< 8 October | 10 October > |
---|
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Jujutacular talk 00:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Republic of Texas (1861)
- Republic of Texas (1861) (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)
As has been explained in depth at the talk page, this is a non-blatant hoax: Texas never claimed to be a republic in 1861, and the information on this page is a mistaken (although apparently good faith) falsehood. This is related to Texas in the American Civil War, but it's an unlikely enough search target that it wouldn't be good to redirect. Nyttend (talk) 23:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DELETE - This article is in error - the Republic of Texas was not reconstituted by the State of Texas following its attempted secession of 1861. During the time between the passage of the secession ordinance and the acceptance of membership in the Confederate States of America, Texas referred to itself as a State, not a Republic, which was consistent with the sovereign State ideology of the secessionists, and the language of the 19th century South, which saw a "State" as a sovereign entity no different than a republic unless bound into a union or confederation. To wit, Section I of the document generated by the secessionist government of Texas formally accepting membership in the CSA reads as follows:
- "The People of Texas, in Convention assembled, Have ordained and declared, and do hereby ordain and declare, that the delegation aforesaid, to the Congress aforesaid, be, and they are hereby instructed, and we do accordingly instruct them, in behalf of the State, and as representing its sovereign authority, to apply for the admission of this State into said Confederacy; and to that end and for that purpose, to give in the adhesion of Texas to the provisional Constitution of said Confederate States; and which said Constitution, this Convention hereby approves, ratifies and accepts."
- Note that this document states that the delegation it had sent to the Confederate Congress as an independent entity was instructed "in behalf of the State" to apply for admission of "this State" to the Confederacy. This is the government of Texas in the period between the adoption of the secession ordinance and accession to the CSA speaking of itself as the State of Texas, not the Republic of Texas. The ROT was legally dissolved by consent of the people of Texas with the treaty of accession into the USA in 1845 and reorganized into the State of Texas, which in 1861 continued to operate on a presumption of independence from secession.
- Given that the entity described by this article never existed, this page contains false information and should be removed.
- (The documentary evidence included here is drawn from: The Constitution of the State of Texas, (as Amended in 1861, The Constitution of the Confederate States of America, The Ordinances of the Texas Convention, and An Address to the People of Texas. Austin: Printed by John Marshall, State Printer, 1861, pp. 24-25.)
Professor Storyteller (talk) 03:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Professor Storyteller's words here are functionally identical to his/her words at the talk page to which I referred earlier. Nyttend (talk) 04:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The entire argument presented by Storyteller, seems to revolve around the name of the country, not its existence, that is not a reason for deletion, since a simple article rename and some copyediting can correct that problem. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 04:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment-RebuttalThe argument I presented is that there is no Republic of Texas in 1861, the fundamental assertion of this article. If one copyedits it to "State of Texas" to match the evidence, then we have a stub of an article pointing out that the State of Texas attempted to secede from the Union in early 1861 and joined the Confederacy a few weeks later - facts already covered in articles on Texas and the Civil War. That would make this article redundant in the extreme - and thus still an excellent candidate for deletion. One final point - the Supreme Court ruled in 1868 that the ordinance of secession of Texas in 1861 was null and void, being without legal force, and thus no "country" existed as a result of that legally nullified action. The Republic of Texas as a nation ceased to exist with its accession to the Union in the 1840s, and has not existed since.Professor Storyteller (talk) 05:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment-Reply we have articles on Transnistria, Somaliland, South Ossetia, etc, various self-declared countries where the constitutional courts of their progenitor countries have not recognized their existences. So the ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States of America saying that the Confederate States of America did not legally exist is not really relevant. As this "country" existed between the declaration of succession and preceding the accession to the CSA, it is like many other countries that we have articles on that existed a matter of weeks. We have several such articles about European countries. There's also Taiwan, where we have a treatment of the subject in the manner of a country, when it is really a separate government that covers part of the territory of a country, and is a separate central government, with a second central government that covers the rest of the country, which is also somewhat applicable here, since this is a separate central government that governs a portion of a country than the other central government, if we take your stand that Texas never left the Union. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 06:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment-Rebuttal*** Again, you've missed the point. The State of Texas has its own article, which covers the whole of Texan history, including the period when the State of Texas claimed to be separated from USA and not yet integrated into the CSA. This article is redundant - except that it claims the State of Texas reorganized itself as the "Republic of Texas" for a few weeks in 1861. Since that is patently untrue - see the document excerpt above - the article simply notes a period when the State of Texas claimed to be independent. As that period is already covered by other articles, the article has no point. Also, while this is irrelevant to whether or not this article should be retained, it is not *my* stand that Texas never left the Union - it is the binding constitutional consensus of American law, a consensus that existed prior to the Civil War.Professor Storyteller (talk) 08:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment-RebuttalThe argument I presented is that there is no Republic of Texas in 1861, the fundamental assertion of this article. If one copyedits it to "State of Texas" to match the evidence, then we have a stub of an article pointing out that the State of Texas attempted to secede from the Union in early 1861 and joined the Confederacy a few weeks later - facts already covered in articles on Texas and the Civil War. That would make this article redundant in the extreme - and thus still an excellent candidate for deletion. One final point - the Supreme Court ruled in 1868 that the ordinance of secession of Texas in 1861 was null and void, being without legal force, and thus no "country" existed as a result of that legally nullified action. The Republic of Texas as a nation ceased to exist with its accession to the Union in the 1840s, and has not existed since.Professor Storyteller (talk) 05:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The suggestion to rename the article would be good in many other circumstances; however, such a move would duplicate information already in the Texas in the Civil War article, so it's pointless to maintain this as a separate article. Additionally, if this article had a title such as "Texas (1861)", I'd simply redirect it to the Texas in the Civil War article; however, there's not likely to be anyone who searches for "Republic of Texas (1861)" when they really want "Texas in the American Civil War", so it would not be a good redirect. That's why I've come here to AFD. Nyttend (talk) 12:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since this "Republic of texas" was only around for a month or two and since this article is just a stub and is unlikely to get much longer due to the short duration of its existence I would suggest just merging it into the texas article. If at some point in the future enough information is available (which is unlikely) then the article could be recreated. --Kumioko (talk) 14:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Kumioko - This "Republic of Texas" never existed. See the information above.Professor Storyteller (talk) 18:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since this "Republic of texas" was only around for a month or two and since this article is just a stub and is unlikely to get much longer due to the short duration of its existence I would suggest just merging it into the texas article. If at some point in the future enough information is available (which is unlikely) then the article could be recreated. --Kumioko (talk) 14:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The suggestion to rename the article would be good in many other circumstances; however, such a move would duplicate information already in the Texas in the Civil War article, so it's pointless to maintain this as a separate article. Additionally, if this article had a title such as "Texas (1861)", I'd simply redirect it to the Texas in the Civil War article; however, there's not likely to be anyone who searches for "Republic of Texas (1861)" when they really want "Texas in the American Civil War", so it would not be a good redirect. That's why I've come here to AFD. Nyttend (talk) 12:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While content may never be massive, the topic seems sufficient to merit an encyclopedic entry. Even if the article never expands beyond the stub stage, the information is significant and encyclopedia-worthy.—Carrite, Oct. 10, 2010.
