed, many of the delete votes are DONTLIKEIT. MrCleanOut (talk) 08:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. We have an good article on Shabbat and elevators. Chesdovi (talk) 10:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice. Could a solution be to expand the topic to also cover the bus (not just the bus stop). Then the article could cover the controversy of proposed gender-segregated buses, see El País coverage Las mujeres, detrás. Intelectuales israelíes denuncian la segregación en autobuses de Jerusalén. MrCleanOut (talk) 13:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have suggested this earlier, but only Joe489 has taken up the idea. See: Requested move Chesdovi (talk) 13:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, take it up again. SnottyWong acted in a very parochial manner, from the premise you were disrupting WP. The discussion has advanced since. If the article comprises both the bus and the bus stop, then there are no problems with WP:RS. Here is a German RS (Der Spiegel) Frauen müssen im Bus zur Klagemauer hinten sitzen. El País above is as RS as it gets. I'm sure other people can find English RS. MrCleanOut (talk) 14:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have suggested this earlier, but only Joe489 has taken up the idea. See: Requested move Chesdovi (talk) 13:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice. Could a solution be to expand the topic to also cover the bus (not just the bus stop). Then the article could cover the controversy of proposed gender-segregated buses, see El País coverage Las mujeres, detrás. Intelectuales israelíes denuncian la segregación en autobuses de Jerusalén. MrCleanOut (talk) 13:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. We have an good article on Shabbat and elevators. Chesdovi (talk) 10:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE: the above link is to the Shabbat elevator article and not to Shabbat and elevators, an important but key distinction because there is very much a type of elevator mechanically designed and installed and widely used on Shabbat in hospitals and large buildings as a Shabbat elevator while there is no such thing as a Shabbat bus stop per se. Similarly, an article about Judaism and elevators would be just as inappropriate and borderline silly as Judaism and bus stops or Judaism and wheelchairs patently are. It's surely time to move on to more productive editing.IZAK (talk) 08:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Reluctantly, because I'd like to live in a world where there were odd little corners such as the cross-over between Judaism and bus stops, much as the other fascinating aspects of Sabbath observation (as for elevators, noted above). However I'm just not convinced, by this article or its sources, that the linkage between the two is anything like strong enough. Jews avoid some aspects of bus stops on the Sabbath, but no more than they avoid other things. Bus stops in Israel or North London are a bit different to those in South London, but not in ways that are closely enough tied to Judaism. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as a meaningful intersection, well covered by impressive array of reliable sources. Very Talmudic article (a bit choppy). And, yes, it's improved past the POINT point. Now that said, I participated in a "Judaism and violence" discussion and I still don't get the point. If there are numerous sources on A+B, even though they take it all from different angles, that's a good wiki-style throwing together of secondary sources. I didn't see any source on A only, or B only, in a quick review. But whether the POINT is that A+B topics should be limited to A+B, or that they should not, at this hour I fail to see how the article makes the point. And, yup, we still have that article on Hotel toilet paper folding. JJB 00:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC) A little more reflection and I considered that the point could be "A+B topics should be limited to sources that discuss A+B in close relationship, and not to sources that only mention A and B somewhere, as the bus-stop article demonstrates such absurdity". If so I disagree. Any A+B sources are permitted, and normal edit cycle will weed out the poorer sources. An off-point source should not be met with the argument that it does not join A+B closely enough, but that its contribution to the topic is overwhelmed by better sources. So still keep. JJB 00:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Canvassing from pro-Israeli blog to this AFD: [14] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What a surprise. —Carrite, Oct. 12, 2010.
- Delete. WP:POINT detected and verified.[15] Recommendation: User is welcome to backup the article in user space, but breaching experiments in main space are discouraged. Viriditas (talk) 10:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:POINT is a not policy and nowhere does it talk about creating an article to make a point, and more importantly, nowhere does it say that if the guideline in compromised, a page is automatically fit for deletion. So any views here which voted delete citing POINT should be discounted. Chesdovi (talk) 20:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Viriditas (talk) 21:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per WP:POINT: [16]. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:POINT is a not policy and nowhere does it talk about creating an article to make a point, and more importantly, nowhere does it say that if the guideline in compromised, a page is automatically fit for deletion. So any views here which voted delete citing POINT should be discounted. Chesdovi (talk) 20:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete with regret. I found it a very amusing article but my sense of humor isn't policy . . .yet. Sol (talk) 13:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the presentation of information in its current form is very WP:POV. LibStar (talk) 12:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Conditional Keep. Per the illuminating diff identified by Viriditas, repeated here [17], Chesdovi seems to have created this article with the intention that it should not pass an AfD, and then use this outcome to leverage that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peace and violence in Judaism should not pass either. His parading of keep arguments here therefore seems hollow. I believe though, that Chesdovi (inadvertently) has created an article that could be kept. It appears that orthodox Jews can ride an elevator, but not press the elevator buttons; that they can ride busses, but not flag the bus down or press a button to open the door; that a Rabi cannot look up to see if a bus is coming, because this can be construed as a lack of trust in God’s providence; that they insist on gender segregated busses, etc. This is silly enough to be picked up by the international RS media, in the infotainment rarity sections, as “in-depth” coverage -- and then Wikipedia can have an article on it. More work on the article, expanding it also to cover the bus itself, not just the bus stop, is required for a definitive pass. Btw - I have no interest in doing so, and I don't care if it is deleted or not. However, there are no strict policy-based arguments for deletion, it is not OR, SYNTH, INDISCRIMINATE. Yes, it was meant to be POINTy, and this has put off a lot of editors as DONTLIKEIT -- but as long as there are RS, the article is policy compliant. MrCleanOut (talk) 14:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Pardon, but is it in keeping with civil discussion to refer to the religion of many of the people you are having a discussion with as silly? And yes, it does sound silly the way you are putting it, but that is because you are generalizing - none of these things are obvious or necessarily universal. Just as an example, it was quite traumatic for the Jews who were forced to ride on the Sabbath after fleeing the Old City in the face of the invading Jordanian armies - this notwithstanding that they also lost their city, homes, and everything they owned. (This I heard on a recent AACI tour of Katamon, Jerusalem, quoting Puah S's first-hand account, although I would need to re-read the original to verify.) This even though, as you mentioned, they themselves were not technically violating everything. These things are quite serious to some of us, even if they don't fit your pre-conceived notions. That is appears silly enough to get picked up by supposedly RS sources, this is true - which is one of the problems with those sources.Mzk1 (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it WP:NOTABLE?Marokwitz (talk) 14:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have to disagree with this conclusion. Although Chesdovi's actions are problematic, the foundations of WP are objectivity and a trust in 3rd party WP:RS. Our AfD action here should be independent of any reasons for the article's creation, based purely on these WP:RS to establish verifiable notability (as noted elsewhere, I'm not seeing this). As to the more troubling issue of Peace and violence in Judaism, we should place our faith in a robust defence of WP:OSE and base that on the same justification through 3rd party sources, not allow a digression into whether this article was permitted to exist or not. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the issue with notability here? Is this article any less notable than Toilet paper orientation? Chesdovi (talk) 15:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You appear to have failed to read, or else deliberately ignored, a single word that I wrote. Notability of one article is unaffected by the existence or not of another. Your repeated attempt to argue that it is is becoming simply disruptive. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am trying to say that J & Bs is a notable subject in itself. If you read the additions to the article, you will learn that the Bus Stop Burnings became a national issue in Israel. Surely notable? Chesdovi (talk) 16:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly you are saying that, but what you're failing to do is to demonstrate the existence of outside sources to back this up. None of the sources listed here describe a relationship between Jews and bus stops that it more than that between Jews and any other object, or bus stops and any other racial or religious group. There's nothing to this theme, even though a great many Jews clearly wait (looking up, down or wherever) at a great many bus stops. Listing all the possible minutiae of the bus stops of Israel mentioned in every possible newspaper source dilutes this, more than it supports it. The only real note linking Israel and bus stops seems to be sad news of petty hooliganism and terrorist attacks. Perhaps it would be best if this article were redirected to Judaism and violence instead? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean by outside sources?
- Give a pretend examlpe of a source which would suffice in describing a sufficient relationship between the two.
- Explain why the violence directed at bus stops documented here is better placed at an article about violence more than an article about bus stops themsleves?
- I also hope uou have not overlooked the charity section. I am not aware of this type od solicitation occuring elsewhere on such a scale ( not that that matters here) Chesdovi (talk) 18:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly you are saying that, but what you're failing to do is to demonstrate the existence of outside sources to back this up. None of the sources listed here describe a relationship between Jews and bus stops that it more than that between Jews and any other object, or bus stops and any other racial or religious group. There's nothing to this theme, even though a great many Jews clearly wait (looking up, down or wherever) at a great many bus stops. Listing all the possible minutiae of the bus stops of Israel mentioned in every possible newspaper source dilutes this, more than it supports it. The only real note linking Israel and bus stops seems to be sad news of petty hooliganism and terrorist attacks. Perhaps it would be best if this article were redirected to Judaism and violence instead? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am trying to say that J & Bs is a notable subject in itself. If you read the additions to the article, you will learn that the Bus Stop Burnings became a national issue in Israel. Surely notable? Chesdovi (talk) 16:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You appear to have failed to read, or else deliberately ignored, a single word that I wrote. Notability of one article is unaffected by the existence or not of another. Your repeated attempt to argue that it is is becoming simply disruptive. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the issue with notability here? Is this article any less notable than Toilet paper orientation? Chesdovi (talk) 15:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On The Fence (Am I allowed to say that?) I find this article fascinating, if somewhat credulous of certain questionable charges - see my comments there. But the title sounds remarkably like the punchline of the old "Elephant and the Jewish Problem" joke, and makes Wikipedia look silly. (I am assuming good faith here on the part of the author.) It would be nice if it could be kept with a normal sounding title or similarly merged. It is hard for anyone who knows Israel to say bus stops are not a notable part of the culture here, or that they have not often featured in the news here, even if the reports often violated the law against racial incitement. And this does not only apply to the religious sector; how about the soldier's trampiada? The issues with hitchiking and changes in the culture relating to it? I think Bus Stops in Israel would be notable and normal, for example. But I think material here needs a higher than usual level of RS, given the nature of our local press.Mzk1 (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment User:IZAK raises an interesting point above. "The Milk and meat in Jewish law article is well-named". Perhaps this is the solution to both this AfD and the J&V one. Having a topic be ______ & Judaism or Judaism & _______ is too wide to be anything other than a POV essay and is an inherently problematic topic. However, Bus Stops in Jewish law, would neatly limit the scope to verifiable, NPOV, facts. The same logic may be applied to the J&V article, Violence in Jewish law saves us all the questions of what makes a bus stop (or a violent act) "Jewish" and focuses on whether or not it is addressed in Jewish law. Of course to be fair, equal weight will be given (as in all halacha articles) to orthodox, conservative, reforms, etc positions. Thoughts? Joe407 (talk) 23:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your suggestion makes sense, but I have worked on improving this article. This is besides from the fact that arguments here for deletion do not cite any actual policy which would prescribe deletion. It all boils down to editors own personal views of what an article should be based on, with a smattering of suggestions from guideline pages. After all, where does it say a page on Judaism and X cannot be made up of many sources which discuss the two subjects? I would be upset to see this well sourced article deleted. Chesdovi (talk) 00:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENT: Since this AfD started, it's become evident that this article and AfD have ignited a drawn out struggle that's beginning to violate WP:POINT and even WP:WAR, starting with the creation of Judaism and bus stops, and then this AfD[clarification needed], and then Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peace and violence in Judaism and a follow-up AfD guaranteed to arouse controversy at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judaism and violence. Right now the situation seems to be one of people getting carried away with WP:POINT and WP:REICHSTAG because of what's going on, and it's time to stop this vicious cycle and go on with rational mature editorial behavior. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 08:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is the fire, where is the smoke, and why are you calling for cease fire when there is no battle? There are only two AfDs, not four. In fact, this discussion is improving, not deteriorating. The early part of this AfD is in a very bad shape. About half the delete votes are "per WP:POINT" -- and Chesdovi is merely (and correctly) saying that this is bogus, "delete per POINT" is not a valid deletion rationale rooted in any policy. Nor is "delete – this is not kosher" a valid argument. Other editors are calling the article "crap", "garbage" and "junk shop". Chesdovi’s arguments are brushed off with "OTHERCRAPEXITS". These votes ought not be considered by the closing admin. The canvassing alert flamebox is here for what reason? -- I see no swell of WP:SPAs. The article ought to be judged on its own merits, not the (seemingly questionable) circumstances under which Chesdovi created it. Bottom line is, that if the controversy of gender segregated busses is covered in the article, there are plentiful of RS in all the main languages, e.g. the German and Spanish RS I provided above. MrCleanOut (talk) 11:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So far there are three inter-related AfDs that have sprung up, starting with this one here (1) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judaism and bus stops, then on to (2) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peace and violence in Judaism followed by (3) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judaism and violence, and as you can see from those topics the climb up or down the slippery slope of WP:POINT has gone from an AfD about "Bus stops" to ones about "Peace and violence" and just plain "Violence" -- see those AfDs. What does what happens on buses have to do with bus stops as such, if so then create an article about Judaism and buses or Judaism and busing or Judaism and bus passengers or Judaism and public transportation or Judaism and vehicles or Rules of conduct in buses according to Jewish law or Judaism and segregation of the sexes on buses or Laws and customs practiced by Orthodox Jews on buses. Just how far out is this "topic" going to reach before it's recognized for it's intersection with absurdity by WP:DISRUPT along the way? IZAK (talk) 01:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is the fire, where is the smoke, and why are you calling for cease fire when there is no battle? There are only two AfDs, not four. In fact, this discussion is improving, not deteriorating. The early part of this AfD is in a very bad shape. About half the delete votes are "per WP:POINT" -- and Chesdovi is merely (and correctly) saying that this is bogus, "delete per POINT" is not a valid deletion rationale rooted in any policy. Nor is "delete – this is not kosher" a valid argument. Other editors are calling the article "crap", "garbage" and "junk shop". Chesdovi’s arguments are brushed off with "OTHERCRAPEXITS". These votes ought not be considered by the closing admin. The canvassing alert flamebox is here for what reason? -- I see no swell of WP:SPAs. The article ought to be judged on its own merits, not the (seemingly questionable) circumstances under which Chesdovi created it. Bottom line is, that if the controversy of gender segregated busses is covered in the article, there are plentiful of RS in all the main languages, e.g. the German and Spanish RS I provided above. MrCleanOut (talk) 11:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK. Yes, there is Judaism, and yes, there are bus stops, but to title the two together and write a whole article about how the two intersect is ludicrous. Each of the points (prohibition against taking the bus on Shabbat, indecent advertisements at bus stops in religious neighborhoods, charity boxes at bus stops in Israel, overcrowding at the bus stop by the Western Wall, grave desecrations, and rabbi stories) can be adequately covered on their respective topic pages, and the creators of this page have already provided the references. There is no need to group everything under a ridiculous heading like "Judaism and bus stops". The casual reader might even think we're starting up another attack on this battle-scarred religion. Yoninah (talk) 09:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Interesting but not encyclopedic. JFW | T@lk 19:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (futile) Keep, since the topic is significantly covered by reliable sources. Peter Karlsen (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep seems well-researched and referenced to me. No reason to delete. Grue 13:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment #2 While I realize that WP:OTE means that no article can impact delete/keep of another article, I assume that any admin closing this will read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judaism and bus stops, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judaism and violence, & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peace and violence in Judaism.