- Carrite - why would false information be significant and encyclopedia-worthy?Professor Storyteller (talk) 18:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete and comment - The process of Texas secession and joining the CSA is covered in the section Texas in the American Civil War#Secession. If there is enough info to warrant breaking that section out into its own page, that would be fine. We do have, for example, Missouri secession. Every CSA state had a period between secession and joining the CSA. Info about it is covered in each state's "..in the Amerian Civil War" page. I don't see a need for also having pages specifically about each state's existence between secession and joining, formatted in the manner of pages about sovereign nations. However, I note we have the page Republic of South Carolina. As far as I can tell it is the only other CSA state with a page of this kind. It makes a little more sense for South Carolina to have a page like this, perhaps, although I'm not sure it should be titled "republic of". Pfly (talk) 21:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, unless I'm mistaken, wasn't the idea at the time that the seceding states were sovereign all along, and merely leaving one federation and joining another confederation? What I mean is that Texas as a "sovereign state" did not begin on the date of its secession from the Union, rather Texas had been sovereign all along, no? Isn't this basically the idea that was later rejected by the Supreme Court? If this is the case, then wouldn't the republic/state of Texas described on this page be the exact same Texas described on the Texas page? That one of the issues of the Civil War was whether states were in fact truly sovereign or not? Pfly (talk) 21:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that South Carolina should not be listed as a Republic, unless someone has found sources showing that the state government reconstituted itself as such between secession and accession to the CSA. I'm not an expert there - I do remember a quasi-humorous aside from a South Carolinian unionist to the effect that the state was too small to be a republic, but that's the extent of my knowledge without some research. Let me know if you want to make a change there, however, and I will help if I can. And I do agree that a notation of Texas' period between secession and accession would be better served in another article, rather than broken out separately - unless a state went to the effort of calling itself a sovereign nation in its own documents in this period, I think we're better off treating them as viewing their actions as the "reclaiming" of status as sovereign states, then forming a new entity. There's no evidence I am aware of that these states ever intended to maintain independent existences - secession was a painful choice, and all involved were very aware of the risks of going it alone. They all intended to create a "new and more perfect union" - as evidenced by the similarity of the CS Constitution to the US Constitution.
- As to the question of sovereignty, that was indeed the hot-button constitutional issue underlying the larger fight over slavery. All the way back to the Founders at Philadelphia, who ditched the idea of sovereign states in favor of the sovereign people represented by "We, the People of the United States of America," this issue has been resisted by those who favor the approach maintained in the Articles of Confederation. The southern states in 1861 were indeed operating under the idea that they had never sacrificed their sovereignty, in a change from their position on New England secession a few decades before. However, the rest of the nation supported the constitutional concept of the sovereign people, which underlies the Supreme Court decision on Texas secession in 1868. In effect, SCOTUS ruled that as the people of America as a whole are sovereign, only they as a whole can approve the loss of part of America to secession - not just that fraction of the sovereign people living in the secessionist state. The Civil War, and with it this court decision, reinforced the assertions at the root of the Constitution and crushed the opposition idea - at least until fairly recently.
- But, in fact, if we take your argument that Texas is the same entity whether Republic, state within the USA, state operating as secessionist independent sovereignty, state with the CSA, or state restored to the USA, then there is no need for separate pages on Texas. Yet the Republic of Texas that existed from the 1830s to the mid-1840s does have notable significance for being an independent nation for nearly a decade, and I believe it merits inclusion on those grounds, *because it claimed to be a republic in this period*, which it did not in 1861.
- Reply: I didn't intend to say the Republic of Texas was the same as the State of Texas. I used the word republic because this page is titled Republic of Texas (1861). That's the so-called "republic" I was referring to. The Republic of Texas is obviously a special case. Even things like the California Republic, which was very short-lived and never really a "state", are obvious special cases, because of their historical importance and the widespread usage of the names. Pfly (talk) 22:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - My apologies for misunderstanding. I agree completely.Professor Storyteller (talk) 22:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: I didn't intend to say the Republic of Texas was the same as the State of Texas. I used the word republic because this page is titled Republic of Texas (1861). That's the so-called "republic" I was referring to. The Republic of Texas is obviously a special case. Even things like the California Republic, which was very short-lived and never really a "state", are obvious special cases, because of their historical importance and the widespread usage of the names. Pfly (talk) 22:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I've looked into this a bit more. It turns out the "Republic of South Carolina" is a term used in reliable sources, and even described in one as "technically an independent nation". I added a reference to the Republic of South Carolina page. I searched for but could not find any evidence of the phrase "Republic of Texas" being used for the 1861 state. On the contrary, Article XIII of the 1861 Constitution of the State of Texas makes an explicit distinction between the terms Republic of Texas and State of Texas (online here). Further, my searching made it rather clear that the secession of Texas and the joining of the CSA were very tightly linked--that there was no real intention for Texas to be an independent nation. See, for example, TSHA, Constitution of 1861. Also TSHA, Secession ("...With a touch of drama the secession of the state became official on March 2, Texas Independence Day. On March 5 the Secession Convention reassembled and took further steps to join the Confederacy... All current state officials were obligated to take an oath of loyalty to the Confederacy.") In short, by the time Texas seceded it was clear that there would be a new confederation to join. South Carolina, being the first, did not have the luxury of knowing for sure that any other state would secede. Pfly (talk) 04:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Based on the research provided herein (as well as my own), there appears to be no source indicating that the term "Republic of Texas" was used again for the entity of Texas between secession from the Union and joining of the Confederacy. As it stands, this article violates WP:V. --Kinu t/c 05:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Pfly - I stand corrected, then, on South Carolina - thank you for the research! This is truly fascinating information, especially the actions of the Secession Convention with regards to the CSA and the oaths. I also did not know about 2 March 1861 being Texas Independence Day in nullified state law.
- Would I be correct, then, in thinking you've moved from weak delete to stronger support for deletion?Professor Storyteller (talk) 06:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Kinu - thank you for your thoughts!Professor Storyteller (talk) 06:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The claim that Texas was an independent state before it became CSA is WP:OR. Even if it were not, nobody has written about it so the claim is not noteworhy. Shii (tock) 05:16, 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 halten. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blinkenlights
- Blinkenlights (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 beyond a single Jargon File entry, which may or may not be a RS. Only hits I found were books/articles/etc. that used the term without discussing its origin, etymology, etc. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep Found and added two book references. It is attributed to IBM 1955. Well known among computer geeks in the era of blinking lights on front panels of computers, if not the most important bit of humor in the world. Edison (talk) 01:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Another Weak Keep - the de.wiki article (de:Blinkenlights (Jargon)) quotes a number of book references, so apparently it's possible to source the article. Unfortunately I don't have access to any of the books de lists as a reference, so i don't want to add them to our article without checking what the sources actually say. -- Ferkelparade π 20:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - It's origin is a joke poster written in faux German. But its usage to refer to diagnotic LED lights on computers and telecommuncations equipment persists. book documents it with a writeup of over 1 page which goes beyond a passing mention. There's code snippets in progamming books describing how to program your own Blinkenlights. There's other writeups too. This a weak keep for me because it borders on a dictionary definition for a slang term for LED diagnostic and status lights. -- Whpq (talk) 13:37, 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 keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of chemical compounds with unusual names
- Articles for deletion/List of chemical compounds with unusual names
- Articles for deletion/List of chemical compounds with unusual names (2nd nomination)
- Articles for deletion/List of chemical compounds with unusual names (3rd nomination)
- Articles for deletion/List of chemical compounds with unusual names (4th nomination)
- Articles for deletion/List of chemical compounds with unusual names (5th nomination)
- Articles for deletion/List of chemical compounds with unusual names (6th nomination)
- List of chemical compounds with unusual names (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 qualifier for "unusual", blatant and inherent OR as a result. Last AFD kept in part because nominator was actually neutral (wtf?). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the nth time this is brought up. Why don't you just forget about it. --vuo (talk) 22:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it's not really gotten a proper discussion? The second AFD was three years ago and no consensus; the last one, from last year, was nominated by someone who was arguing neutrally, which is a really weird thing to do in AFD. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:LIST, WP:V, and WP:N. There are several reliable and independent sources listing these as chemical molecules with silly names. See "Molecules With Silly Or Unusual Names," by Paul May, published by Imperial College Press, 2008, ISBN-13: 978-1848162075. See also "Storyville: Molecular scientists have a word for it." The Independent on Sunday, Feb 1, 2004 by David Randall. He also finds amusing "Curious chloride" and "Moronic acid" from the Bristol University list. In many cases, the names were selected to be amusing or whimsical. A ref specifically saying that "arsole" has an unfortunate silly name is [1] "Chemical Cock-ups: A Story of How Not to Name a Chemical Compound Created" BBC, 13th April 2006. Then they in turn cite the Bristol site. The Royal Society of Chemistry makes fun of the silly name of Moronic acid at [2] in their Autumn 2005 newsletter. Another reliable and independent source listing some of these as having silly names is [3] "The New Book of Lists: The Original Compendium of Curious Information"(2005) By David Wallechinsky, Amy Wallace, page 203. Any entries which are not citeable to a reliable source which says it is a silly or unusual name can be deleted by the normal editing process. Edison (talk) 00:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep not OR as there are a lot of sources on this subject.—Chris!c/t 01:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep this list is well referenced and the refs that it uses (listed above) shows why the list itself is not OR as it has some broader interest from people. Also, two issues from the previous nom: it closed as keep not because of the neutral vote of the nominator, but because of the majority of keep votes; the other point I found worthwhile is that substances like "Penguinone" are not notable enough to warrant their own article, but a redirect could be provided for them to this list. Therefore there is a catalogue of such substances (that people check) here instead of in separate stub-articles. Nergaal (talk) 01:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep although more sources would be appreciated. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep. It is well referenced. It is clear that the fact, that chemical nomenclature can lead to some humorous and startling, is clearly recognised in many sources. It is an article that I am sure many readers have found interesting. There is no reason to delete this. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the list of offline references appears to conclusively demonstrate that multiple reliable sources have covered "unusual chemical names" as a topic in its own right. Even using the most restrictive proposed criteria for standalone list notability, which I do not endorse, this topic would meet notability standards. You really need to impeach the offline sources (which I haven't read, I'm just going by what's currently in the article) in order to bring this up in a non-disruptive manner. Jclemens (talk) 04:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a repository of trivia and there is no way to define objectively what "unusual" means for deciding whether a compound should be included or not. "Adamantane"? What's "unusual" about it? What's so unusual about "Barrelene" or "Borneol" or "Cubane" or "Titanic acid"? This is really "List of compounds with names that bear some resemblance through spelling or pronunciation to a sexual or excretory function" which, while having snigger value, is not the basis of a Wikipedia article. Any supposed usefulness of this list as an index of redirects is undone by the existence of List of inorganic compounds, List of organic compounds and List of biomolecules. "It's interesting" is not a reasonable basis for keeping and neither is "people enjoy reading it". A Radish for Boris (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]- User:A Radish for Boris has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Jclemens (talk) 17:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment All you have asserted is WP:IDONTLIKEIT while ignoring Keep arguments grounded in policies and guidelines. That is totally irrelevant. Please argue by citing policies and guidelines. Edison (talk) 03:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well actually, to the non-dicks among us WP:TRIVIA is a guideline and an article that is nothing but an extended trivia section falls under that guideline. That some random reporter decided that one or another molecule has a "silly" name hardly meets the minimum standards for inclusion. I could just as easily dismiss your comments by citing WP:ILIKEIT but I try not to be a douchebag. The point still stands that this is an entirely arbitrary list with nothing that begins to approach a reasonable inclusion standard beyond "Someone whose primary language is English might giggle because the name of this molecule sounds like shitting or fucking". A Radish for Boris (talk) 16:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would endorse removal of any entries which cannot be sourced in a book or other reliable source which explicitly calls attention to it as a compound with a silly name. A great many lists have such criteria for membership, such as "major battles" of some war. It should not be just the opinion of a Wikipedia editor. If the book lists it, and the book is from a respected publisher, then that is a reasonable criterion. That is not at all "arbitrary." Edison (talk) 19:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, and trout slap the nominator for wasting other's time by frivolously renominating which has been repeatedly kept by increasing margins with no new argument beyond a gratuitous swipe at another editor. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Metanomski and May are clearly enough to establish notability of the subject. With that in mind and considering that the article is otherwise fairly well sourced and by no means beyond repair (regular editing), I fail to see how you would otherwise approach this subject. A list seems like the obvious format to me. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Oddly enough, this is a subject that people write about. The lede is rather too chatty for my taste, but the list is sourced, and may tempt the curious to read up about some of the items on it.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep per Edison and Elen of the Roads (inter alia). Peridon (talk) 17:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep and a sloppy wet trout for the nom. The inclusion criteria for this "List of X" are "what WP:RS says is considered X", and several are cited--that satisfies even the most deletion-minded reading of a stand-alone list article requirement. Those same sources that define terms and identify members were what led to the keep last time. The nom doesn't actually matter once the debate gets rolling (closure/consensus is of !votes based on their stated merits to keep/delete, not strict up/down agreement with stated nom). DMacks (talk) 21:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Even if the nominator at the 3rd deletion debate didn't offer an opinion, it is blatantly obvious from the long list of "keep" opinions that there was a clear community consensus to keep the article. Add to that the opinions at the other AFDs that were closed as keep and it becomes puzzling how this ended up here again. The cited reliable sources establish notability and negate any concerns about OR. ChemNerd (talk) 23:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep eminently notable topic oft-discussed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:05, 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 Mandsford 22:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mary Althaus
- Mary Althaus (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 independent of the subject to verify the contents of the article and sufficiently assess notability. Hosting a Japanese language television course does not rise to the level of notability required for inclusion. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF. J04n(talk page) 21:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 21:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 21:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 21:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Article lacks Attribution to Verify WP:BIO or WP:BLP notability criteria, much less WP:GNG. Happy Editing! — 71.166.157.40 (talk · contribs) 02:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can find no reliable independent sources which would indicate that she meets the criteria for inclusion -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I think nom pegs it correctly. Even if a source were found to confirm some of the basics, the main claim of notability seems to rest on being the host of a tele-course – this is a country mile short of notability. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Speedy Delete. Not even close to being notable. 68.45.109.14 (talk) 16:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:V --> doesn't belong here. Alzarian16 (talk) 09:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There look to be a few relevant hits on google scholar, but none are remotely well-cited. Otherwise, not finding anything at all. Sailsbystars (talk) 16:10, 14 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. The vandalism does not matter, but the lack of published sources makes the article fail WP:GNG and WP:VERIFIABILITY. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 13:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Scouts Royale Brotherhood
- Scouts Royale Brotherhood (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 has been tagged for notability and other concerns for some time. I have drawn attention to these on the talk page, but in spite of 26 edits so far this month, none of them have addressed these concerns. There are no independent sources. It does not seem that this article can meet our notability guidelines. Let us see whether an AfD proposal can lead to improvement or, if not, to deletion. Bduke (Discussion) 20:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Has been tagged since June 2009 for having no references, has been extensively edited by coi editors and clearly NOT notable.TeapotgeorgeTalk 20:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral I think it's possible this could be notable, but given those editing it haven't added one single ref in that time, that's a problem. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper nom, nobody involved seems to care enough to clean this turkey up, so it's not that notable.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 06:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Changing my vote to Very Strong Delete-despite Naraht's laudable and valiant efforts, the nn IP edits keep rolling in faster than anyone should waste their time dealing with every day. If those unregistered users ignore the stack of warnings at the top of this crapmagnet even during this discussion, it will never get better.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 15:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a specious argument. If this was a Featured Article, that would mean it was notable and we wouldn't be having this AfD at all. Since it's not and we are, yes I do.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 01:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I concur. Vandalism and POV edits on the article can be dealth with through watchlisting the article, editting, or reverting matrial, and in exceptional cases, protecting the page. Whether the article is kept or deleted really boils down to reliable sourcing. The degree of vandalism it attracts is not relevant. -- Whpq (talk) 18:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep For lack of better description, I'm probably the closest thing to an experienced editor who has any connection at all with this article. This article suffers from the same issues that most of the Philippine Fraternity articles suffer from. Unregistered users who don't really understand Wikipedia and are only making changes with what they know. For various reasons including the lack of National Offices and official web pages, which though primary, would at least be stable, pulling out references is difficult. Also, Google news archive which can be a good source for USA fraternities notability is almost useless for this. Recently I went through and did compare their early chapters to Alpha Phi Omega sorting out the ones that are named the same deliberately or not. I'll try to take a crack at salvaging the article over the next week or so. I know it doesn't count as a {{hold on}} but I'd like to try.Naraht (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wikipedia's notability criteria are based on the existence of significant coverage in third party reliable sources. If there are no such third party reliable sources then by Wikipedia's standards the subject is not notable, no matter what the reason for the lack of such sources. To say (in effect) "we should keep this article because, even though there are no third party reliable sources, there would be if only there were an "official" web site for the subject, or if only Google news archive were to provide sources" is to miss the point. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to put in a pre-emptive request for the contents in a personal page if it does get deleted.Naraht (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What for? If you are asking for temporary userfication in order to be able to make good the defects of the article, then that may be OK, if there is a reasonable prospect of being able to do so: i.e. if there are grounds for believing that the missing sources do exist somewhere. If, however, you mean that you want to keep a copy of the article in userspace to avoid deletion then the answer is "no". See WP:FAKEARTICLE. You have not indicated what your purpose is. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite familiar with it. However, I think working on it without IP vandalism and the massive changes by Nurkahn Tampakan might be smoother if it is deleted.Naraht (talk) 14:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. the best I could find was passing mentions like this. -- Whpq (talk) 13:43, 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 redirect to Zedbazi. — Scientizzle 19:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Zed bazi