All of the articles have lots of sources. The crux of the issue as I see it (and the reason User:Chesdovi created Judaism & bus stops), is that all of these articles show that Judaism is a religion that has what to say about almost every topic in a persons life. That's it. Once you understand that Judaism touches upon everything, you can create Judaism & _________.
The problem is that while you will find sources for Judaism and toothbrushes, the topic has no clear definition of scope. Whatever can be found that mentions toothbrushes (in Jewish history, Jewish texts, or Jewish law) is fair game to enter the article. It is at best ripe for WP:TRIVIA and often will be WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:COATRACK as editors debate the inclusion or exclusion of a toothbrush related story/news item/law/event. As was stated in one of the AfDs mentioned above "The article offers the reader a snapshot of that argument at any given moment."
Now go back and reread the above sentence while replacing toothbrush with violence or bus stops or elecricity or matchsticks. For each one, the argument stands.
I would however point out that there is room for much of the information in these articles (J&V, PV&J, J&BS) that could have a place elsewhere. As long as the topic is clearly defined and encyclopedic. Using the above test, articles about "________ in Jewish law" or "________ in the Old testament" or "Historical accounts of ________" are fine given appropriate WP:RS. Violence in Jewish law or Violence in the old testament are both fine topics as they clearly define the scope of the article. To those who will say that the J&V article includes all of these, I refer to WP:NOTPAPER. Sometimes more, yet focused articles allow clarity of topic and purpous. Violence in the old testament is a very diffent topic from ethical questions of assasination in the modern state of Israel. What Noleander did by putting them together was to create an illusion of a common thread thereby violating WP:SYNTH even though no new verbiage was created.
I recommend that all three articles be deleted and any new articles on these topics be monitored for a while with the question being "What is the scope?". Joe407 (talk) 16:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No reason why we can't have Judaism and toothbrushes or even Shabbos toothbrush! Chesdovi (talk) 17:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Shabbos toothbrush is a non-notable product, deserving a brief mention at a related article at best. (If you want to argue otherwise, show me significant third-party coverage.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have not looked into the sources enough, but a quick search shows that Shabbat and Toothbrushes is covered:
- Shabbos toothbrush is a non-notable product, deserving a brief mention at a related article at best. (If you want to argue otherwise, show me significant third-party coverage.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No reason why we can't have Judaism and toothbrushes or even Shabbos toothbrush! Chesdovi (talk) 17:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Daniel Neustadt: The daily halachah discussion: “Brushing without toothpaste is permitted,14 provided that the following conditions are met: • Use a toothbrush that is designated for Shabbos use only.15 Some poskim require that the Shabbos toothbrush also look different from the…”
- Michael Chizkiyah: The halachic guide to medical practice on Shabbos: “Since using a toothbrush may cause bleeding, there are some who are stringent not to use a brush at all on Shabbos.”
- Yaakov Ephraim Forchheimer: Erev Pesach on Shabbos: “One may also brush his teeth with a toothbrush that was designated to be used for Shabbos. The toothbrush must be soft enough so that it will not be able to cause bleeding. However, it is forbidden to brush with any water or…”
- Simcha Bunim Cohen: The Shabbos home: “Brushing Teeth One may not brush his teeth with a dry toothbrush* on Shabbos if it will cause his ... There is disagreement among the authorities regarding whether one may use a moistened toothbrush on Shabbos..”
- Dovid Ribiat: 39 Melochos: “Using Toothbrush on Shabbos..”
Chesdovi (talk) 12:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Holy freaking hell, WTF. Clearly this needs to go for all the reasons I've seen above and because it's wrong on so many levels. Mayonnaise? LOL. Sven Manguard Talk 01:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Which is the strongest source referenced by the article, i.e. the source that most directly addresses the article's topic? Melchoir (talk) 04:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Not a vote, just a comment. It did make me smile, and it is well-written and well-sourced.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as this article contravenes WP:NOT#ESSAY, regardless of sourcing. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn following sourcing by Jbtscott -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nabaneeta Dev Sen
- Nabaneeta Dev Sen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. The only source of information given is on her own website. I was unable to find significant coverage at independent reliable sources using any of the three spellings/transliterations of her name (I could find her books and extracts of her books in different publications, but nothing biographical about her). No verification of the information in the article -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawing nomination following sourcing by Jbtscott -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Commentkeep Here is something [18] in fact quite a lot about her publications. I think there is little doubt that she is a very notable author, I will look for more but that reference may be enough to keep on its own. Okay found it [19]. Jbtscott (talk) 10:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good sourcing! I'd missed the ToI one completely (not sure why) - if the details can be added to the article/cited that'd be great (I'll do it myself if I have the chance to later today). I'm withdrawing my nomination and closing this, as no other opinions have been needed! Thank you, Jbtscott -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was deleted as copyright violation by Xezbeth. Non-admin AfD closure by 28bytes (talk) 11:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Rama Devi Papolu
- Dr. Rama Devi Papolu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Minimal assertion of notability in section "Awards Received" --ZhongHan (Email) 10:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Tagged A7 just before I tagged for AfD. Apologies. --ZhongHan (Email) 10:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I just tagged the article as a copyvio of [20]. See the Google cache. Goodvac (talk) 06:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lisa Cardwell
- Lisa Cardwell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject fails WP:ATH. Note that the medal in question was won at the Commonwealth Judo Championships, not at the Commonwealth games. It was also won in an under-16 age category, in a weight division that appears to have fielded three competitors. This is not a "major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level". Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 07:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No indication of notability. Junior titles are not considered notable and this does not appear to have a major event, even for juniors. Papaursa (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Astudent0 (talk) 13:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 05:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bruce Garfield
- Bruce Garfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:BIO for notability. Edits have been made by the subject himself. ⇔ EntChickie 04:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Apart from a general failure of WP:BIO and WP:GNG, I detect a strong whiff of WP:PEACOCK and WP:VSCA. There is also the issue of the potential for WP:COI through the initial edits of what seems to be a WP:SPA. In short, this looks like a poorly sourced attempt to big up a subject and boost his career. Eddie.willers (talk) 15:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage. Joe Chill (talk) 23:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete - I've scrubbed most of the puffery, personal anecdotes and detours into associates' careers out of it, but most of what remains is unreferenced. He does get mentioned in reliable sounces in GNEWS archives, but these are mainly passing mentions in connection with the many famous people he's worked with, and having had an interesting career working with notable people does not confer notability on the subject. Top Jim (talk) 22:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Redirect to road bicycle, with no prejudice to undoing the redirect upon finding sources establishing notability. The history of the article is preserved within the redirect, and the subject can be worked on in userspace. There has been an interest shown in trying to respond to the problem of a lack of sources showing that the topic is independently notable, so the suggestion of redirect as an alternative to deletion is appropriate. Mandsford 22:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Classic lightweight (bicycle)
- Classic lightweight (bicycle) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No reliable sources provided, and not a notable term. Possibly a neologism or a coatrack article whose aim is to promote one of the brands mentioned in the article. Also, a search in Google books returns very few results [21] Spatulli (talk) 23:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I added this article. Classic lightweight is a common term. The brands quoted in the article - Hetchins and Mercian - are merely the best-known examples. If you do a Google search, you can see that there is quite an interest in classic lightweights.
- I think it would be helpfull if [[User:Spatulli] would make his concerns known on the article's talk page rather than repeatedly trying to delete the page: I'm sure his concerns are valid, but it I believe that a discussion would show that there is no underlying cause for concern.
- Parsonscat (talk) 23:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Looks like it could use better sourcing but I'm not sure why it has to be deleted -- CáliKewlKid (talk) 02:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please see WP:NOHARM. "I'm not sure why it has to be deleted " is not an argument to keep. Spatulli (talk) 03:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, CáliKewlKid, you have answered your own question. You say that "it could use better sourcing", in other words you say you don't think that the sources are good enough. By Wikipedia's notability criteria that is precisely why it is being considered for deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I don't understand why [User:Spatulli] thinks that the term 'classic lightweight' is a neologism: it's common among vintage bicycle enthusiasts. I am also concerned by the way [User:Spatulli] renamed the 'references' section as an 'external links' section - it made me feel that he was trying to undermine the credibility of the article to support his opinion that the article should be deleted. [User:Spatulli], if you are reading, please could you discuss your concerns with others on this page. Parsonscat (talk) 08:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: parsonscat (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Spatulli (talk) 10:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is not for me to say what Spatulli's motives were, but to me it looked as though the change to the section heading from "References" to "External links" was because the content of the section was a list of external links, rather than inline citations, which by convention is what "References" sections normally contain. I am not sure why anyone should think that changing the section heading in this way would be seen as "undermining the credibility of the article". Also, I note that Parsonscat has not actually given any reason for keeping, but has just said "keep" and then criticised Spatulli for (a) saying "possibly a neologism", and (b) changing the section headings. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Comment Hi James, and thanks for your contribution. If you look at the Wikipedia guidelines for references, one of the styles it describes is general references. For an under-developed article like this stub, this is an acceptable alternative to the inline citations you are describing. I'd copy the link here, but I'm on holiday and it's hard with an iPhone! The difference between References and External links is that references are the sources used to verify the information in the article. External links is other material of interest, but not that used to verify the article. Do you understand why I am concerned now? To me, renaming the 'References' section as an External links section is saying that the article isn't verifiable. I think it is. Note that the references include a magazine article, a newspaper article and a book, so they aren't all links anyway. I believe that the references that I have cited show that the term classic lightweight isn't a neologism. If others disagree, they're entitled to but it us helpful to say why. Thanks again for commenting - it's great to take part in some healthy discussion. Parsonscat (talk) 16:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment To Parsonscat (and CáliKewlKid), the concern is that there are no reliable sources covering this type of bicycle as such. Can you produce any RSs? Novaseminary (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I was unaware that to be included in Wikipedia you must immediately provide sources for your information or face deletion? Please point me to that policy.
- As far as attacking my opinion for being ignorant (As I freely admitted when saying "I'm not sure why it has to be deleted"), it was not an argument it was a statement, no need to throw the book at me, an explanation of why you think it needs to be deleted is acceptable (as I clearly did not find your stated reasoning convincing). The page didn't get tagged for notability or citations, it was immediately nominated for deletion, this seems like 'shoot first, ask questions later'. -- CáliKewlKid (talk) 03:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment For a similar discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alans and Mosku. Everything on WP should be verfiable (WP:V); this is one of the most important policies of the project. For more on things you might not have realized about WP, please follow and read the links on the welcome banner that was pasted to your talk page a year ago. The reason this article has been nominated is because it seems to meet WP:DEL#REASON. ("Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth.") And also take a look at WP:NOHARM. And I never attacked your opinion or called you ignorant, nor did anyone else. I just asked for sources because I can't find them. I still haven't !voted on this Afd, though I am certainly leaning toward delete. Rather than argue in the abstract, provide some RSs that meet a notability criteria and I will just !vote keep. Novaseminary (talk) 05:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The more I research my concerns on Wikpedia the more examples I see. What we appear to have here is a case of Overzealous Deletion Nomination. Consider reviewing WP:MYTHS#Myths_and_facts_about_deletion, especially "Article quality", "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater!" and "What's the rush?". Nominating an article for deletion, first, without any other attempts at improvement 7 minutes after the article has been created seems like it could be overzealous. There had been no effort here to work with the author on improving the article, suggesting that it be merged into an article on bicycles (or going ahead and merging it as suggested) or tagging the article. The first and default action here has been nomination for deletion. But -- what's the rush?
- This article is not a good candidate for deletion because Wikipedia is not a final-draft, the author Paronscat is an active Wikipedia editor and he and others should be given a reasonable chance to build the article. Even if his efforts fail, Wikipedia may be made better when the information he and others collect are merged into articles on bicycles. I stand by my recommendation for keep. -- CáliKewlKid (talk) 22:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The nom claims this term fails WP:N. Failing N is alone enough for deletion per WP:DEL#REASON. Which N guideline do you think it meets, CáliKewlKid? Novaseminary (talk) 23:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I tried, but couldn't find any non-trivial mentions in books or news archives. I would not oppose redirecting to road bicycle (which has its own problems, to be sure), but since Classic lightweight (bicycle) is entirely unsourced, there would be nothing appropriate to merge into road bicycle. Novaseminary (talk) 06:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks, all and apologies for my delay in replying. I disagree that the articule is entirely unsourced. Whey I wrote the original draft, it did include references. Other users have moved these to the External links section, but I stick by them: I felt that the newspaper article, book, magazine article and two enthusiast websites were sufficient to establish notability. The sources include those that provide significant coverage (particularly the two websites), they are reliable, they are secondary sources, and they are independent of the subject (apart from those in the Further Reading section, which were not in my original references section).
- The reason why people are struggling to find books that deal with the subject is that you need to find a modern book on the history of bicycles rather than cycling. There are lots of books on cycling rather than cycles, and there are lots of 'old' books, too. Modern books like Jan Heine's The Competition Bicycle and The Golden Age of Handbuilt Bicycles are a good place to start. (I can't get hold of these at the moment, but I'll check the local copyright library when I get back from vacation.)
- Parsonscat (talk) 07:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment I just tidied up the article's references and I discovered that I'd accidentally linked to http://www.classicrendevous.com when I meant to link to http://www.classicrendezvous.com - there was missing 'z'. The two pages are quite different. If anyone saw the first - a commercial redirect page by the looks of things - please look again at the second, which is a much better source. Sorry - my French spelling has let me down!
- Parsonscat (talk) 08:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As a term, the coverage seems trivial as I noted above. The general citations to books about bicycles and website that don't consistently use the term do not convince me this is not a WP:NEOLOGISM or just a different way to say road bicycle. As a concept, this seems entirely covered by the article road bicycle as it was before Parsoncat turned it into a disambiguation page (that does not meet WP:DPAGES). Here is that page as it existed before Parsoncat transformed it. I would think it would address everyone's concerns to redirect Classic lightweight (bicycle) to a reconstituted road bicycle article. This way, the "classic lightweight" material can be discussed while the article remains more generically titled and could point people to other sorts of bicycles. The classic lightweight article will be turned into a stub unless some inline citations are introduced. I propose adding that material to the road bicycle article would be a better use of editors' time. Novaseminary (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I disagree that the citations are trivial. I also suggest that road bicycle and racing bicycle are one and the same thing - http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=3511 Novaseminary, I think your recent edits rather miss the point of the article. The article was created to describe a subset of road bicycles that are interesting because of their traditional craftsmanship and their value to collectors and enthusiasts. You have removed all the material relating to that - but without that, there isn't an article. I wouldn't disagree with the information being moved to a section of the racing bicycle page, cross-linked from the touring bicycle page. Parsonscat (talk) 14:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As for the triviality of the citations, you have not put forward even a single specific reference to an RS (other than general reference to books about bicycles without page numbers or any indication the books speak to the subject at all, let alone in the requisite detail). And I was referring to the sources I found in searches I did. Anyway, you highlighted a problem with all of these articles. Because of the poor or non-existent sourcing, it is difficult to define any of them. With respect to this particular article, to discuss the "value" of a particular collectable, one needs good, inline citations to RSs. ("The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." WP:V) Feel free to add (with appropriate inline citations) whatever you see fit to road bicycle or racing bicycle or wherever, and then change your !vote to redirect there rather than keep. Novaseminary (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'm sorry you think that. I included several sources I felt sufficiently sound in the references section. Please could you explain in detail what you felt was wrong with each of the sources I cited. Please be specific. I have given references. You need to say what is wrong with each of them.Parsonscat (talk) 22:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As of this latest version, there are five purported references. In order, here is my take on them:
- 1) This fansite "offering camaraderie among the buffs" is not an RS. It also doesn't support any of the facts in the article; it is just the homepage. It also doesn't support the use of this term, but rather supports the idea that this article is duplicative of road bicycle or racing bicycle because the website refers to its subject matter as "vintage lightweight 'racing' style bicycles".
- 2) This review (which is not even linked to in the article) is just that, a review of a book. It does discuss Hetchins (and purchasing a mountain bike), but neither the word lightweight nor classic is ever used in the article. This would be a great source for an article about the book, but offers nothing in support of this subject being distinct and notable aside from racing bicycle.
- 3) I cannot find this article online. But if it covers this bicycle maker, I suspect it fails for the same reason as 2. Nowhere on the Mercian Cycles website can I find reference to "Classic lightweight", including their history page. I do see reference to lightweight frames on the home page, but that would not seem to support a new article, maybe just a discussion of frame types in racing bicycle.
- 4) I do not have access to the book nor is it searchable on google books. I wonder what pages in particular discuss this type of bicycle in such a way that would indicate it should have an article separate from road bicycle? Maybe some quotes would help make the case.
- 5) This website is also just a fansite, not an RS. And the homepage seems to have very, very little in the way of citable facts, even if this were an RS.
- So, two "references" are pretty clearly not RSs, one (the review) never mentions the phrase or anything like it. That leave the non-online article apparently about the bike company which doesn't even use the phrase itself and a general reference to a 208-page book without any indication of why that source supports making this topic a separate article. There is no way what is there now meets WP:GNG. We should delete or redirect to an appropriate target.
- Novaseminary (talk) 23:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is an argument to avoid; see WP:ITSNOTABLE. You have to explain why you think it's notableSpatulli (talk) 06:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Which sources that you've come across indicate to you that it meets WP:GNG (or some other N guideline)? Novaseminary (talk) 00:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Merge: Per Novaseminary's analysis of the references. I do not see the independent notability to establish a seperate article from any of the other types of bikes that this content could be merged to. Hasteur (talk) 17:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 03:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. According to Novaseminary's analysis of the references, the requirements of WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:N are not met. Sandstein 16:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep per the improvements made late in the deletion discussion, which have not been refuted by the deletion side. –MuZemike 22:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Service-oriented Software Engineering
- Service-oriented Software Engineering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence that this concept is notable within the computing field. No references at all. Article was PRODded, original author promised to improve it but hasn't touched the article for more than a year. That's plenty of time to see improvement, but there's been none. Time to go now. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete, with possible later re-creation. Service-oriented software engineering (SOSE) does exist, but there is no information in this stub worth keeping. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete, with possible merge or later re-creation. Agree with Radagast3; might be worth another attempt as part of the software engineering page, but there's nothing here right now. -- BenTels (talk) 12:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
- Redirect, weakly. The current title is a dictionary definition of a non-notable neologism. Current text says this is a software engineering methodology based on service-orientation. Now, "service-orientation" has an unreadable and vague article that, to the extent it's about anything, would appear to be about software. That article has its own set of problems, and probably qualifies for deletion in its current state, but would appear to cover anything that might be said here. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge GScholar shows many articles (e.g., the doctoral dissertation [22]). Anything "service-oriented" suffers from the vagueness of that term (cf. Service-oriented_architecture). However, there's "something there" there. I'll add more cites later. — HowardBGolden (talk) 17:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- More University of Notre Dame has a Service-oriented Software Engineering Group that has already published four articles. There have been two international workshops on service oriented software engineering: In 2006 as part of the International Conference on Software Engineering and in 2007 as part of the The 6th joint meeting of the European Software Engineering Conference and the ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering. Also, there is the Fourth IEEE International Symposium on Service-Oriented System Engineering, SOSE 2008 (I'm not sure what happened to the Third one!) Anyway, there's plenty of material. I think notability is shown. — HowardBGolden (talk) 02:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 03:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Weak delete, with possible later creation - I agree with Radagast and BenTelz. There's nothing here worth keeping right now. MJ94 (talk) 03:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Plain old straight up Delete Per it has no content, no one is working on it, and it fails all three core criteria at the moment, isn't sourced, isn't verifiable, and therefore isn't notable. Sven Manguard Talk 04:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There's not even enough information to merge into another article. No objection to it being created with actual information later though --D•g Talk to me/What I've done 06:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Request Please don't close this AfD for at least 24 hours. I'm researching articles behind IEEE's paywall and will add summaries of the IEEE papers to the article. — HowardBGolden (talk) 14:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This article has been sitting dormant for more than a year, and this AfD has been relisted twice, and you want more time? Really? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, really. Please note that I became aware of this article on 21 September 2010. Since then, I've established notability (see above). Now I will add these citations and summaries to the article. Those supporting deletion should be following WP policy and improving the article using the citations, not calling for its deletion. The issue for an AfD is whether the topic is notable, not the quality of the article. A constructive action would be to request help from the WP:SOFTWARE, which I am doing contemporaneously. Also, I'm requesting 24 hours to add content and citations myself. I'd appreciate any help that participants in this discussion are willing to offer. — HowardBGolden (talk) 16:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since this AfD was just relisted today, you probably have a bit more than 24 hours, but don't push your luck on time. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, really. Please note that I became aware of this article on 21 September 2010. Since then, I've established notability (see above). Now I will add these citations and summaries to the article. Those supporting deletion should be following WP policy and improving the article using the citations, not calling for its deletion. The issue for an AfD is whether the topic is notable, not the quality of the article. A constructive action would be to request help from the WP:SOFTWARE, which I am doing contemporaneously. Also, I'm requesting 24 hours to add content and citations myself. I'd appreciate any help that participants in this discussion are willing to offer. — HowardBGolden (talk) 16:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This article has been sitting dormant for more than a year, and this AfD has been relisted twice, and you want more time? Really? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. HowardBGolden (talk) 16:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Google news is four results, although I'm not sure if any of those count as reliable sources. Google books has over 60 results, and this does seem to be a real thing, entire books published just about it, with others just mentioning it in them. And Google scholar gets results as well. Deletion is not for notable topics, just because they are currently short. Many articles start off like this. Just tag it with a stub template, and let it be. Dream Focus 19:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, now that HowardBGolden has made a viable article out of it. Jack Merridew 05:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. –MuZemike 22:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ukrainian People's Militia
- Ukrainian People's Militia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
article should be deleted, then made into redirect to new, merged article Львівське (talk) 03:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have restored the removed content so that we can see what the article actually looks like that is being discussed for deletion. SilverserenC 03:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep it is a plain violation of GFDL to delete one of the contributors to a merged article. Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? How so? SnottyWong gab 22:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Violates NPOV, revisionism, uses obscure non-english sources, dubious topic and violates WP:OR and SYN. This is a typic joe0doe article and there's a reason he keeps getting banned. Enough with this garbage, an alt. article already exists.--Львівське (talk) 03:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Violates NPOV", can you elaborate on how?
- "Revisionism", i'm not quite sure what you mean with this.
- "Uses obscure non-english sources", obscurity of sources does not pertain to their reliability. Obscure sources also does not affect notability.
- "Dubious topic", how so?
- "Violates WP:OR and WP:SYNTH", where and how does it violate them? SilverserenC 03:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A comment about the obscure non-English sources. The problem isn't reliability (necessarily) but verifiability. The editor who used created this article and who based much of it on those obscure sources, Jo0doe (talk), has a history of misusing sources by leaving out info that only supports his POV to present a distorted picture of what the sources say, etc. for which he got caught and banned for a year. His solution seems to be, to find stuff that almost no one can check - sources that are published in the Ukrainian language, in Ukraine, not available online and thus only available for people who happen to be in Ukraine, have access to their academic libraries, and who can read the Ukrainian language. The issue that some editors have with this article is that it is largely based on such sources. With respect to other sources, the article's creator was caught misusinngthem, as described here.Faustian (talk) 13:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your opinion– but facts reveal a different picture [23] [24] But I guess – why this wiki-drama actually was staged – As can be seen from this edits [25] [26] – there no actual difficulties with access to Patrilyak work cited – so arguing in argumentum verbosium is a no-good approach in discussion concerned a scholar texts. Seems to me not all WP:EEML [27]. plague were uprooted – unfortunately – in result we have a story described in scholar work [28] presented at An international conference “World War II and the (Re)Creation of Historical Memory in Contemporary Ukraine” .But I suggest WP is not a best place to “make a myths with complications”. Thanks Jo0doe (talk) 14:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A comment about the obscure non-English sources. The problem isn't reliability (necessarily) but verifiability. The editor who used created this article and who based much of it on those obscure sources, Jo0doe (talk), has a history of misusing sources by leaving out info that only supports his POV to present a distorted picture of what the sources say, etc. for which he got caught and banned for a year. His solution seems to be, to find stuff that almost no one can check - sources that are published in the Ukrainian language, in Ukraine, not available online and thus only available for people who happen to be in Ukraine, have access to their academic libraries, and who can read the Ukrainian language. The issue that some editors have with this article is that it is largely based on such sources. With respect to other sources, the article's creator was caught misusinngthem, as described here.Faustian (talk) 13:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reconcile with Ukrainian Auxiliary Police. What we have is an edit dispute with two similar, but not identical, treatments of the same situation. The only real solution is for the conflicting accounts to be resolved through talk page discussion. Bridgeplayer (talk) 03:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep From what I can tell of the article, this unit eventually became the Auxiliary unit later. However, this article does not pertain to the Auxiliary Unit, but makes sure to specifically remain speaking about this Unit's activities during the early parts of WWII. I see no problems with the sourcing and I believe there is enough information here that this should be kept separate from the other article. SilverserenC 03:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There are two separate questions we seem to discuss:
- Whether to merge Ukrainian People's Militia and Ukrainian Auxiliary Police or keep them separate. I think it should be discussed on talk pages, not on the afd page as it does not require any deletion. I personally think that it is better to have one good comprehensive article than two stubs but it should be discussed.