- Zed bazi (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)
Copyright violation of live page [4] and cached version of facebook page. See http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:LIHi2TR8pmAJ:www.facebook.com/zedbazi.band%3Fv%3Dinfo+Their+songs+usually+talk+about+controversial+issues+faced+in+Iran+such+as+sex+and+drugs+while+residing+in+Tehran[2].+Mehrad+Hidden+and+Saman+Wilson+first+met+whilst+they+were+in+High+School+in+Iran,+and+later&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=u. Should have been Speedy, but Admin unable to find duplicated text. ttonyb (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy redirect to Zedbazi, which is currently at deletion review. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy redirect per Phil Bridger. The article already exists under the more appropriate article title. -- Whpq (talk) 13:45, 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 Deleted per CSD A7 by Nyttend This is a formality closing. Sven Manguard Talk 21:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Billy Gallagher
- Billy Gallagher (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)
Despite claims, I cannot find anything about subject via google, espn, or Notre Dame's list of football commitments [5]. Also, searching for the subject on the ESPN page in the screenshot brings back nothing for Notre Dame 2012, Massachusetts, first and last name, etc. [6] The reference provided is a screenshot, which is easily to manipulate. No references in reliable sources to establish notability, looks like a hoax too. CutOffTies (talk) 19:19, 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 Speedy close Article moved; it was a misplaced AFC submission. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Woner
- Woner (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)
Made-up game. Acroterion (talk) 19:14, 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 Speedy delete Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Network neutrality (disambiguation)
- Network neutrality (disambiguation) (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)
Is no disambiguation, Network neutrality already exists with superior content, no merge necessary Tomdo08 (talk) 18:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- G2 Looks like a test page to me. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:09, 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 Userfy. Moved to User:MelanieN/Chocoholism. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chocoholism
- Chocoholism (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 a train wreck of original research and unverified claims. The article does not discuss the topic at all, and almost qualifies as a coatrack, except that it doesn't seem to focus on anything. Not a single reference in sight, and consists of little more than a dictionary definition and a torturous, tedious etymology, both of which are more appropriately handled at Wictionary. (The talk page of the article dutifully notes that it has been transwikied, but I'm not going to speedy this and put up with endless whining about out-of-process deletions). Horologium (talk) 18:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree; an earlier article on this name was moved to Wiktionary. Anything worth while here should be added to the Wiktionary chocoholic article or the chocolate article. Infrogmation (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete until serious information becomes available on the topic. Ironically enough I just finished a chocolate bar before typing this. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as an unsourced neologism. I can actually see an article on this topic emerging someday, but with no independent cites this stands as speculative original research and needs to go away. Delete without prejudice as to future recreation. —Carrite, Oct. 10, 2010.
- "Chocoholism, if maintained, may result in over-consumption of chocolate..." Are you kidding me? Strong delete VictorianMutant (talk) 09:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a real word, which I've heard used in popular culture, but a neologism certainly. Delete without prejudice. Bearian (talk) 21:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep "Chocoholic" is no longer a neologism - it is in widespread use. The term chocoholic has been used at least once in a mainstream medical journal, the American Journal of Perinatology [7], and the PubMed index finds dozens of journal articles about "chocolate craving" (without using the word chocoholic). There is a series of mystery novels called the Chocoholic Mysteries [8]. That's not even counting the common use of the term at hundreds of blogs and websites, such as Chocoholics Anonymous [9]. (I know it's not a criterion, but "chocoholic" gets 845,000 results at Google - that makes it a pretty widely accepted "neologism".) The article can/should be rewritten to describe craving/addition to chocolate rather than etymology. Would you all agree it is a keeper if that is done? I'm not going to do the work if it is going to get deleted anyhow. --MelanieN (talk) 17:47, 16 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 Transformers: Prime. Ron Ritzman (talk) 19:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Raf Esquivel
- Raf Esquivel (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 series found which indicate notability for this fictional character in an upcoming TV series. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to the TV series. --Malkinann (talk) 23:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Transformers: Prime, and possibly recreate later on if the character gains notability. --Divebomb (talk) 14:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as above. --Khajidha (talk) 15:04, 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 Transformers: Prime. Ron Ritzman (talk) 19:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Miko Nakadai
- Miko Nakadai (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 series found which indicate notability for this fictional character in an upcoming TV series. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to the TV series. --Malkinann (talk) 23:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Transformers: Prime, and possibly recreate later on if the character gains notability. --Divebomb (talk) 14:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as above. Peridon (talk)
- Redirect as above. --Khajidha (talk) 15:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect. Seems to be a good option. Not really much difference compared to simply deleting. NotARealWord (talk) 12:36, 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 redirect to Transformers: Prime. Ron Ritzman (talk) 19:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jack Darby
- Jack Darby (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 series found which indicate notability for this fictional character in an upcoming TV series. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to the TV series. --Malkinann (talk) 23:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Transformers: Prime, and possibly recreate later on if the character gains notability. --Divebomb (talk) 14:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as above. Peridon (talk) 16:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as above. --Khajidha (talk) 15:03, 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 List of townlands of County Laois. There are some differences in how the two lists present the information but the clear consensus of the discussion is that the possible benefits are not significant enough to warrant the existance of both lists. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 14:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of townlands in County Laois
- List of townlands in County Laois (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)
Already a list at List of townlands of County Laois. Article claims that its purpose is a "simple alphabetical version" rather than the other article which "shows townland sizes, civil parishes, poor law unions, and baronies." I think that this "simple" list is unneeded. :pepper 17:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - there is no need to have two similar pages on the same topic. So, the best course of action is to delete the less-detailed version.—Chris!c/t 20:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect Either title is acceptable, so "in" should be redirected to "of". Nyttend (talk) 22:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect No need for two separate pages, but this title is a valid search term. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 23:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I am the originator of both lists. This is a rushed comment and I will return to expand my remarks when I have more time. The lists are not duplicates of each other as the introductions to them indicates. They are designed to offer different experiences and are available for different purposes. Please read my introductions. I would not have wasted my time building duplicates as it was very time-consuming so be assured that they are different. I have to go now but I will return to the discussion. —O'Dea 02:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I read the introduction and see why you created them in the first place. However, they are still duplicates. Readers viewing the sortable version can actually see the towns listed alphabetically. So, there is no need for them to utilize the simple list. That is the beauty of sortability because it allows us to avoid this kind of duplication.—Chris!c/t 19:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:(striking out because O'Dea already voted "Keep" above. --MelanieN (talk) 18:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)) — As the creator of the lists I shall explain why I presented two variants of the data, which are not copies of each other, as you shall see.[reply]
- It has been argued here that the two lists are duplicates but they are not, much as that may appear to be the case upon superficial inspection. When I created the two views of the data, I included a brief description of how they were different in the introductions to each because I understood at the outset that there was an understandable risk that someone might hastily decide they were "the same". But I did not set out a detailed case for the differences between the lists because a Wikipedia entry is not the place to set down a justification of its own existence.