- Whether to delete the previous history to Ukrainian People's Militia after it is made a redirect to the merged article. The second question is quite simple: GFDL requires us to keep all the contributions if even a single world from the Militia article is used. Even if not a single world is used we still better of by keeping this potentially usable text in the history as it maybe used in the future. Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue is the "People's Militia"'s very existence is in question.--Львівське (talk) 06:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- From what I'm reading I don't think a formal group existed. I think what joe/pawel are doing here is seeing "National militias" existed and saying there was a formal, organized military group, and engaging in OR/SYN, creating this name the "People's Militia". From there they take any dubious source they can find relating to a militia group attacking so-and-so and tacking them all together to push their POV. And of course, I wouldn't double the non-english sources are completely quoted out of context, or that they are just making the words up themselves--Львівське (talk) 07:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue is the "People's Militia"'s very existence is in question.--Львівське (talk) 06:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per I.K Patrylyak. Military activities of the OUN (B) in the years 1940-1942. - Shevchenko University \ Institute of History of Ukraine National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine . Kyiv, 2004 pages 228-229 - Exploring issues related to the formation of the Ukrainian People's police units especially to be noted that the paramilitary structure is not a direct precursor of Ukrainian Auxiliary Police.The latter was formed by volunteers by German occupation administration , the first - in contrast - was formed on the initiative of the OUN (B) with the tacit approval of German for military leadership Also see that July-August 1941 article [29] - and Himka's [30] [31] - OUN militia. Per above - it was two different (militia formed by Bandera's OUN and different affilations German formations) formations with same activities. ThanksJo0doe (talk) 08:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Those Himka articles show plainly that there was no central militia by this name, there were "militias". He says some were under the SS, others OUN, he claims one in specific to be part of a pogrom, and another article on Kyiv Post debates this, "“Why is there no paper trail showing similar falsification of evidence about OUN militias?”, all with no corroboration, deserve no credibility or weight. It is precisely that credibility and weight of evidence that is lacking in Mr. Himka’s work." link. You are engaging in Original Research and Synthesis, as well as misquoting sources to prove your OR. Also, please note that Himka is paid to write his garbage by he US Holocaust Museum. He's a propagandist mascarading as an historian.--Львівське (talk) 08:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- [32] - seem person got some troubles with Jews - activities of the militia at Stanislaviv described here [33] at page 347-350 (use militia keyword). I guess - may be he can help to identify his father which may stay at podium with Hans Krũger during celebration [34] Jo0doe (talk) 09:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're still ignoring the main point: no such formal unit existed--Львівське (talk) 09:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you suggest a source? Book published by Shevchenko University \ Institute of History of Ukraine National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (cited above) suggest opposite view.ThanksJo0doe (talk) 09:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BURDEN is on you. Even searching for the term in Ukrainian yields limited results, 1 of which was a REAL formation that was part of the UNR in 1918. You're inventing a military group up and have no english sources to verify such a group existed in of itself--Львівське (talk) 09:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you suggest a source? Book published by Shevchenko University \ Institute of History of Ukraine National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (cited above) suggest opposite view.ThanksJo0doe (talk) 09:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're still ignoring the main point: no such formal unit existed--Львівське (talk) 09:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- [32] - seem person got some troubles with Jews - activities of the militia at Stanislaviv described here [33] at page 347-350 (use militia keyword). I guess - may be he can help to identify his father which may stay at podium with Hans Krũger during celebration [34] Jo0doe (talk) 09:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Those Himka articles show plainly that there was no central militia by this name, there were "militias". He says some were under the SS, others OUN, he claims one in specific to be part of a pogrom, and another article on Kyiv Post debates this, "“Why is there no paper trail showing similar falsification of evidence about OUN militias?”, all with no corroboration, deserve no credibility or weight. It is precisely that credibility and weight of evidence that is lacking in Mr. Himka’s work." link. You are engaging in Original Research and Synthesis, as well as misquoting sources to prove your OR. Also, please note that Himka is paid to write his garbage by he US Holocaust Museum. He's a propagandist mascarading as an historian.--Львівське (talk) 08:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep. I am changing my mind about this having just read through Partyljak. However with a large proviso: Patrylyak is generally quite sober and reliable, BUT his text is habitually misquoted and manipulated by Jo0doe. The article has to be watched closely, so it doesn't become Jo0's vehicle of vilification of Ukrainians.--Galassi (talk) 12:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Ukrainian Auxiliary Police per Bridgeplayer (talk) , as the best solution. I am not opposed to keeping it either, because although I agree with most of the criticisms of how this article was made, the topic itself is notable and once the problems are sorted out it probably will eventually deserve its own article anyways, per Silver serenC comments.Faustian (talk) 12:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm inclined to keep, and http://www.history.org.ua/index.php?urlcrnt=LiberUA/select_PDF.php&isbn=966-02-2436-2 is a reliable source. The real issue is to keep the article free of Jo0doe's falsifications. --Galassi (talk) 12:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you suggest an example of alleged falsifications. At Article:talk. Thanks - I've already noted one [35] - but it's not mine (missed text "forced free labour") and ommited 3 more source cited text. ThanksJo0doe (talk) 13:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Alpha Quadrant talk 20:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant talk 20:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Enough valid information to fill its own article, no need to merge it with another. Google Book search shows two results that mention it in history studies written in English. Those who can read Ukrainian can perhaps find more sources. There seem to be plenty of them in the article. Based on the discussion of others, I'd say this article should be kept. Dream Focus 08:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Batman film (2012). What I will do is move, without redirect, this article to Wikipedia:Article incubator/Untitled Third Batman Film (2012); at that point the article can be merged within the same namespace so that attribution is preserved. –MuZemike 22:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Untitled Third Batman Film (2012)
- Untitled Third Batman Film (2012) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete per Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Future films the film has not started principal photography and is untitled. The page can be recreated later when there is notable, confirmed information from reliable sources. D•g Talk to me/What I've done 02:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Revisit it after it's gotten an official title, at the very least. - J Greb (talk) 02:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The article for the next Batman film is already located in the Wikipedia incubator.-5- (talk) 03:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Without a doubt; doesn't even have a title yet. – Alex43223 T | C | E 03:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. JIP | Talk 05:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment this film, under various different titles, has been deleted before, and some were redirected to the last film's sequel section. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - We've had several discussions before (like this one, this (bizarre) one, this one and this one). All have come to the same conclusion - delete, largely due to failing WP:CRYSTAL. I agree. (As -5- states, we also have what will presumably be the article in the incubator.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per movie version of WP:HAMMER. And WP:NFF.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 11:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge This is a duplicate in topic of an article about a third Batman film already written and awaiting improvements in the incubator: See Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Batman film (2012). While laudable in efforts and sourcing, we have no need for a "new" article when we have one waiting in the wings. So if any of the sourced information in this second article about this topic, is itself unique to this second article, I would urge that such new sourced infomation be merged to the artice in the incubator. And heck... perhaps author UserJimscrooge might be prevailed upon to extend his efforts to improving the incubated article? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 11:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't appear as though there is anything in this article that isn't already in the incubator article, with the exception of a bunch of rumors (albeit referenced) that were agreed upon to be removed from the Batman in film article, and which I thus removed from the incubator article.-5- (talk) 18:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- @ User:-5-: The information in the incubated article's casting section that you removed was, as you noted, sourced. You might consider returning them, as sourced commentary as to casting and pre-production decisions is indeed relevent to a reader's understanding of the topic. Readers might appreciate that Kate Beckinsale has expressed interest in playing Catwoman,[36] and that Angelina Jolie had been suggested to play the role by Julie Newmar.[37] They might appreciate knowing David Tennant wants to portray the Riddler,[38] as does Michael C. Hall.[39] Reader's might apreciate knowing that though these others have expressed interest, it has been reported that Joseph Gordon-Levitt had been approached for that role.[40] They may get a chuckle out of Gorden-Levitt's representatives denyin his involvement,[41] despite evidence to the contrary.[42] Readers might also appreciate Michael Caine's stating that one of the studio execs wanted to cast Johnny Depp as the Riddler and Philip Seymour Hoffman as the Penguin,[43]... while neither Hoffman nor Depp have (yet) been approached.[44][45] This project has become of such interest that even Robin Williams has stated an interest in being in the film in some capacity.[46] With respects, and even if not done by yourself, if/when someone returns that sourced information to the incubated article, you really might wish to discuss rather than remove a second time. It might have been more prudent to perhaps re-written what was there, or discuss with the editor that researched and added it, rather than remove entire blocks of sourced content. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You may want to weigh in on this discussion.-5- (talk) 00:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Will do, thank you. That talk page for Batman in film holds an interesting discussion, and yes... THAT particular article need not contain everything already included in all the other various Batman projects. Its section "Batman in film#Untitled third installment (2012)" need only hit the highlights and then (eventually) include a link back to the 2012 film article (if/when in mainspace) for readers to find the fleshed-out details. As I was speaking above about the curently incubated article, and while in the incubator, that's where we especially encourage growth and sourcing in anticipation of it being (maybe) eventually sent to mainspace... and it serves to be as thorough as possible as we might "off of mainspace"... with such articles evolving through regular editing. There is no expectation that it is ready yet... or that it might be ready anytime soon. But allowing it to grow and evolve while there serves the better need of the project. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You may want to weigh in on this discussion.-5- (talk) 00:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- @ User:-5-: The information in the incubated article's casting section that you removed was, as you noted, sourced. You might consider returning them, as sourced commentary as to casting and pre-production decisions is indeed relevent to a reader's understanding of the topic. Readers might appreciate that Kate Beckinsale has expressed interest in playing Catwoman,[36] and that Angelina Jolie had been suggested to play the role by Julie Newmar.[37] They might appreciate knowing David Tennant wants to portray the Riddler,[38] as does Michael C. Hall.[39] Reader's might apreciate knowing that though these others have expressed interest, it has been reported that Joseph Gordon-Levitt had been approached for that role.[40] They may get a chuckle out of Gorden-Levitt's representatives denyin his involvement,[41] despite evidence to the contrary.[42] Readers might also appreciate Michael Caine's stating that one of the studio execs wanted to cast Johnny Depp as the Riddler and Philip Seymour Hoffman as the Penguin,[43]... while neither Hoffman nor Depp have (yet) been approached.[44][45] This project has become of such interest that even Robin Williams has stated an interest in being in the film in some capacity.[46] With respects, and even if not done by yourself, if/when someone returns that sourced information to the incubated article, you really might wish to discuss rather than remove a second time. It might have been more prudent to perhaps re-written what was there, or discuss with the editor that researched and added it, rather than remove entire blocks of sourced content. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with the film article in the incubator per Schmidt's reasoning.—Chris!c/t 22:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Schmidt "Shoots in April in New Orleans." source Mike Allen 05:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tashiik
- Tashiik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The protagonist of a book that hasn't been published and has no Wikipedia article of it's own. No sources available, obviously not notable but does not fit any of the criteria for speedy deletion. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Reading the article I'm not 100% sure it's not just a hoax or something made up in school one day, but at any rate there shouldn't be an article for a character of a (redlinked) book that's not been released. 28bytes (talk) 02:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I couldn't even find any information about the book in a Google search, and the article does not give the author's name. I agree this is either something someone made up or a character in an obscure, unpublished book. Either way there is no need for an article on the topic. --D•g Talk to me/What I've done 03:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, a character in a book that hasn't even been published yet surely doesn't deserve its own Wikipedia article. JIP | Talk 05:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete New user just created this as a hoax. There is no proof this book existed, nor any of the characters within it. I searched about but found nothing. Dream Focus 20:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Even if it wasn't a hoax, the article admits that the parent fictional topic is non-notable, so there's no merge target. SNOW is probably appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not the place to promote the novel you hope to write some day. Edward321 (talk) 00:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We appear to have a snowball going here. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per WP:N and WP:Crystal ball. --LoЯd ۞pεth 06:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wifione ....... Leave a message 20:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wanneroo Kartway
- Wanneroo Kartway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete. No notability established. Student7 (talk) 00:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Student7 (talk) 00:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Perfectly reasonable stub. Notable for hosting the Aus Kart Championships (as is already stated in the article). Jeni (talk) 10:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No substantial coverage in reliable sources. Armbrust Talk Contribs 16:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete untill a RS can Cite that the Australian National Kart Championships were there. I cannot find it . Dropping a S makes me think that WP is the only place it says it.Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 09:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - seems promotional to me. Needs RS to establish notability.Blueboar (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - The above comment was made here as a result of blatant canvassing Jeni (talk) 00:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Swedbank kartodroms
- Swedbank kartodroms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete. Notability not established. One self-reference. Possibly an attempt to preserve Swedish Wikipedia entry by saying that there is an English article! Both. most likely, should be deleted, but our guidelines (and this Afd) only pertain to our English version. Student7 (talk) 00:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Student7 (talk) 00:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I'm loathe to say to keep this simply because it was kept at the last AFD, as that's usually a very weak rationale, but in this case it seems that notability was pretty solidly established in the previous AFD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I wonder if the nominator actually read the previous nomination? Jeni (talk) 10:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The previous AfD resulted in a Keep due primarily to a promise to improve the article and add sources... Over a year later, and the improvement has not happened. No sources have been added to support the idea that this facility is notable. Saying "this is notable" here at the AfD is not enough... you have to actually establish that notability by providing sources in the article itself. Either fix the problem or let it go. Blueboar (talk) 20:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - The above comment was made here as a result of blatant canvassing Jeni (talk) 00:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Somehow it seems that the reasoning here is something going on on Swedish Wikipedia. I don`t see any promise to improve the article in previous AfD, however the original author of the article has left a note on article`s talk about there being independent sources and if it is the main track in the Baltic States and was home of USSR team it seems notable enough. ~~Xil (talk) 15:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A national track JASpencer (talk) 22:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Jamal Anderson. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dirty Bird (football dance)
- Dirty Bird (football dance) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
doesn't fit speedy a7, but it's not notable E♴ (talk) 00:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Jamal Anderson, the creator of the dance, certainly a harmless redirect. Nate • (chatter) 00:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Jamal Anderson. The field-dance has been the subject of ongoing incidental mentions but is not sufficiently weighty to support a full encyclopedic article. —Carrite, Oct. 6, 2010.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete yeah, a redirect would be harmless. But there are no sources cited and no indication of notability. I'd certainly settle for redirect...--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect – I was able to find this article on the subject, but I'm not sure it's enough. However, it does indicate that Anderson wasn't the only player to do the dance; hence why I didn't name a specific target. It should still be some kind of redirect, though, as I think it's a plausible search term. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Jamal Anderson as he is the creator of this dance, noted in the article find by Giants2008.—Chris!c/t 22:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Nomination withdrawn as it is heading to WP:SNOW. LibStar (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Finland–Mozambique relations
- Finland–Mozambique relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
there does not seem to be much to these relations besides a small amount of foreign aid (23million euro in 2008 is hardly much for Finnish foreign aid), there was a Presidential visit to Finland in 2003 but not much else. gnews search. LibStar (talk) 00:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Mozambique and Finland have a close aid relationship, as noted by both the Finnish Foreign Ministry and their President. Their relations go back nearly 25 year. Mozambique is recognized as one of Finland's long term aid partners in multiple places. Finland and national liberation in Southern Africa By Iina Soiri nad Pekka Peltola is in large part about Finland and Mozambique.--TM 01:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- in multiple places? they're all Finnish Government sources in the "multiple places" source. can we have some more third party evidence of these relations ie major newspapers etc. LibStar (talk) 02:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the sourcing above is sufficient. When the President of a country announces at a state dinner held to honor the visiting country's President that relations are excellent and government sources indicate that Mozambique is one of the 8 closest development partners in the world, there can be no real question of notability.--TM 02:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- you'll find most Presidents will say relations are excellent especially during visits to other countries (ever heard a visiting President saying in a visit "relations are bad or very ordinary"?). if someone third party said it was excellent like BBC, CNN, New York Times then it would be more reliable. LibStar (talk) 02:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the sourcing above is sufficient. When the President of a country announces at a state dinner held to honor the visiting country's President that relations are excellent and government sources indicate that Mozambique is one of the 8 closest development partners in the world, there can be no real question of notability.--TM 02:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - unless independent reliable sources can be found to establish notability. Pick pretty much any two countries, they will have relations of some sort that will be documented by their governments. There's nothing notable about that in itself. You need independent sources to show if said relationship is anything beyond a routine relationship between any two countries.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 11:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Finland and national liberation is significant coverage. There is extensive coverage, have a look for yourself.--TM 15:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Content is serious, scholarly, and sourced. Whether average Yanks or average Brits feel this subject is of little interest or use is neither here nor there — it's an encyclopedic treatment of a legitimate topic. —Carrite, Oct. 6, 2010.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep—an adequate amount of properly-sourced content. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 19:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – Anybody here remember the 1970s? (Well I did not think there was any Finn here who had lived through the 1970s, but try Google and its translator.) -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. – A useful source would be: Iina Soiri, Pekka Peltola (1999). Finland and national liberation in Southern Africa. Nordic Africa Institute. ISBN 9171064311. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Finland–Mozambique relations are relevant both in their length and intensity. There is plenty of basis for an article. --hydrox (talk) 00:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Carrite. There is well sourced material in the article establishing notability. HupHollandHup (talk) 14:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy strong keep - not even a question if this subject is notable or not. It is!.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- see WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ahmed El Menshawy
- Ahmed El Menshawy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails notability guidelines for a tennis player; see ATP profile here [47] and ITF junior one here [48] Mayumashu (talk) 01:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as article fails notability criteria for tennis players. Armbrust Talk Contribs 14:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Article fails to meet the notability for tennis players criteria. MJ94 (talk) 01:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ngayong Nandito Ka
- Ngayong Nandito Ka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:NFF no indication this future film has reach primary photography stage
on second review - it looks like it has been made into a movie circa 2003 and then a remake was (is being?) made, and then (a sock editor who was blocked for creating hoax articles about shows starring a reality tv person) added that it is also the name of an upcoming TV show. I guess? Active Banana ( bananaphone 03:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as it fails WP:NFF. Airplaneman ✈ 03:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As cast list is/was of the 2003 film, NFF does not apply and article is being re-written to reflect that 7-years-old release. Any rumours of an remake can be included only if verified. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Until 16 January 2010 the article contained just "A Philippinne film by produced by Star Cinema" and a cast list. It was then edited to include a second cast list headed "2010 Cast" and a single sentence about a supposed 2010 television series. There is absolutely no reliable source traceable anywhere to confirm any of the information added. I have made several different searches and found nothing. For example, a Google search for "Ngayong Nandito Ka" "Ivan Dorschner" "Tricia Santos" (the name of the series and the first two stars listed) produced 13 hits, none of which made any mention of this series except for ones which explicitly gave Wikipedia as their source. The information was added to the article by an IP with a history of unconstructive editing to film and television related articles. The IP's editing also bears a strikingly similar pattern to those of several sockpuppet IPs and accounts (now blocked) with a history of adding information about Tricia Santos, who is given in this article as one of the stars. Some of the information added by those sockpuppets is certainly misinformation, and more of it is dubious. Needless to say I have removed the content added by this editor. This returns the article to just a cast list. My own opinion is that such a trivial article is pointless, and that the film is not really notable enough to warrant an article, but I don't feel strongly about it one way or the other, as long as the removed misinformation stays removed. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree. Any hint toward a remake does not belong unless rumours can be verfied. Article is now being re-written and sourced to reflect the 2003 film. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per my own WP:BEFORE showing the film as meeting WP:NF per available sources that would allow improvements. Notability in the Phillipines is notable enough for en.Wikipedia. That it is in a poor state and has not yet been improved would be a reason to get help from Filipino Wikipedians, but does not act as a reason to delete. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment and as article appeared originally to be about the 2003 film (rumoured remakes notwithstanding) I am fixing the article to reflect it being about the 2003 film. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Second relist rationale Article is now clearly about a 2003 film, not a 2010 subject. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The 2003 movie info is sourced and it looks to have been a notable production. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
American Third Position Party
- American Third Position Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable political party which has not received significant news coverage and is not on the ballot in any state; sources cited are mostly self-referential, and Google News search does not provide any better ones. MelanieN (talk) 04:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —MelanieN (talk) 04:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This party has not yet contested any elections under its own name. This tends to suggest it is not notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No general elections have been held since this party was created in January of 2010, ergo it would be virtually impossible for it to have contested any elections under its own name. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 06:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Numerous primary elections have been held. The January 2010 founding date is clearly inaccurate, since the party applied in November 2009 to gain recognized status in California. I don't know how to reconcile these dates; this is not the only internally contradictory information in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 14:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- With regard to Melanie's comment, I would note that the primary elections held this year would not generally have been related to the A3P party. In most states, minor or new parties are not eligible to hold primary elections even if they want to; more typically, they submit petitions to get their candidates on the general election ballot. So it's not the A3P's failure to participate in the primaries that leads me to think they are not contesting any elections, but their failure to qualify for the general elections. The article says, "However, the party failed to qualify and is not on the ballot in California or any other state." The deadline to qualify for the November general election ballot has already passed in every state. [49] A party founded in January 2010, or earlier, would have had time to qualify for the ballot in most states, if it had had enough supporters and the desire to qualify. So we can already say in September, with regard to Kevin's comment, that this party is not contesting the general election in November. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Numerous primary elections have been held. The January 2010 founding date is clearly inaccurate, since the party applied in November 2009 to gain recognized status in California. I don't know how to reconcile these dates; this is not the only internally contradictory information in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 14:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep This article presently includes sixteen (16) evidentiary citations in its References section, including mainstream press coverage from the New Hampshire Union Leader, Concord Monitor, and the Long Beach Press-Telegram, as well as Ballot Access News, and the office the California Secretary of State. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 06:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Eight of the 16 "evidentiary citations" are to the group's own website. The California Secretary of State reference [50] merely indicates that they applied for ballot status. It lists them as one of 16 "non-qualified political parties" who have made such an application. (The 16 non-qualified parties listed by the Secretary of State also include the Resurrection Party, the Utopia Manifesto Party, and the We Like Women Party - no, I am NOT making that up.) As noted in the article, the group failed in their application for ballot status and will not be on the November ballot.--MelanieN (talk) 14:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, not to invoke WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, but just to place the Secretary of State claim in context: fourteen of the sixteen "non-qualified parties" listed at the SecState reference do not have Wikipedia pages. The only ones that do are the Reform Party, which used to be highly notable, and this one. More evidence that a party doesn't automatically become notable just because it files an application with the Secretary of State.--MelanieN (talk) 16:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Eight of the 16 "evidentiary citations" are to the group's own website. The California Secretary of State reference [50] merely indicates that they applied for ballot status. It lists them as one of 16 "non-qualified political parties" who have made such an application. (The 16 non-qualified parties listed by the Secretary of State also include the Resurrection Party, the Utopia Manifesto Party, and the We Like Women Party - no, I am NOT making that up.) As noted in the article, the group failed in their application for ballot status and will not be on the November ballot.--MelanieN (talk) 14:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The party's notability doesn't stem from the fact that it applied to the California secretary of state, but from the amount of coverage it's received in reliable sources, as well as the fact that it has some high-profile leaders and supporters (including Olympic gold-medal winner Bob Richards). I don't agree with or support their political views at all, but they are certainly notable enough, if only just barely. They haven't been giving any indications that they will be going away anytime soon, either (see WP: PERSISTENCE). Stonemason89 (talk) 20:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In addition to Mr. Richards, there's also Kevin B. MacDonald and James Edwards. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 07:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The subject of the article has its own category ([[51]]). I think it would be weird to have a category pertaining to a political party but no article about that party. Thus, while I personally think both the article and the cat are worth keeping, I also think that if this does end up failing AFD, then the category should be deleted too. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. These minor far-right parties spring up all the time then disappear again. The sources are either primary sources, or mentions in local newspapers, one of which points out that the same group started another party in May 2009 to much the same fanfare, and now its website is dead, though a cached version shows it used the same images and captions as this new one. [52] If the party is still active in two years, and there are good sources, then we can reconsider. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Their website is decidedly NOT off-line, as I just verified a moment ago. See for yourself: | American Third Position party website — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinOKeeffe (talk • contribs)
- I wrote that one of the local newspapers said the same group set up a political party last year, and the website for that one is already dead. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 07:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, it has several mentions in newspapers and is being run by high profile people (as admitted by those who oppose this even). All in all adds up to make this notable. Mathmo Talk 08:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I advocate the lowest of all possible barriers for inclusion of actually-existing political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections. This is the stuff of which encyclopedias are made. This party exists, ergo I advocate its inclusion on the basis of per se notability. —Carrite, Oct. 6, 2010.
- Weak Keep - loathsome though their politics may be, having looked through the sources, I believe they (specifically the coverage from the Long Beach Press-Telegram, Orange County Weekly, Concord Monitor and New Hampshire Union-Leader) provide just about enough evidence to demonstrate that this is a notable party. There are concerns about the brief duration of the coverage, though - I'm not sure whether they've achieved lasting notability, but that can be re-assessed at a later date. Robofish (talk) 21:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete -Selket Talk 19:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
European Association of Aerospace Students
- European Association of Aerospace Students (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:ORG. unreferenced article full of cruft. only 3 gnews hits [53]. LibStar (talk) 08:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. The article does not cite, and I can't find, multiple reliable sources covering this group in any depth. There is this and this by the European Commission, but I'm not sure that this is substantial enough for an article. Sandstein 16:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above. Strip away the unsourced junk and there's basically nothing left. Doesn't appear to pass WP:ORG. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - based on the {{find}} search above, there doesn't appear to be significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 17:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Green Hornet (2006 film)
- The Green Hornet (2006 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
It's a non notable fan film with no third person information to assert any kind of notability therefore should be deleted. Dwanyewest (talk) 12:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And Erik below is correct in that this is quite possibly improvable. So it is a poor article at present? Current state is no reason to delete if the article can be improved through use of available sources and through regular editing. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I did some online research on this some time ago, and there is not a lot out there. However, we have coverage of this film in a martial arts magazine here, and this indicates that the short film was included on the DVD set for the mainstream films. Wanted to provide these tidbits to help editors decide. I think that the article may have a better fate as a single paragraph on the main article. There does not appear to be a lot that can be written about it, but I welcome other editors to prove me wrong. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Erik (talk | contribs) 16:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Tending toward keep per coverage of the topic in numerous French language sources found after checking under its original title.[54] Notability in France should be plenty notable enough for en.Wikipedia. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The results are referring to the upcoming film directed by Gondry. When I included the short film's director's surname, only one result popped up: allocine.fr. I already asked an editor (Cirt) to check subscription-only databases, and he reported no real English-language coverage. Might help to find someone with access to French-language subscription-only databases. So far, I'm leaning toward a merge; hard to fathom a stand-alone article. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. I already realize the futility of seeking English reviews for a French language film that was never released in an English version. I do suggest that the article be moved to its original and more sourcable name of Le frelon vert. Had their been an article on the dorector, I would have suggested a merge and redirect, per Black Belt Magazine, Fan Cinema Today, Action On Film International Film Festival, Comics Alliance, Toutemavie-Lefilm, Sinema Filmizle, Melbourne Independent Filmmakers Festival, Allo Cine, Sentieri Selvaggi, Martial Arts Limited, Pulp Movies, HKFlix, and AAYMCA, among others. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per MichaelQSchmidt's French sources. Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. This discussion has been open way too long and it's dead Jim. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stainless (web browser)
- Stainless (web browser) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
The notability of this software is questionable. Probably non-existent. The article sounds promotional, using words like "unique." Dpaanlka (talk) 01:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Cybercobra (talk) 03:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The only decent sources I could find: [55], [56], [57], [58]. Are these of sufficient depth+reliability? Meh. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, as not one of them suggest that the subject is notable. I'm interested in finding evidence that more than 10 people use this software? Dpaanlka (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, it's been over a year since this article was first tagged as possibly being of low notability, and doesn't seem to have improved at all. Dpaanlka (talk) 20:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not that I disagree, but you do realize notability and userbase size are distinct, yes? --Cybercobra (talk) 23:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, of course. For example, the userbase of Windows 2.0 is probably almost nothing, and arguably, wasn't ever significant, however it is quite notable as a major early version of the world's dominant operating system. A large, widespread installed userbase is typically one of the characteristics of notable software, with only a relatively small number of exceptions. The notability of this subject has not sufficiently been demonstrated to be worthy of a Wikipedia article, by any benchmark, including my example of userbase. Dpaanlka (talk) 03:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I also want to add that I believe if the notability of this subject can be more compellingly demonstrated then it should stay. If not, then it should be deleted. Currently, I get the sense that this article is itself intended to raise the notability of the subject (aka advertising) rather than serve any academic purpose. Dpaanlka (talk) 03:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, as not one of them suggest that the subject is notable. I'm interested in finding evidence that more than 10 people use this software? Dpaanlka (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wired covered it [59]. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oval Raceway
- Oval Raceway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete. Not notable. Extensive refs break down into mostly company handouts to the press. One is on an injury suffered there which apparently was not notable in the long run; a second was a peripheral reference which revolved around mom and pop businesses. The rest were handouts. Appears to be WP:SPAM & WP:PR. Student7 (talk) 00:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Student7 (talk) 00:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question for nominator - what does WP:PR have to do with this article? --Falcadore (talk) 00:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article provides a sense of importance for what is really a Mom and Pop business. Like the corner grocer, only with more people hanging around. More like a bowling alley, I guess. Student7 (talk) 17:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You didn't actually answer the question! Jeni (talk) 00:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't even remotely pass close to an answer to the question, please I ask again, what has WP:PR to do with this article? Do you even know what WP:PR is? --Falcadore (talk) 01:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article provides a sense of importance for what is really a Mom and Pop business. Like the corner grocer, only with more people hanging around. More like a bowling alley, I guess. Student7 (talk) 17:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep unless there is a specific policy against articles on small race tracks. Enough references to establish that its existence has been recognized. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep meets criteria for WP:V and from a variety of sources, inc national newspaper. Other similar venues have articles, so see no reason that this one shouldn't. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 08:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the above. Jeni (talk) 10:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No notability asserted in article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Angmering, where it is. Karting is not a major sport in UK and in national terms this is a NN venue, though no doubt significant locally. Merger is often the best solution for local sports facilities, churches, village halls, primary schools, etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. clearly snowing Spartaz Humbug! 19:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Brazil and weapons of mass destruction
- Brazil and weapons of mass destruction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article has no real functional purpose and might had been created as a boosterism attempt ("power projection"). The article clearly states that Brazil doesn't posses or has ever possesed Weapons of Mass Destruction. Similar articles in the series (In the form "Country_name and weapons of mass destruction") are created when a country is officially or clearly considered to currently posses or has possesed WMD by international organizations, such as Russia, France or Israel (Click to see country and WMD articles). This is not the case of Brazil, and this article seems to be the only exception.