- The simpler version of the list is designed to provide, so to speak, a "light" version of the information that is easy to negotiate by navigating using the handy alphabetic
{{CompactTOC8}}
template that appears throughout the list. There are two reasons why this version is desirable:
- One can easily hop to a particular letter of the alphabet and inspect townlands there with similar names. People with an interest in Irish placenames are keen to study patterns of historic Irish language skeletons embedded within the anglicised flesh of the modern words. This evidence of linguistic pattern variation and inflections of grammatical paradigms is of keen interest to students of language, and of the Irish language in this particular case, for historic and linguistic reasons pertaining to the derivation of Irish place names and how they have been modified through anglicisation — so the list in this form is an invaluable tool for such researchers into this uniquely well-documented experiment in the historic mutual interpenetration of two languages. It is a matter of such absorbing interest and cultural significance and value that the playwright, Brian Friel, devoted his highly successful drama, "Translations" to this very subject because of how much it reveals about the mechanism and articulation of the relationship between conqueror and conquered (this is touched upon at Friel's Wikipedia article). In this configuration, the data patterns are revealed in a powerfully useful format that is much less readily exposed by the other configuration: this is the primary strength and value of this presentation.
- Townlands within an Irish county are quite numerous so listing them creates a sizeable article. It is desirable to be able to navigate such a list fairly painlessly, as a simple ergonomic courtesy to users; awkward tools can be tossed aside, unused. Some may be frustrated by the size of the fuller version of the list that contains more sortable information, so this "lighter" view is offered as a consideration to those people, also. Furthermore, language students and researchers viewing this list will have far less scrolling to do as the data are presented in three columns allowing language patterns and paradigms to be identified more comprehensively.
- The alternative list, the "heavier" one containing sortable information which cross-lists townlands within other geographic units, is of interest and value for other reasons, suiting different purposes.
- Students and researchers of history and genealogy find it valuable to study particular areas to identify where townlands relate to each other within a civil parish or barony or poor law union. This second list provides these useful data in an organisable hierarchy achievable by sorting in a variety of sequences. Many people outside Ireland studying their Irish roots will grasp this tool with delight because often they must investigate multiple sources to collate data concerning the location details of partially-identified Irish ancestors while, perhaps, other non-Irish readers who have no pressing interest in the data may not be in a position to grasp its importance and its value to others.
- This juicy and revealing functionality, however, comes at the price of a page which can be fairly heavy to load in the browser or which can be tricky to navigate because the scroll button in a very long list shrinks in proportion to the length of the document. When the scroll button is very small, it can be both tricky to grasp hold of and to drag accurately to a desired spot in the list. So the valuable comprehensiveness of location information, and the sortable high functionality, come at a price in ease of navigation; there is a trade-off.
- A solution with some such lists is to break them up into smaller sub-pages, linked to from the original page, but applying this solution to some sortable lists completely destroys the very reason for having the list by breaking it into sections.
- What does that mean in practice?
- If you take all the townlands beginning with the letter A in County Laois, and make of them a smaller list by themselves, then do the same with all the other townlands beginning with other letters, you then have up to 26 smaller lists that are easily navigated. But, in doing so, you have destroyed the value of the original sortable list because a larger geographic unit such as a barony contains townlands beginning with many letters of the alphabet, so clicking on the barony column in the sortable list for townlands beginning with the letter G, for example, will not show townlands beginning with other letters. Thus, it is essential for the integrity, and the essential data-analysis function, of the sort facility that the list not be fragmented. Such fragmentation destroys the very purpose of the sortable list and renders it meaningless.
- Therefore, I created two lists for two different functionalities. Rather than seeing the lists as "the same" or "duplicates" or "copies", it may help to understand the justification of the two variants as being analogous to two different views of a database designed for different applications and audiences. This is a common presentational strategy in database management, such as when a company executive asks to see annual sales figures presented in one way to understand a certain aspect of sales behaviour, while an executive with different responsibilities requests a presentation in another way to gain a different set of insights from the alternative view. The underlying data may be identical, but the alternative presentations of those data provides different views, different functionalities, different user experiences, and ultimately, an entirely different set of insights. Why? Because they are actually looking at different things, no matter that they are constructed of the same underlying units.
- Because of the sheer amount of data involved, significant quantities of time were required to prepare the townlands data as a contribution to Wikipedia, so the two variants of the data were not undertaken frivolously. They were uploaded because they are not the same at all, and because they serve different but equally valid and serious purposes, as described above. Wikipedia users with different requirements and interests will find something within both variants to suit their needs. If you do not like one version, maybe the other will suit you better, and no need to propose destroying the version that did not suit you, please! I apologise for the length of this explanation but the insights, I feel, are in the details; there is more than one issue at stake, and to be addressed; and I cannot expect non-Irish readers to see issues that are more visible to my countrymen with direct experience of the variety of cultural issues involved in these apparently "simple lists".
- Another user with whom I had no prior contact, and who appreciated the value of the lists, awarded me my first barnstar based on the large project I undertook. —O'Dea 14:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There is one delete vote above, and two votes for redirect, but I note the users in question do not appear to be Irish and may not, as a result, have been in a position to appreciate the issues at stake prior to the explanation that was presented here after they voted. —O'Dea 00:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you suggesting that non-Irish users are not qualified to judge the usefulness of this list? I felt offended by that suggestion. We are here to debate whether or not this list should be kept per Wikipedia policies, so please keep this nationality nonsense out of this.—Chris!c/t 00:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect, redundant and significantly less useful. The fact that the townland names are given in this list, without bluelinks and without any other information about them, makes the list a complete deadend; "here is a list of names used by townlands in County Laois, but we won't tell you exactly where they are or anything else about them." I think the most damning fact is that there are townlands that share the same name, so in this unannotated list of townland names, we have "Ballykealy" repeated twice, for example. O'Dea's tortuously long explanation of why two lists are necessary doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The only real argument I can gather from it is that the stripped down list is easier to deal with, but I don't see that claim established or even a clear statement of for what hypothetical task the stripped down list is easier. And as I've stated, stripping away all the further information just makes the list of names more useless and the duplications confusing. Further, with the use of anchorlinks or possibly other methods, an alphabetized TOC could be added to the substantial list that would make it easier to skip around by letter grouping. BTW, my grandmother's ancestors came from Ireland, so I am at least 25% qualified to pass judgment on whether this list is useful. ; ) postdlf (talk) 17:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Although I did not create offence, offence appears to have been taken. Let me quote myself: I cannot expect non-Irish readers to see issues that are more visible to my countrymen with direct experience of the variety of cultural issues involved in these apparently "simple lists". Notice, I did not say non-Irish are stupid or ignorant; I said I cannot expect them to have as rich an appreciation of Irish language issues as Irish natives can. That is not contentious or insulting. I do not claim to be sensitive to the significance of placenames in Poland because I cannot speak Polish so my knowledge of how instructive they are in the Polish historical context is inadequate. I cannot stop people misconstruing my words and then taking offence.
- The length of my response was criticized but I addressed the reason for that already: The insights, I feel, are in the details; there is more than one issue at stake, and to be addressed. A proper explanation and justification of the lists required revealing their raisons d'être and the actual, meaningful differences between them which people appear to find subtle and thus accuse the lists of being duplicates. People clearly did not recognise the differences and it was essential to try to make this aspect as explicit as possible. I am merely trying to be helpful.
- Links can be created from the lists as time permits. I have been busy researching and writing another similar list in which I did add links (Coastal landforms of Ireland) because it was more feasible owing to the fewer data items involved, and links can be created for the townland lists, too. As is often pointed out elsewhere in deletion discussions, it is not good practice to delete articles which can be improved. Furthermore, given the number of townlands, it would be exhausting for one person to try to establish links for so many townlands. Wikipedia is collaborative and many hands make light work. I can add links as my schedule permits, as can others. As for the duplicate townland names, there are townlands with the same names in County Laois, just as there are many places called Springfield. This is not "damning" as alleged: as a road atlas lists many Springfields in its index, so the townland lists contain duplicate townlands and these differences can be accounted for easily within the baronies or poor law unions columns.