The article limits itself to give notice of the unreferenced fact that Brazil "has the ability to build WMD if decided" and to present a list of the current/past nuclear power plants, that have nothing to do with Weapons of Mass Destruction. Again, the other country articles about WMD are of countries that posses or has possesed WMD. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 00:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I agree with AlexCovarrubias, there are no reference whatsoever of Brazil having weapons of mass destruction in other words nuclear weapons, therefore I think creating a whole article based on mere suppositions seems to me like an attempt to promote Brazil as a nuclear power. Supaman89 (talk) 01:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The subject is significantly covered by reliable sources such as [60] [61] [62] [63], and is therefore notable. Whether these references describe Brazil's possession of WMD or the lack of them, the fact that they treat the subject matter at all, to a sufficient degree for notability, is decisive. Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The research to create a small reactor to serve as a submarine propulsor has nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction, which refers to bombs, missiles and such. See similar articles I left as examples. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 01:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That appears to be original research. All of the articles I cited specifically deal with the potential ability or inability of Brazil to develop WMD and/or their intentions in this respect. Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See? That's the problem! The other articles in the form Country_name and weapons of mass desctruction weren't created just to "decide" if a country "can or can't" create WMD or its ability to do so, but to present the facts of countries that posses/has possesed WMD and willing to use them. The article of Brazil clearly states that they never had WMD. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 01:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The only thing worse than an other stuff exists argument is an "other stuff doesn't exist" claim. We are here to discuss how the general terms of Wikipedia's notability guideline apply to this particular article's topic, not to infer non-notability on the basis of the non-existence of similar articles for similarly situated countries (unless comparable articles have actually been deleted at AFD, potentially showing consensus for this disposition.) Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See? That's the problem! The other articles in the form Country_name and weapons of mass desctruction weren't created just to "decide" if a country "can or can't" create WMD or its ability to do so, but to present the facts of countries that posses/has possesed WMD and willing to use them. The article of Brazil clearly states that they never had WMD. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 01:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That appears to be original research. All of the articles I cited specifically deal with the potential ability or inability of Brazil to develop WMD and/or their intentions in this respect. Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The research to create a small reactor to serve as a submarine propulsor has nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction, which refers to bombs, missiles and such. See similar articles I left as examples. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 01:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The sources state that Brazil pursued a covert nuclear weapons program during the 1970s-1980s. The government of Brazil admitted this in 1992 ([64]). There are also present day concerns about Brazil's proliferation capabilities (like in 2004 when Brazil denied IAEA access to enrichment sites [65]). This type of article is not only for countries that currently possess nuclear weapons. It is also for countries that pursued or developed them at some point. As for the content of the article, there are hundreds of academic sources regarding Brazil's nuclear weapons, for example:
- "Brazil and Argentina embarked on a bilateral nuclear arms race in the 1970s and 80s. Through technology transfers from West Germany, which did not require IAEA safeguards, Brazil pursued a covert nuclear weapons program, replete with enrichment facilities (including a large ultracentrifuge enrichment plant and several laboratory-scale facilities), a limited reprocessing capability, a missile program, a uranium mining and processing industry, and fuel fabrication facilities..." - WILPF ([66])
- "In the late 1970s, Brazilian President Figueiredo approved a clandestine parallel nuclear program: the Autonomous Program of Nuclear Technology (PATN)..." - NTI ([67])
- "Brazil pursued a covert nuclear weapons program in response to Argentina's program. It developed a modest nuclear power program, enrichment facilities (including a large ultracentrifuge enrichment plant and several laboratory-scale facilities), a limited reprocessing capability, a missile program, a uranium mining and processing industry, and fuel fabrication facilities. Brazil was supplied with nuclear materials and equipment by West Germany (which supplied reactors, enrichment and reprocessing facilities), France, and the US. The country has a dependable raw material base for developing atomic power engineering, highly skilled scientific cadres have been trained, technologies for enriching uranium have been obtained, and there are several nuclear research centers..." - GlobalSecurity.org([68])
- "From the 1970s to 1990s, Brazil’s nuclear energy and missile programs raised several concerns with the international community. Brazil refused to join the nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty (NPT) until 1997, and its nuclear program was initially based on an unsafeguarded uranium enrichment facility. In 1975, the Brazilian military launched a covert nuclear weapons program called the “Parallel Program,” which produced two nuclear weapons... - NuclearFiles.org ([69])
- "In 1975 Brazil signed an agreement with West Germany for the supply of technology for a complete nuclear fuel cycle, including enrichment and reprocessing. Following the deal, Brazil transferred the technology from its power plant projects to a secret program, code named Solimoes, to develop an atom bomb..." - PBS ([70])
- "The dispute with the IAEA had raised concerns because of Brazil’s nuclear history: It began developing a covert nuclear weapons program in 1975"... - Arms Control Association ([71]). Limongi (talk) 01:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd also like to point out that several other articles talk about past or supposed nuclear weapons programs, for example: Romania and weapons of mass destruction, Burma and weapons of mass destruction, Algeria and weapons of mass destruction, Canada and weapons of mass destruction, Syria and weapons of mass destruction, Swedish nuclear weapon program, Nuclear program of Saudi Arabia, Netherlands and weapons of mass destruction, etc. Limongi (talk) 12:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Brazil is widely believed to have had a nuclear weapons program in the 1970s and 1980s. NPguy (talk) 01:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. (defective nom.) The nomination text belongs on the article's talk page. The nomination fails to cite a policy or guideline which the article does not conform to. There are third-party sources cited in the article significantly covering the topic. Discussion of capabilities, intent, evidence etc. are editorial concerns, not Afd issues. patsw (talk) 02:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but rename to Brazil and nuclear weapons, or Brazil's nuclear development since it includes things other than just the weapons, such as nuclear powered submarines. Is there a clear definition for what a weapon of mass destruction is, and what that term is limited to? The article is about nuclear things only, not doomsday viruses, mass produced poison gas, mass drivers, or various high tech super weapons. Showing the nuclear development in a country is quite fitting for an encyclopedia to do. Dream Focus 19:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep - We have a similar article on each country which has or has had a WMD program; see South Africa and weapons of mass destruction despite their now 20-year-old complete dismantlement and abandonment of their nuclear bombs program. That Brazil aren't pursuing anything now doesn't mean they were not, as the article clearly states. We document historical fact as well as current status. This is very well documented in the nonproliferation research literature and admitted by Brazil's government. The nominator appears to be confusing having an article with an accusation of ongoing activity; that's not what the article's about at all. Also; the article name is standardized - X and weapons of mass destruction is consistent across the whole field, except where individual N, B, or C programs were big enough to justify independent articles, in which case the X and WMD article is a short summary page pointing to the more specific main ones. Brazil's article is normal and consistent. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, to Alex - You fundamentally misunderstand the criteria for having an X-and-wmd article. Having had a program pursuing WMD qualifies for one, whether one developed them and deployed them or not. Syria has a nuclear weapons program section in its WMD article, and there's a Sweden and WMD article for their 1940s-60s (now long abandoned) nuclear bomb program, which is well documented. Japan, Burma, Argentina, ... Look at the Countries and WMD template box you removed Brazil from earlier, look at all the articles here. This is in no sense picking on or making Brazil look bad. It's documenting known and documented reality. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Brazil had a WMD program so an article on this topic is justified. Nick-D (talk) 07:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: not to simply parrot the above rationales, I will say that Brazil having had a successful program specifically for nukes is as relevant as having actually produced any, which they did not. There is also relevance to Argentina–Brazil relations in the arms race between the two (the notability for this article and Argentina and weapons of mass destruction are about the same). bahamut0013wordsdeeds 15:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: As per above. Alex, you should also take a look at the article Mexico and other boosterism attempts like this. Felipe Menegaz 16:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Polaroid Impulse
- Polaroid Impulse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: The article Polaroid Land Camera 1000 is also included in this nomination.
Non-notable. These articles are about specific models of mass-market Polaroid SX-70 and 600 instant cameras. No one of the models of these types of cameras is really more notable than another. The Polaroid Impulse is just a specific model of Polaroid 600 camera. It is no more common or notable than the other Polaroid 600 cameras. And besides, the article is not even factually accurate. The body design of the Impulse is unique, not just a version of the Pronto SX-70 camera. In reality, the earlier (again, no more notable) Sun 600 cameras (and their derivatives) are truly based on the Pronto body design. Same goes for the "Polaroid Land Camera 1000" SX-70 camera(s). In reality, the 1000 was an international-markets version of the OneStep SX-70 camera. This article is also factually inaccurate. The Polaroid 1000 was not a series of cameras, and the OneStep, Pronto, etc. were not part of that series. These were cameras that, while similar, were distinct seperate models, not really part of one "series".
Now, after all that ranting and raving about why these articles aren't notable :-), here are some simple(r) details:
- The article List of Polaroid instant cameras already lists nearly all of the Polaroid cameras made, and that's all the mention these camera models need here on Wikipedia.
- These articles (and their pictures) were originally just copies of the articles on these cameras at Camerapedia. In my experience, Camerapedia's articles have lots of factual inaccuracies and mis-information (at least with Polaroid cameras). And, apparently, Wikipedia does not allow stuff to be copied from those other wikis like Camerapedia. Oh, and these articles were apparently created by a user from Camerapedia. These articles had been stubified, but that doesn't make them any more notable.
- These articles have been "nominated" before. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive630#Antique_AfD_discussion_needs_closing. The user had created the discussion page, but didn't even list it on AfD for people to see it. :−D
Anyway, this is a multi-page nomination (both pages have the same problems, basically). [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 07:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep For a very widely known brand like Polaroid, probably each significant one of their camera models is notable. Where we draw the line is in individual minor variations, such as the three types listed for Polaroid Land Camera 1000. Camerapedia has been very widely used as a source in dozens of Wikipedia articles. Perhaps the best way of establishing its reliability would be to write a good article on it, with references to published criticism. We had a very short stub, deleted as an uncontested prod in 2006. Since prods can be restored on request, I've just restored it for expansion. Getting first some sourced information about it, and then if necessary discussing it at WP:RSN would seem a good idea. DGG ( talk ) 06:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of the writers of Camerapedia try very hard indeed to get the facts right. Some subject areas of Camerapedia (such as Japanese folders, exemplified by this article) have content that is more informative and more reliable than what you'd find in published book on the same subject that would cost you actual money. Camerapedia is also much less vulnerable to vandalism and silliness than Wikipedia is. However, Camerapedia does not purport to be reliable, and as a whole is less reliable than published books. (I say this as an erstwhile contributor to Camerapedia who has the greatest respect for some of its contributors and articles.) And Camerapedia does encourage its contributors to do what WP forbids: the original research of examining and describing the gizmos sitting in front of them. ¶ Incidentally, DGG's innocuous phrase above "used as a source" can cover "mindlessly swiped". -- Hoary (talk) 09:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There are dozens of Polaroid 600 camera models out there, of which the Impulse is only up to about 4 models (which 3 are virtually the same). Can you assert how any specific Polaroid camera model has enough notability and notable information to be mentioned in Wikipedia in anything other than the List of Polaroid instant cameras, which already lists these camera models and gives all the notable information these camera models need on Wikipedia?
As for what Hoary said about Camerapedia, I agree. No wonder Camerapedia has those factual inaccuracies in their Polaroid articles, because they promote original research! Everyone has his/her own ideas, opinions, and beliefs about everything, and that's likely exactly why Wikipedia doesn't allow original research, and all claims must be cited with reliable sources. As a collector of Polaroid cameras, in my opinion, the Land List and the Option-al Land List collector websites have much more accurate information in them. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 20:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Getting a bit off-topic here, but you write: No wonder Camerapedia has those factual inaccuracies in their Polaroid articles, because they promote original research! Everyone has his/her own ideas, opinions, and beliefs about everything, and that's likely exactly why Wikipedia doesn't allow original research [...] (my emphases). You're conflating two notions of "OR": (i) one in which "research" has its normal meaning, and (ii) the Wikipedia-specific "OR", in which "research" is a euphemism for "any old crap". Camerapedia encourages research, not the promulgation of ignorance. However, even the former would be prohibited by WP (and rightly so), while CP is a wiki and thus can't prevent the latter. -- Hoary (talk) 23:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There are dozens of Polaroid 600 camera models out there, of which the Impulse is only up to about 4 models (which 3 are virtually the same). Can you assert how any specific Polaroid camera model has enough notability and notable information to be mentioned in Wikipedia in anything other than the List of Polaroid instant cameras, which already lists these camera models and gives all the notable information these camera models need on Wikipedia?
- Some of the writers of Camerapedia try very hard indeed to get the facts right. Some subject areas of Camerapedia (such as Japanese folders, exemplified by this article) have content that is more informative and more reliable than what you'd find in published book on the same subject that would cost you actual money. Camerapedia is also much less vulnerable to vandalism and silliness than Wikipedia is. However, Camerapedia does not purport to be reliable, and as a whole is less reliable than published books. (I say this as an erstwhile contributor to Camerapedia who has the greatest respect for some of its contributors and articles.) And Camerapedia does encourage its contributors to do what WP forbids: the original research of examining and describing the gizmos sitting in front of them. ¶ Incidentally, DGG's innocuous phrase above "used as a source" can cover "mindlessly swiped". -- Hoary (talk) 09:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Passes WP:N: coverage at the referenced web sites is significant. I agree with the {{Expand}} template, but that means improvement not deletion. patsw (talk) 02:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If we keep the Polaroid Impulse and Polaroid Land Camera 1000 articles, then why don't we also create more Wikipedia articles on specific Polaroid models, say, the Polaroid Sun 660 Autofocus and Sun 640 cameras. After all, they were the very first two Polaroid 600 camera models, released in 1981. Surely these are no less notable than the Impulse, right? So, if we keep the Impulse article, why not create a bunch of other Polaroid 600 articles to go with it? Actually, it would be better to write a single article on all the 600 models, rather than articles on every single individual one. I don't think that collector websites (like the Land List) really make the cameras more notable. Note that there is an important difference between the Polaroid SX-70 and the Polaroid OneStep/1000 cameras. The SX-70 is a high-end folding SLR camera, and is very well known and loved by Polaroid enthusiasts. The OneStep/1000, however, is the low-end non-folding non-SLR fixed-focus version, and no more notable than a Polaroid 600.
So I say we either Delete both articles, or Merge Polaroid Land Camera 1000 into Polaroid SX-70 and Merge Polaroid Impulse into a new article on all Polaroid 600 cameras, e.g. Polaroid 600 camera. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 04:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If we keep the Polaroid Impulse and Polaroid Land Camera 1000 articles, then why don't we also create more Wikipedia articles on specific Polaroid models, say, the Polaroid Sun 660 Autofocus and Sun 640 cameras. After all, they were the very first two Polaroid 600 camera models, released in 1981. Surely these are no less notable than the Impulse, right? So, if we keep the Impulse article, why not create a bunch of other Polaroid 600 articles to go with it? Actually, it would be better to write a single article on all the 600 models, rather than articles on every single individual one. I don't think that collector websites (like the Land List) really make the cameras more notable. Note that there is an important difference between the Polaroid SX-70 and the Polaroid OneStep/1000 cameras. The SX-70 is a high-end folding SLR camera, and is very well known and loved by Polaroid enthusiasts. The OneStep/1000, however, is the low-end non-folding non-SLR fixed-focus version, and no more notable than a Polaroid 600.
- Comment What you raise is not a deletion discussion but a "how to organize information discussion". If there already was a merged article along the lines you propose, then this discussion of Polaroid Impulse would be more along the lines of already covered in XXX, but we have to make judgments about the articles as they are, not as we would like it to be, so this article should stay in place until editors involved in this space can reach a consensus on how best to organize this content. Deletion is not the remedy. patsw (talk) 12:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge with article on SX-70. I just don't see this standing on its own. Figureofnine (talk) 14:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. The article was significantly expanded with sources after the last "delete" opinion, so it is not clear whether all these "delete" opinions apply any more. Sandstein 04:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Riad (al-Qaeda host)
- Riad (al-Qaeda host) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Only briefly mentioned in a single judicial transcript - falls far far below any notability requirements. Fails WP:V as well since trial testimony does not prove the subject's existence. Prod was declined about a month ago. Borderline A7 and A1 case (since the article does not provide sufficient context to properly identify its subject). Nsk92 (talk) 11:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 11:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Al Hajj Abdu Ali Sharqawi. Sharqawi is a Guantanamo captive who was considered t enough of a threat and source of intelligence that he spent years in the CIA's network of clandestine interrogation centers prior to being transferred to military custody in Guantanamo in September 2004. Sharqawi is routinely identified as "Riyadh the facilitator". He is widely identified as having run al Qaeda's guest houses in Karachi -- essentially the same assertion as leveled against "Riad" in the references to this article. Riyadh and Riad are merely two different transliterations of the same Arabic name. Following the {{prod}} mentioned above I suggested the merge and redirect of this article to the Sharqawi article, which I frankly considered open and shut. Geo Swan (talk) 14:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you believe that Riad/Riyadh is the same person as Al Hajj Abdu Ali Sharqawi and have reliable sources to that effect, you are certainly free to add that information to the Al Hajj Abdu Ali Sharqawi article. A merge is not needed for that and there is nothing in the current text of Riad (al-Qaeda host) article to indicate that he is Al Hajj Abdu Ali Sharqawi. A merge as an AfD outcome is only necessary when a significant amount of verifiable information is at stake. This is not the case here - trial testimony by terrorism suspects is not a reliable source and does not pass WP:V. Moreover, a merge results in a redirect which is not appropriate here. Redirects are meant for likely search terms, which "Riad (al-Qaeda host)" certainly is not. A plain "delete" is appropriate here. Nsk92 (talk) 15:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that you have just tried to add[72] text to this article equating its subject with Al Hajj Abdu Ali Sharqawi. This action is inappropriate and disruptive. If you believe that that the subject of this article is Al Hajj Abdu Ali Sharqawi, you should be adding the corresponding info directly to Al Hajj Abdu Ali Sharqawi article, not to this one. Artificially and deliberately building up a WP:Content fork of Al Hajj Abdu Ali Sharqawi and then arguing against deletion is a form of disruptive editing. Nsk92 (talk) 19:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you believe that Riad/Riyadh is the same person as Al Hajj Abdu Ali Sharqawi and have reliable sources to that effect, you are certainly free to add that information to the Al Hajj Abdu Ali Sharqawi article. A merge is not needed for that and there is nothing in the current text of Riad (al-Qaeda host) article to indicate that he is Al Hajj Abdu Ali Sharqawi. A merge as an AfD outcome is only necessary when a significant amount of verifiable information is at stake. This is not the case here - trial testimony by terrorism suspects is not a reliable source and does not pass WP:V. Moreover, a merge results in a redirect which is not appropriate here. Redirects are meant for likely search terms, which "Riad (al-Qaeda host)" certainly is not. A plain "delete" is appropriate here. Nsk92 (talk) 15:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- While I don't at this point have a view as to a !vote on the issue, I think the improvement of the article is not only appropriate but laudable. The addition of the sourced text is typical in a well-considered AfD.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding a source is only laudable and appropriate if the desired outcome is keeping the article. Knowingly and deliberately building up a content fork of an existing article is neither laudable nor appropriate, it is disruptive. It is also disruptive and absurd to keep adding new info to the page and then arguing for merging this article somewhere else. Nsk92 (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand that is your point of view. I differ. There is nothing inconsistent between adding material, and arguing for merger -- presumably, that argues for merger of the added material. Other editors can decide for themselves whether it enhances the article to the point that it calls for keeping the article, or calls for merging the article, or neither -- but in no way do I see it as "disruptive and absurd". That strikes me as perhaps being slightly strident language to describe the addition of well-sourced text to the article. But, of course, you are welcome to disagree.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have frequently added sources to an article at AfD to see how far it could be improved--and if I conclude it can not be improved enough, I have !voted delete or merge. Thee's no way of knowing how far an article can be improved unless you try. Of course, if one does this with bad judgement the work may well be wasted, but if one thinks it worth the effort, one should be encouraged to make the =attempt. DGG ( talk ) 07:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a phenomenon I have encountered occasionally in other {{afd}}. I have seen the occasional nominator appear to lose their cool, and get so emotionally involved in seeing their nomination for deletion succeed, that they work to thwart good faith attempts to address the concerns raised in the {{afd}} and start reverting good faith attempts to expand and improve the article. They want other contributors weighing in on the {{afd}} to make their decision based on the state of the article, when they made the nomination -- not after it had been expanded and improved. Is that what has happened here? I am afraid it has.
- I did some google searching, found lots of additional references, and spent considerable time in the update you excised. One thing I found was that there were multiple captives analysts suspected of being "Riyadh the facilitator". I regard that as remarkable. I don't think I owe anyone an apology for giving my initial merge suggestion additional thought, after finding a reference that documented that multiple captives were suspected of being Riyadh the facilitator. Frankly, I think it was a mistake for you to state or imply that I have been acting in bad faith. Geo Swan (talk) 11:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand that is your point of view. I differ. There is nothing inconsistent between adding material, and arguing for merger -- presumably, that argues for merger of the added material. Other editors can decide for themselves whether it enhances the article to the point that it calls for keeping the article, or calls for merging the article, or neither -- but in no way do I see it as "disruptive and absurd". That strikes me as perhaps being slightly strident language to describe the addition of well-sourced text to the article. But, of course, you are welcome to disagree.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding a source is only laudable and appropriate if the desired outcome is keeping the article. Knowingly and deliberately building up a content fork of an existing article is neither laudable nor appropriate, it is disruptive. It is also disruptive and absurd to keep adding new info to the page and then arguing for merging this article somewhere else. Nsk92 (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- While I don't at this point have a view as to a !vote on the issue, I think the improvement of the article is not only appropriate but laudable. The addition of the sourced text is typical in a well-considered AfD.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:N--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Mar4d (talk) 04:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, quite a no-brainer. IQinn (talk) 23:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- I am going to make further changes to this article, and I would appreciate it if those who have voiced "delete" opinions -- and have therefore signalled that they do not think the article can be improved -- would refrain from reverting these improvements. Geo Swan (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- I would appreciate when you would stop adding information that is unsourced and violates BLP like this one and i will continue to remove such information what is not an improvement but rather a disruption. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 18:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You asserted that this edit of mine wasn't referenced. However, the paragraph where you excised that sentence included multiple references that confirmed that Sharqawi is the captive American intelligence officials decided to put forward as the real "Riyadh the facilitator". Two of those references explicitly quoted a passage that confirmed this identification, so you didn't even need to go to any of the references to confirm the identification.
- "List of "Ghost Prisoners" Possibly in CIA Custody: List of Detainees Published by Human Rights Watch". Human Rights Watch. 2005-11-30. Retrieved 2010-09-25.
Abdul Rahim al-Sharqawi (aka Riyadh the facilitator) Reportedly arrested in January 2002 Possibly Yemeni, suspected al-Qaeda member (possibly transferred to Guantanamo).
- Andy Worthington (2008-01-07). "Footsoldiers, Missionaries, Humanitarian Aid Workers: Who Are the Gitmo Saudis?". Counterpunch magazine. Retrieved 2010-09-25.
Also known as Riyadh the Facilitator, Sharqawi is a supposedly "high-value" detainee, described as "part of the al-Qaeda network responsible for moving Arabs to and from Afghanistan." Subjected to "extraordinary rendition" after his capture, he was sent to Jordan, to be "interrogated" by the Americans' proxy torturers in the Jordanians' notorious General Intelligence Department prison in Amman, where, he said, he was tortured continuously.
- "List of "Ghost Prisoners" Possibly in CIA Custody: List of Detainees Published by Human Rights Watch". Human Rights Watch. 2005-11-30. Retrieved 2010-09-25.
- A section of the following reference was entitled: "Abdul Rahim al-Sharqawi (Riyadh the facilitator)". Did you check any of the references, prior to claiming I was adding unreferenced assertions?
- "Fate and whereabouts unknown: Detainees in the "War on Terror"" (PDF). Center for Human Rights and Global Justice. 2005-12-17. Retrieved 2010-09-25.
The U.S. did not confirm custody of al-Shaqawi in the 9-11 Commission Report. However, some media reports refer to al-Sharqawi as being "known to be in custody" in a context which suggests that this is U.S. custody.
- "Fate and whereabouts unknown: Detainees in the "War on Terror"" (PDF). Center for Human Rights and Global Justice. 2005-12-17. Retrieved 2010-09-25.
- You have voiced a delete opinion here. You should only do this is you think the article could never be improved. And if you think it can't be improved, say so here, or on the talk page. Your attempts to "improve" the article, by reverting my improvements -- they are simply inappropriate from anyone on record with a "delete" opinion, even if your claims weren't incorrect. Geo Swan (talk) 08:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your claims that i removed were un-sourced and they are still un-sourced. You are messing up various sources, names and identities. Please be more careful.
- Your accusation of bad faith are uncivil and disruptive and i remember tons of other Afd's where you acted in a similar way whenever someone put any of your articles up for discussion you go mad. Your continuous uncivil behavior is highly disruptive and i think we have to deal with it sooner or later.
- I have improved the article as you did and that is a good thing. Should the article still be deleted? Yes looking at it in it's improved form the reason for delete keep the same. I do not see any reason why we should have this article on a pseudonym or nom de guerre or whatever you want to call it now. IQinn (talk) 08:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You asserted that this edit of mine wasn't referenced. However, the paragraph where you excised that sentence included multiple references that confirmed that Sharqawi is the captive American intelligence officials decided to put forward as the real "Riyadh the facilitator". Two of those references explicitly quoted a passage that confirmed this identification, so you didn't even need to go to any of the references to confirm the identification.
- Keep In this case (unlike some similar articles) there are enough sources. As for naming, we use whatever name we have, Many articles are about people known by pseudonyms--even contested pseudonyms. Name problems ≠ lack of notability. DGG ( talk ) 07:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Per DGG, sources.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 00:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nicola Meredith
- Nicola Meredith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Pure vandalism. Friginator (talk) 00:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete Tagged for WP:G1. –Dream out loud (talk) 00:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deleted by Starblind as A7 (No indication of importance.) Non-admin closure of AfD by 28bytes (talk) 02:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maddy Hitel
- Maddy Hitel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not noteworthy, very likely a page about the editor herself. Friginator (talk) 00:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete per WP:SNOW. This nomination has been listed over two weeks, with nobody to the rescue. A few Google searches finds zero reliable sources about this person. Her books are selling for less than $3 on eBay, hardly an endorsement of notability. Bearian (talk) 23:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Annette Breaux
- Annette Breaux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable author. Unable to substantiate grandiose claims or identify any significant coverage of the subject or the subject's writing in independent reliable sources. Bongomatic 11:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I searched through umpteen pages of google, and couldnt find any independent sources except for the same authors blurbs from book jackets and pitches for seminars. There should at least be local newspaper coverage of the FIRST program, etc. if someone locally could be found to look for it. Heiro 04:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment-if no one can even be bothered to comment on it, or the author bother to fix issues mentioned by the nom, why should it be relisted again? Why not just delete? The article was created by an SPA whose contribs 5 out of 7 were about this person. Heiro 00:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BLP, lack of reliable sources. Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Peter Karlsen. -- roleplayer 20:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jim Rowlands
- Jim Rowlands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is about a Welsh folk musician that does not have coverage in reliable sources. He has been played on the radio (see [73]) but that is a single show and not regular rotation play. Aside from that, I can find no articles written about him. Whpq (talk) 17:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. It is a BLP and the two sources provided are both primary and quite weak. I've tried a google search and nothing is leaping to attention. If no stronger sources are provided that can verify the subject matter I err on the side of delete. -- roleplayer 20:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:HEY - I found a few good sources, some in English, some French and some Welsh. My French is rusty and my Welsh is dependent on Google Translater. Rowlands has toured Britain and France extensively, and his music has been on two BBC stations and a documentary. I think he passes WP:MUSIC. Bearian (talk) 23:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Journey's End (Bionicle comic)
- Journey's End (Bionicle comic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Totally non-notable. This article is about two specific Bionicle comics, which feature something of a turning point in the story. Notable? No! The article doesn't even cite any sources. Who said that Bionicle, as a toy series featuring a fictional story, let alone two Bionicle comics that are only notable in the story, deserves such significant coverage here on Wikipedia, when the BIONICLEsector01 Wiki already practically contains the best Bionicle information on the Web? Believe me though, Bionicle had much more significant coverage on Wikipedia a while back, right down to the ity-bity details. By now, hat has been cleaned up, for the most part, but the article I am nominating here today is a rather recent (December 2009) upstart that has got to go. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 03:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Bionicle#2010_.E2.80.93_Journey.27s_End. --Divebomb (talk) 12:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete extremely unlikely any reliable sources exist. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
James Marshall Galbraith
- James Marshall Galbraith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Left in a sorry state for months; this is a potential copyvio (first sentence indicates article may have been taken from Marquis Who's Who, but I do not have a subscription to this service). Unsourced BLP as well; a Google search shows no significant coverage or indication of notability. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage. Joe Chill (talk) 23:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. While Starblind and Spartaz are dot on in their argument, I cannot ignore Milowent's keep statement. I find no consensus here for delete; yet, there is no prejudice towards an early AfD being opened in case the article is not improved. Wifione ....... Leave a message 20:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mona Johannesson
- Mona Johannesson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
nothing notable about this model. gets little coverage [74] LibStar (talk) 06:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep When Vogue says "If ever a girl was destined to be "the next Kate Moss", Mona must be she.", you are notable as a model. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- if in 2004 Vogue said that you would think by 2010 she would attract lots of coverage from 2005-2010 as the new Kate Moss. unfortunately not. similarly labels are put on teenage footballers as future Maradonas etc that don't eventuate. LibStar (talk) 23:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As the saying goes in Wikipedia: "Once notable, always notable." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete one of many many many working models, no evidence of significant coverage or extraordinary achievements. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The Google news results are mostly in German. Running it through Google Translator, I find one of the news results is entirely about her, giving detailed coverage. [75] Dream Focus 18:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this canvassing? I notice RAN did not wikilink this page, maybe to ensure that it didn't show up on what links here. Spartaz Humbug! 19:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You could just email someone if you wanted to be backhanded like that. My experience with RAN's typical editing style is that he doesn't always wikilink in talk page conversations.--Milowent • talkblp-r 19:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That might explain the lack of wikilink but please explain how that isn't canvassing? Spartaz Humbug! 19:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Canvassing is where you already know the outcome, or you demand a person vote a particular way. I did neither. I asked them to look and decide for themselves.