- One person said the list is a dead end. I am, therefore, and unfortunately, obliged to repeat myself yet again (this is more tedious for me than it is for you) in response to that: It reveals linguistic pattern variation and inflections of grammatical paradigms. How can I convey the importance of that if people do not wish to see its importance when it is stated and explained? Again, I am forced to say that this issue relates to a non English language phenomenon and I can understand that non Irish speakers will not see this, although when I try to explain it, I am accused of verbosity. I am damned if I do and damned if I don't. Another point: Is a novel without hypertext links a dead end? Information and insights can be gained without links.
- The same person said, "the only real argument I can gather from it is that the stripped down list is easier to deal with". I am forced to accuse the user in question of not paying attention or reading too quickly. I went to the trouble of explaining the cultural-anthropological-linguistic context and usefulness of the list and how proximal words reveal linguistic mechanism variations (this is a perfect reason for a list) and all I can do is refer him back to my statements and request him to read with more patience, please. In addition, his proposal that an "alphabetized TOC could be added to the substantial list" cannot work because you cannot insert TOCs into the middle of a sortable list; it is technically impossible. —O'Dea 08:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Tehcnically impossible"? You can thank me later. postdlf (talk) 15:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, technically impossible. I said you cannot insert TOCs into the middle of a sortable list and you have not managed to code
{{CompactTOC8}}
s into a sortable table. You have merely coded anchors in the table but you have not offered distributed{{CompactTOC8}}
s throughout to allow movement to different parts of the table, or back to the top. In addition, since this is a sortable list, the moment it has been sorted by any column other than townland, the navigation bar you placed at the top of the page becomes meaningless for navigation because they are now in a scrambled sequence, unless the user scrolls all the way to the top to re-sort the list, which is not exactly ergonomic to say the least. Furthermore, your attempted solution fails to offer the kind of multi-column browsing available in the list being attacked, the essential desirability of which I have described with detailed care, although people ignore my points completely and simply repeat the mantra, "It's just repetition". My points are being ignored. —O'Dea 18:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Your points are being disagreed with. Perhaps they might have more persuasive force if you were to state them more concisely and with less metacommentary on how important your points are. On the TOC, all anyone has to do is hit the back button on their browser, or scroll back to the top or the bottom, and they are back at the TOC. We could add another column to the table so that the TOC can be repeated throughout. I think that's unnecessary, but anyone can knock themselves out trying to make it work. It's also unnecessary to have a separate, stripped down list just so people don't have to hit the back button to get back to the TOC. postdlf (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- postdlf: all anyone has to do is hit the back button on their browser, or scroll back to the top or the bottom — O'Dea: This often stops working when a number of browser windows have been opened and closed during a browsing session: Windows memory grows "tired" during heavy use when cumulative poor Windows memory management interferes with browser performance. Most of the time, when I hit CTRL+HOME in Firefox to go to the top, it fails to work. When I hit the BACK button or press ALT+LEFT ARROW, I wind up at the previous page, not at the top of the present one. Explicit links to click upon overcome this. —O'Dea 01:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- postdlf: It's also unnecessary to have a separate, stripped down list just so people don't have to hit the back button to get back to the TOC. — O'Dea: But that was only one of my reasons for keeping it, as I explained, and furthermore, your attempted solution didn't work. In addition, there is no need to dicker with the sortable table because the other list serves a different function and already has that functionality. Once again, the lists are not the same so why mess with the sortable list? It's pointless. —O'Dea 01:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your points are being disagreed with. Perhaps they might have more persuasive force if you were to state them more concisely and with less metacommentary on how important your points are. On the TOC, all anyone has to do is hit the back button on their browser, or scroll back to the top or the bottom, and they are back at the TOC. We could add another column to the table so that the TOC can be repeated throughout. I think that's unnecessary, but anyone can knock themselves out trying to make it work. It's also unnecessary to have a separate, stripped down list just so people don't have to hit the back button to get back to the TOC. postdlf (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, technically impossible. I said you cannot insert TOCs into the middle of a sortable list and you have not managed to code
- "Tehcnically impossible"? You can thank me later. postdlf (talk) 15:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have begun improvements to the list by adding six links at the cost of 15 minutes of my time to identify links that can be added and then applying the edits. As you can see it is slow work and I would appreciate constructive help with this work rather than proposing to delete a perfectly good list. —O'Dea 09:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of townlands of County Laois. The sortable list already covers the alphabetical sorting if so needed. The only difference is that this one lists them in three columns instead of one. I appreciate the comments given by Odea, but the benefits he lists do not justify the added confusion of having two lists covering the same topic. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I believe Odea is correct that there is value in having a smaller version of the list - it is much more navigable and easy to use, so I'm slightly inclined towards a Keep/Merge. The issue is also valid - there is duplication. Is it possible for a single listbox to switch between long and short forms? If so, that would be a simple solution. --HighKing (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is List of townlands of County Laois any less navigable than List of townlands in County Laois? Not really with the edits made by Postdlf. So, the whole argument about accessibility is moot.—Chris!c/t 23:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have now added links to 30 Wikipedia articles from this list to improve it and have reached the letter "K", which is more work than critics are willing to do. It is a very slow business identifying Wikipedia articles for this county so any help would be appreciated. —O'Dea 18:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. User:Sjakkalle, you say "The sortable list already covers the alphabetical sorting" but you have not addressed the points I made about the other list at all. Yours is merely a drive-by comment. Please engage seriously and make a meaningful contribution. You add that the benefits I list "do not justify the added confusion of having two lists covering the same topic". Why do you think that? You haven't offered an argument. I submit there is no confusion: it is immediately obvious visually that they are not the same kind of lists and each contains a clearly-written explanation in the lead paragraph. I have already drawn an analogy to different styles of database views or presentations from the same data but you ignored that point. What about Wikipedia articles about nations, for example, which describe geography and economy, but which also branch to a separate article which repeat much of the information while exploring those subjects in more detail. That repetition and duplication is widespread and accepted throughout the encyclopaedia. Repetition is acceptable when it is not really repetition at all, a point I have made from the beginning, but people continue to say "this is just the same thing". —O'Dea 18:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think User:Postdlf's comment pretty much refute all the benefits you listed about the duplication. Also characterize good faith comment you disagree with as drive-by comment is not helpful.—Chris!c/t 23:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree that he refuted my benefits since firstly, his proposed solution didn't work and, secondly, he only addressed one narrow aspect of my discussion and ignored the rest, so how could he have refuted it? Also, I defend that the other "drive-by" comment as valid because that person, as I explained, dropped off a comment without engaging any of my points: his contribution was superficial and critical, which is disappointing because it merely attacks without showing any sign that he troubled to understand my points which I have worked hard to make. In short, I found it glib because it was irresponsible. It is not invalid to point out glibness in a discussion. —O'Dea 01:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that comment is not a drive-by comment. Drive-by comments are those that simply state keep or delete without any explanation. User:Sjakkalle did explain why he voted the way he voted that he believed the sortable list already served the same purpose and the benefits you listed do not justify the duplication.—Chris!c/t 02:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since I am the one who coined the term "drive-by" for the occasion, I will define what I meant by it: the user made a superficial assessment which ignored the justifications offered. He said, "The only difference is that this one lists them in three columns instead of one." That was untrue; it was a distorting simplification; and it simply ignored what I had been saying. That was not the only difference as I am tired pointing out. He made the lazy, exasperating and untrue assertion that there was only one difference after I had described a variety of them, but it was like my explanation had been completely overlooked, rendering my careful contributions null. This is supposed to be a discussion, so these are the terms which express my appraisal of his remarks: "Drive-by." "Superficial." —O'Dea 05:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I find your comment extremely uncivil. I believe he did not ignore the justifications offered, but he disagreed with them. Anyway that is besides the point. Please assume good faith, calling editors lazy or dismissing valid comments as superficial is extremely unhelpful. Also editors are not required to engage in any discussion before making a comment.—Chris!c/t 19:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since I am the one who coined the term "drive-by" for the occasion, I will define what I meant by it: the user made a superficial assessment which ignored the justifications offered. He said, "The only difference is that this one lists them in three columns instead of one." That was untrue; it was a distorting simplification; and it simply ignored what I had been saying. That was not the only difference as I am tired pointing out. He made the lazy, exasperating and untrue assertion that there was only one difference after I had described a variety of them, but it was like my explanation had been completely overlooked, rendering my careful contributions null. This is supposed to be a discussion, so these are the terms which express my appraisal of his remarks: "Drive-by." "Superficial." —O'Dea 05:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that comment is not a drive-by comment. Drive-by comments are those that simply state keep or delete without any explanation. User:Sjakkalle did explain why he voted the way he voted that he believed the sortable list already served the same purpose and the benefits you listed do not justify the duplication.—Chris!c/t 02:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree that he refuted my benefits since firstly, his proposed solution didn't work and, secondly, he only addressed one narrow aspect of my discussion and ignored the rest, so how could he have refuted it? Also, I defend that the other "drive-by" comment as valid because that person, as I explained, dropped off a comment without engaging any of my points: his contribution was superficial and critical, which is disappointing because it merely attacks without showing any sign that he troubled to understand my points which I have worked hard to make. In short, I found it glib because it was irresponsible. It is not invalid to point out glibness in a discussion. —O'Dea 01:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think User:Postdlf's comment pretty much refute all the benefits you listed about the duplication. Also characterize good faith comment you disagree with as drive-by comment is not helpful.—Chris!c/t 23:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect. As just about every other editor contributing to this discussion has noted, there is already a better list available at List of townlands in County Laois, which is sortable. I don't understand the argument of "it's a different experience" and "it's easier to navigate". (Please don't bother to try to explain it; the rebuttals to every other editor haven't made it any clearer.) Horologium (talk) 00:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I was the one who wrote that "better" list but it's only better in one way; it has the limitations I described in terms of navigability and also its other intended functions as described. It's not just about the navigability.