- While Dream often votes keep when RAN does, he also is an editor who does substantive work to rescue articles, e.g., he found the german article he references. Dream has 62 people watching his talk page, i am sure editors of many philosophies do.--Milowent • talkblp-r 20:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you bother reading the link I put up there? The person canvassed was Col Warden not Dreamfocus. Where did I say it was dreamfocus? Spartaz Humbug! 20:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You didn't, I just assumed it was and that's what started your skirt-the-line-of-AGF question. Its a shame that every attempt to get another editor to look at an AfD these days seems to elicit cries of canvassing. Its the same general bunch that shows up on close-to-call AfDs anyway.--Milowent • talkblp-r 21:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you bother reading the link I put up there? The person canvassed was Col Warden not Dreamfocus. Where did I say it was dreamfocus? Spartaz Humbug! 20:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- While Dream often votes keep when RAN does, he also is an editor who does substantive work to rescue articles, e.g., he found the german article he references. Dream has 62 people watching his talk page, i am sure editors of many philosophies do.--Milowent • talkblp-r 20:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete lack of sources. I checked all the sources in the article. Of the published sources, 1 was an interview and therefore doesn't count, another was the Vogue one and looks more op-ed then anything else and the third, in the NYT was incredibly tangential. Spartaz Humbug! 19:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your engaging in original research when you "looks more op-ed", and can you please cut and paste the rule that forbids interviews and op-ed pieces from being used for notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See below and its not synthesis to giove my evaluation of a source. It shows that I actually looked at it and considered. Doyou wish to comment on your canvassing Col Warden? Spartaz Humbug! 20:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Appropriate: Limited posting AND Neutral AND Nonpartisan AND Open. My notification met every criteria, so what's the beef? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is from N ""Sources,"[2] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, " OR defines a secondary source as "Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, at least one step removed from an event." This an interview is a primary source and a profile is a secondary source. This has been policy for years and years and there is nothing off base on my analysis of policy which has been the basis for establishing notability sources for a very long time. Spartaz Humbug! 20:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See below and its not synthesis to giove my evaluation of a source. It shows that I actually looked at it and considered. Doyou wish to comment on your canvassing Col Warden? Spartaz Humbug! 20:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So an interview in Vanity Fair, or the New York Times magazine, or being interviewed by Larry King or Barbara Walters would not make a person notable? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've seen you argue this before and was unpersuaded. A blog from the model would be a primary source. An interview is funneled though the secondary source of a journalist/publication, and I don't see the rational basis for distinguishing it, i.e., it would be absurd to rely on a secondary source article that simply relied on the prior interview article, and then claim that the latter source is a better indicator of notability.--Milowent • talkblp-r 21:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't matter if you are persuaded or not, the issue is whether my argument is policy based and that's for the closing admin to determine. Spartaz Humbug! 02:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sure that admin can consider whether an interview of the type cited in this discussion should be given the same weight for notability as a blog or website run by the subject. Your only reason for equating the two is labeling them all as "primary sources." In the scheme of things, however, there are a slew more press references in Swedish that the nominator was not aware of and say she is one of the top models in Sweden.--Milowent • talkblp-r 11:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And at the very least re the interview[77] the paragraph that introduces the interview, the breakout box, and the paragraph of text captioning the picture (calling her Sweden's hottest model who won Elle's award for the year's top model) are secondary source material.--Milowent • talkblp-r 11:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sure that admin can consider whether an interview of the type cited in this discussion should be given the same weight for notability as a blog or website run by the subject. Your only reason for equating the two is labeling them all as "primary sources." In the scheme of things, however, there are a slew more press references in Swedish that the nominator was not aware of and say she is one of the top models in Sweden.--Milowent • talkblp-r 11:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't matter if you are persuaded or not, the issue is whether my argument is policy based and that's for the closing admin to determine. Spartaz Humbug! 02:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've seen you argue this before and was unpersuaded. A blog from the model would be a primary source. An interview is funneled though the secondary source of a journalist/publication, and I don't see the rational basis for distinguishing it, i.e., it would be absurd to rely on a secondary source article that simply relied on the prior interview article, and then claim that the latter source is a better indicator of notability.--Milowent • talkblp-r 21:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your engaging in original research when you "looks more op-ed", and can you please cut and paste the rule that forbids interviews and op-ed pieces from being used for notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep(ec): The only debate in this AfD is whether the coverage is sufficient enough to meet WP:N. I am inclined to think it is. I am not surprised to see that editors like LibStar and Starblind disagree, while RAN and Dream Focus think she is sufficiently notable. In a case like Johannesson it often comes down to a judgment call and how hard we look, and the outcomes in these AfDs are not always consistent. The oft-repeated claim that she is/was the next Kate Moss[78] is somewhat hyperbole, but not completely something to disregard. Numerous magazine covers [79][80] (numerous covers of Elle Sweden), and spreads [81] (warning: tasteful nudity), and other references ( [82] - swedish columnist in Expressen refers to her as "one of our most successful models", see "att Mona är en av våra mest framgångsrika modeller"; another Expressen article (Feb 11, 2007) [83] says she is one of the top models in Sweden ("Mona Johannesson, 18, segrat. - Mona har blivit väldigt stor" - basically, she has triumphed, she has become big); another Expressen blurb lists her as third sexiest swedish woman (calling her a supermodel) [84]; Aftonbladet lists her 4th of Sweden's top models [85] (Nov. 15, 2009); Aftonbladet July 25, 2006 piece [86] (full text behind pay wall, its the "Att vara" article); Svenska Dagbladet article (October 5, 2008) lists her as one of four most sought-after Swedish models, etc. Thus we can safely conclude she's not just another run of the mill model. (Note these are three of Swedish's highest circulation papers, I searched their archives.) This AfD is not unlike Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sigmund Borgundvåg, its more difficult to find scandanavian sources because they don't all seem to be on google. But in the end, I think the coverage is sufficient that deletion would not benefit the project.--Milowent • talkblp-r 19:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep i am questioning why this article was put up for Afd at its current version... hmm. I say strong keep anyhow,.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:JUSTAVOTE. no explanation is provided of how this meets WP:N. LibStar (talk) 12:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong chatter 22:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Daylon Wear
- Daylon Wear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is about a country music musician that does not have any reliable sources to establish notability. The article makes a claim that one of his songs charted on Billboard but does not state what song. A trip to his web site indicates the song is "What She's Doing in Denver" but does not state what the peak chart position was.
I can find no confirmation of the song charting on Billboard. I can find no significant coverage about this musician. He has released only one album on an independent label. As such, the only criterion from WP:MUSICBIO which this person may possibly meet is having a charting song, which I can find no sourcing to confirm. Whpq (talk) 13:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BLP, massively insufficient sourcing. Peter Karlsen (talk) 00:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sajjad Waqar Khan
- Sajjad Waqar Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is a about a journalist with no reliable sources to establish notability. I can find no significant coverage about him.
The article indicates he is known for the show Business Bazar on Ary and CNBC Pakistan. I'm assuming that this means that the subject is the host / presenter of the show. It is unclear whether these shows are current. I was unable to find the show on the Ary web site. CNBC Pakistan lists a shows called Bazaar but provides no information on the host, nor is the subject listed as a presenter. So not only I am unable to find third-party sourcing, I am unable to even verify information through primary sourcing. Whpq (talk) 15:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the best sourcing I can find is that a TV journalist of this name works for ARY ONE [87] and ARY ONE does have a programme called Business Bazaar [88]. Since I can barely verify the subject's existence the sourcing certainly doesn't indicate notability. Hut 8.5 14:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dirty Red
- Dirty Red (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. ttonyb (talk) 15:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I found zero significant coverage. Joe Chill (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Appold Street
- Appold Street (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
London has thousands of streets, and this one does not seem to be notable. –Dream out loud (talk) 01:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Only one sentence, and no assertion of notability. Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No assertion of notability whatsoever, and based on Google Maps, the street's only about three blocks long. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 03:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I can find nothing particularly notable about this street. -- roleplayer 19:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no evidence of notability. --Kinu t/c 20:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Unimportant side street. Dough4872 03:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DElete -- The failure to say anything about it, except that it exists, suggests it is NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Worship Street
- Worship Street (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
London has thousands of streets, and this one does not seem to be notable. –Dream out loud (talk) 00:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No indication of notability, and based on Google Maps, it's not a particularly long street. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 03:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - there appear to be two pubs and some businesses along this street... and that's about it. Nothing particularly worthy of mention. -- roleplayer 19:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no evidence of notability. --Kinu t/c 20:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Unimportant side street. Dough4872 03:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- We cannot have articles on every street. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was fails WP:BAND; NN artist. Speedy deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PMDrive1061 (talk • contribs)
Cflynna
- Cflynna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No reliable sources could be found on the subject. Seems to fail WP:NM. –Dream out loud (talk) 00:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Hero's Journey and The Old Woman and The Rice Cakes
- The Hero's Journey and The Old Woman and The Rice Cakes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article does not establish the context of the subject (I'm guessing it is a story), but does not satisfy WP:A1 for speedy deletion. No subjects with this title could be found from web search. –Dream out loud (talk) 00:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as it is unverifiable. Armbrust Talk Contribs 11:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The Hero's Journey is a narrative pattern (see Monomyth); the story of the The Old Woman and The Rice Cakes can be found here; looks like an old Japanese tale. With any sources the article looks very much like original research. Edgepedia (talk) 12:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete based on Edgepedia's information, this is essentially the outline for Japanese literature essay. -- Whpq (talk) 14:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Original research. Edward321 (talk) 23:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment seems to be a real folk tale, appearing in several feminist folk tale collections. Perhaps change the article to "The Old Woman and the Rice Cakes" and rewrite. Delete the part in the title about "Hero's Journey". It could be a useful article about the folk tale with a few tweaks. So Keep, with changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alwayssoma (talk • contribs) 16:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wifione ....... Leave a message 20:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jennifer Little
- Jennifer Little (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subjected identified as a Broadway/film actress. Only an ensemble member in one performance (according to the IBDB[89]) and no listing at the IMDb.[90] Fails WP:PEOPLE. –Dream out loud (talk) 00:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well... just as IMDB is not considered suitable as the final arbiter in a film and television actor's career, neither is IBDB reliable or up-to-date for stage actors. Sources are easily available to show this individual AS having done far more than one or two significant roles in notable (stage) productions. It's always best to look beyond two non-RS in making any determination. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm afraid the subject simply does not have enough notability. Virtually nothing in Google News and nothing in Google Books. Only two very small parts on Broadway, can be verified. Only an ensemble Member in a charity concert performance of Chess organized by Michael Cerveris [91]. Apparently sang the title role in Mame in a small town production [92]. If anything only a regional winner in the The MacAllister Awards (for young opera singers). Voceditenore (talk) 19:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A deeper look finds that she indeed has received positive critical response for her in significant roles in multiple notable stage productions. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete In reading through some of the blog sites related to this artist (which are probably true but not reliable per wikipedia standards), it seems that Little has sung Carlotta in The Phantom of the Opera in several professional touring productions in Europe and the United States. Indeed, she seems to have an extensive amount of experience in notable touring shows of this kind; especially in Europe. However, these types of shows have no database records and are difficult to find verifiable references for. If reliable sources for these could be found than I will change my vote to keep.4meter4 (talk) 22:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See sources offered below. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - There's an argument to be made that this person could pass WP:GNG but I can't see them passing WP:ENT and as such I'm voting delete on this one. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 17:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, for a stage actress, the positive coverage for her significant roles in multiple notable stage productions meets or exceeds both WP:ENT and WP:GNG. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There's an element of COI and "CV posting" to this article. (The creator is SngrLittle) That isn't a reason to delete, but I suspect some of the CV is a little "padded" given the paucity of information. Not a reliable source, but the Phantom cast lists here and here say that she sang a small role in the US Phantom tour (Madame Firmin) and was only the understudy for Carlotta in 3 cities on provincial tours in the US and possibly Germany. Little, herself has also provided a brief bio for the site which lists a lot of opera roles, but in my experience, singers often include ones they sang in student productions or community productions. If they were in major opera houses, they would say so. And I can find no opera reviews mentioning her. She does seem to have played the lead in an off-off-broadway production of Madame Bovary, the musical. It's all awfully thin. I'm willing to change my mind if someone can up with something concrete though. But watch out when searching because there is another soprano from New Zealand with the same name [93]. Voceditenore (talk) 18:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And now that the article is Wikipedia's, we can use available sources to address issues through regular editing. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per actress meeting WP:ENT for her significant roles in multiple notable {stage) productions, and for meeting WP:GNG with her positive critical comentary in multiple reliable sources: Washington Post (2000)Morning Call (2004), Intelligencer (2004), and more Issues with tone and style are now best addressed through regular editing, and not through deletion because they have not yet been done. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I had seen all the sources you've listed and had considered them before I !voted "delete". The first one is not about this person at all. (I have access to the complete articles through my subscription to Highbeam Research [94]) It is about a student at Lee High School in Northern Virginia who won a local student theatre award for her choreography of her school's show called Makiddo. The next two are nearly identical preview articles in the local Allentown press for a small-town production of Mame - not critical commentary or reviews and definitely not a notable production (it's not even an official Broadway touring show, just a one-off production by a local businessman). The general Google News search results, do not yield anything that has already been covered in this discussion and many of them do not even refer to this Jennifer Little. As for notable multiple productions, I disagree that the very small roles and understudy and ensemble parts that she's been confirmed as playing qualify. The only one that might conceivably qualify is the Madame Bovary role in an off-Broadway theatre that seats 100 people.[95] The problem here is not the style and tone of the article. That can be fixed. The problem is its failure to reach the notability guidelines. I've rescued quite a few articles from AfD that originally began as autobiographies or COI (e.g. Dennis Ferry, Simone Tomassini, Family Opera Initiative, Marco Lazzara). But in my opinion, this one is not rescue-able on the bases of the sources which have been found. Voceditenore (talk) 12:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at all the evidence, I can't see that any of the sources show notability - either on the stub or as raised by MichaelQSchmidt. Sorry, but there is no proof that she's notable. Delete, subject to when she actually makes it big. Break a leg, kiddo. Bearian (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rabbit Punch (the game)
- Rabbit Punch (the game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No sources found. Seems to fail notability guidelines. –Dream out loud (talk) 00:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This an arcade game that does not appear to have coverage in reliable sources. This [**blocked by wikipedia's spam filters article**] isn't from what we would consider to be a reliable source. But it does point out that the game also went by the name of "Rabio Lepus". I've looked using both names and have been able to find any coverage in reliable sources. The game is catalogued in directories of games, and MAME downloads. This blog post indicates that it even became a Playstation 2 game. But none of this coverage is through reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 14:59, 6 October 2010 (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) 19:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I can only gather that this arcade machine existed, which is not sufficient grounds for inclusion. I tried various search terms ("rabbit punch" + "bally", etc) on Google Books and so on, but it appears no-one has written about this game. Marasmusine (talk) 11:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.