- Has anyone at all understood my point that these lists are not the same but are merely the same data? The presentations are different! It's such a basic point. Not one person has acknowledged it. I feel like I'm beating my brains out for nothing. No-one touched my other point that there is useful duplication and information overlap in many Wikipedia articles (I cited the example of nation articles and sub-articles). I think this horror of duplication is misplaced because firstly that example I cited shows the validity of it elsewhere in the encyclopaedia and, secondly, because people keep picking at the same things, ignoring points that don't suit them, and say the same things repeatedly as if my replies had gone unheard. Where is the good faith? Where is the willingness to listen? This is so time-consuming and frustrating. —O'Dea 02:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have put more hours in tracking down linkable articles about County Laois and have linked to all those articles in Wikipedia, about 45 of them. That may not seem very many after so much work but I had to check nearly 1,200 townlands to see if there was a Wikipedia article about them. Anyway, the list is now populated to its maximum current potential (until further articles are written) with links to all available Laois articles so I will accept no more complaints that it is a "dead end". Goodnight. —O'Dea 01:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Redirect: I have read and tried to understand the reasons for creating two lists. I appreciate the work that has gone into the task, and the importance that the creator attaches to it. At the end of the day, however, I don't believe that the duplication is justified. Scolaire (talk) 11:29, 17 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. Kingpin13 (talk) 10:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Linda Norgrove
- Linda Norgrove (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 was going for a speedy deletion. It said that a speedy deletion is only for pages that do not have importance or significance, like articles about ordinary people not known to the world. But her death was reported in many news organisations so it cannot be totally unimportant. However I am not sure if this alone is enough to merit a page on Wikipedia. I leave it to you. X sprainpraxisL (talk) 17:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- — X sprainpraxisL (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep Unbelievable that we need to discuss this. This is the top entry on Google News and you want to delete it ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterHuber (talk • contribs) 00:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC) — PeterHuber (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep Clearly a notable event and a notable woman Aa42john (talk) 19:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 04:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I see no reason why this woman is not going to be looked up in years to come. It is good to see ordinary people represented, for sometime quiet and extraordinary things.Tambonz (talk) 03:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC) — Tambonz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 04:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep She is well recorded and certainly a more valid figure than some spurious Hollywood (non) entities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.37.231.63 (talk) 02:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC) — 202.37.231.63 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. LibStar (talk) 04:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Her death have reached international headlines,,all the way from india to the US to europe and Aisa etc etc... This Afd was also made by a totally new user(no offense). I think she is notable anyway.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Her death also have the dignity that the Prime minister of Britain commented on her as a person. That doesnt happen often.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also per Kidnapping of David Rohde and the Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy,--BabbaQ (talk) 20:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BLP1E unless there are reliable sources to show this incident has impact on, say, long term foreign policy or becomes a legal reference case. If that is the case, then the article would require being re-named (or merged into an article about the kidnapping) as it would be about the incident, not a biography of this person's life. Not everything the Prime Minister comments on is immediately considered encyclopaedic. Fæ (talk) 17:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking my original comment as the article has been renamed and is no longer a biography. I suggest that this AfD is considered closed and possibly re-opened with respect to the new article name of Death of Linda Norgrove. Fæ (talk) 19:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, and you were the one putting this article up for deletion. I totally disagrees with you, the prime minister only comments in death cases of high profile. And to make the article about the incident in particular would be faulty too as every report is on Linda and her life not on the incident in full or the shoters.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the clarification. It would be helpful if you could add sources that pre-date her kidnapping to demonstrate notability. Fæ (talk) 19:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah. I have responded to later comments in the bottom of the page.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also I dont think that ending this Afd and starting a new one just because of the article name change is needed. The article has changes its name, but the information in it hasnt. Ofcourse a few changes could be made to make good for the name change on the article though. So I personally Opposes that suggestion.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah. I have responded to later comments in the bottom of the page.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the clarification. It would be helpful if you could add sources that pre-date her kidnapping to demonstrate notability. Fæ (talk) 19:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. WP:NOT a memorial and the very short article at the moment is mostly tributes to the subject rather than biographical information. It seems clear, though, that Linda Norgrove is not notable as an aid worker. She was not known to the public before her kidnapping and was not known to the public during it either, as her name was suppressed from news reports. It is possible that further information may come to make her notable which is my one note of caution. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to refer to the articles current size but that will be increased with time.And its not just about "any aid worker" man aid workers wordwide dies every year... not all get this amount of press. Mostly no one even notice in the papers.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 17:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - basically a straightforward WP:BIO1E and WP:NOT#NEWS case. Nsk92 (talk) 17:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see the article indeed started as Linda Norgrove and was later renamed (nonetheless before the commented entry above). More evidence for early deletion actions (often) being bad. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Well if this article is deleted then you could wonder why articles like Tyler Clementi and similar are still on. Who can honestly say that this incident will have any merits or notability in even 2-3 years.... because it will not. While one similar article about a news event are kept then another one is deleted for the being a current news story online and on tv. We cant have one standard on certain article, while we are not on others. An obvious case of double standard applied alot on Wikipedia.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The correct article name for your example was Suicide of Tyler Clementi, please do not misrepresent the example by using redirects. It was renamed for similar reasons to my comment above, hardly a double standard. Fæ (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comparisons with other cases might give insight sometimes, but are a poor guideline generally. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 19:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. LibStar (talk) 12:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesnt apply here.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, maybe merge into Civilian casualties of the War in Afghanistan (2001–present). Also a separate article about hostage taking and rescueing in Afghanistan should exist. Also a copy to Wikinews would be right. I can't believe what is going in here for deletion. And the article is just some hours old! Also there would have been the template Notability. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 19:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK that might be a good way to establish that notability that some claim is needed to end the discussion. Perhaps moving it all and change some material, like 2010 british aid worker hostage situation and death in Afghanistan, or something similar. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My idea would have been to first wait for more material for the case itself, and act after that (with several, even multiple options being possible). Also this hostage taking is a prominent part of current events in Afghanistan (also with other conflicts). Maybe their is enough material already around on Wikipedia to start that; just moving this article there would be rather pointless: The current state of this article under dispute is indeed just one news item right now. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 20:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. I would perhaps support a move of all content to a new article name if it came to that in the future. BUT as of now I believe that just as you state that to wait for new material is a better solution and to keep the article as it is. It is highly likely that more in-depth information will surface soon about LInda, she is likely a more notable person than we think as her death has becomed sutch a big deal. I suggest a wait and a keep.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My idea would have been to first wait for more material for the case itself, and act after that (with several, even multiple options being possible). Also this hostage taking is a prominent part of current events in Afghanistan (also with other conflicts). Maybe their is enough material already around on Wikipedia to start that; just moving this article there would be rather pointless: The current state of this article under dispute is indeed just one news item right now. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 20:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sufficient reliable sources to establish notability. WP:BLP1E is designed to discourage the creation of biographical articles for individuals who are only know as peripheral participants in a single notable event. It is not intended to dissuade coverage of that notable event simply because it revolves around a single individual. Examples include Kidnapping of David Rohde and the Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy.TomPointTwo (talk) 20:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. LibStar (talk) 12:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, i couldnt have said it better myself. This is a keeper.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am concerned about accuracy but no time to research it. The article states she was shot by a sniper but everything I have read prior indicates her captors detonated a bomb. The story is sensational enough without getting the facts wrong. FWIW I tend to think it should be deleted anyway OneHappyHusky (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The death of Linda Norgrove has been widely commented on by many notable people including political leaders, military commanders and journalists. This article easily passes the standards for notability. Greenshed (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:I would suggestion a close of this Afd discussion ASAP so that we can focus on doing the article even better. As I believe it has been established that the woman in question is notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In my opinion this article should be on the "In the news" section on Wikipedias front page.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep this is under WP:N/CA and clearly notable crime with significant coverage in RS.--Wikireader41 (talk) 21:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The current article is named "Death of Linda Norgrove", N/CA would relate better to a title that reflects the crime of kidnapping and consequently Norgrove's death in a bomb blast (with an associated necessary re-write of the article). Fæ (talk) 21:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I totally respect your opinion, but I do believe a new article name is not required per the above statments from other users. She is notable beyond the event itself per comments about her as a person from leaders , and the fact that its her the media is focusing on and not the situation in full so to speak, and per reliable sources.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Atleast we have to wait a few weeks before changing names etc etc.. to see if any new information on this lady appears. As I suspect it will. There is no reason to speed things up and do changes unnecessary. N/CA states " media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources."--BabbaQ (talk) 21:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In comparison I would draw your attention to 2010 Badakhshan massacre where the article is named and covers the terrorist action rather than making the lives of those killed the core of the article. Fæ (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Atleast we have to wait a few weeks before changing names etc etc.. to see if any new information on this lady appears. As I suspect it will. There is no reason to speed things up and do changes unnecessary. N/CA states " media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources."--BabbaQ (talk) 21:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I totally respect your opinion, but I do believe a new article name is not required per the above statments from other users. She is notable beyond the event itself per comments about her as a person from leaders , and the fact that its her the media is focusing on and not the situation in full so to speak, and per reliable sources.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The current article is named "Death of Linda Norgrove", N/CA would relate better to a title that reflects the crime of kidnapping and consequently Norgrove's death in a bomb blast (with an associated necessary re-write of the article). Fæ (talk) 21:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The standard when the crime in question has only one victim is to name the article around the victim, obviously. I'd direct your attention toward List of unsolved murders and deaths for a long list of examples. TomPointTwo (talk) 21:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has been edited in a smart way to be more towards the event,but without deleting any information about Linda as a person. Lets leave it at that. I am satisfied anyway.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- More than one person was kidnapped in the original terrorist action and though only one victim died, more than one person was killed by blast. Fæ (talk) 05:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The standard when the crime in question has only one victim is to name the article around the victim, obviously. I'd direct your attention toward List of unsolved murders and deaths for a long list of examples. TomPointTwo (talk) 21:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Since the renaming to Death of Linda Norgrove is this turning into a snowball keep? Greenshed (talk) 22:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Even without a renaming it was heading toward snowball keep. so yes, i would suggest an close to this discussion ASAP.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable as a high-profile criminal act and failed hostage rescue attempt. --Whoosit (stalk) 23:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable enough that I went to WP to gain more information on her death. Robert Brockway (talk) 05:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSNOTABLE. because it has a Wikipedia article it is therefore notable? circular logic if I ever heard it. LibStar (talk) 12:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to cause any more tensions, but I truly dont see your point.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Libstar, I didn't say that it was notable because it is in WP - I said it is was notable because it is of interest (If I came here to read more on it, others would have too). You just tried a strawman argument on me. Fail. It's comments like this that discourage me from being more active on WP. Robert Brockway (talk) 13:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- so it's WP:INTERESTING? Robert please address how this article meets WP:N. you have failed to explain how the article meets WP guidelines except that you came to WP to read more about her (which is not an argument for keep). LibStar (talk) 13:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Libstar, what I can see is that this article doe snot fail a single point under WP:N. A suggestion to you would be not to always use or "hide" behind different Wikipedia standards because they will work against you. Like now. Because as any rule, a rule can be interpreted differently by individuals. I think both me and Robert Brockway have fairly established our points of view and you have to respect that just as well as we have to respect yours.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- so it's WP:INTERESTING? Robert please address how this article meets WP:N. you have failed to explain how the article meets WP guidelines except that you came to WP to read more about her (which is not an argument for keep). LibStar (talk) 13:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- BabbaQ, I'll let Brockway talk for himself. however, when I see someone get so involved into a AfD it is usually from the article creator. see WP:OWN. WP relies on established guidelines, people turing up to WP:JUSTAVOTE or provide weak arguments do not help the AfD process. LibStar (talk) 13:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, you yourself are always to what I can see really involved in your own Afds going on and on to anyone saying Keep on any of your Afds pointing towards Wikipedia rules and standards this and standard that. So dont point your finger at me. You perhaps need to follow your own WP:JUSTAVOTEvexample a bit better. Just a suggestion.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I question weak arguments. I never do WP:JUSTAVOTE, and always have an argument relating to guidelines. WP:KETTLE on your part. Please refrain from this off topic discussionLibStar (talk) 14:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. per the move to the event, which is undoubtedly notable.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow Keep/Speedy Keep. Not just notable, but bordering on famous. With 1,420 articles in just the past few days. Clearly notable. International coverage. And multiple events (kidnapping, death).--Epeefleche (talk) 06:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As this story is covered in greater depth, more information about the details of her captors and attempted rescue will become known.Bangabandhu (talk) 09:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- maybe or maybe not. but we don't create articles on people because we think more info will be supplied later. WP:CRYSTAL. LibStar (talk) 12:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per TomPointTwo's excellent summary: "WP:BLP1E is designed to discourage the creation of biographical articles for individuals who are only know as peripheral participants in a single notable event. It is not intended to dissuade coverage of that notable event simply because it revolves around a single individual." This event, a failed military operation by US special forces to free a Western hostage in Afghanistan ultimately ending in the hostage's death, is notable. Keristrasza (talk) 10:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. In addition to the other reasons, perhaps researchers in the future will benefit from having encyclopedic-quality information about Linda, the special work she did and the special way her life ended. For example, they could be doing research about aid workers and where some people are willing to go to help others. eug (talk) 11:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think it has been established that Linda was notable, both as a person and what happened to her. Lets end this Afd ASAP.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Their is always improvements that can be done, but that doesnt mean that the article isnt Wikipedia worthy. It is still possible that mutch new information will surface during the enxt few weeks. And also more reactions etc etc..--BabbaQ (talk) 12:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS. if she still gets coverage a year or even 6 months from now, I would consider it. but simply creating articles based on recent news coverage is not what WP is about. LibStar (talk) 12:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, as already established her notaiblity goes beyond WP:NOTNEWS. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- this is not established. please stop forcing your view onto others. LibStar (talk) 12:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Stop accusing me of things that arent true. And for the record you tried to force your view on me on other Afd if you are implying that I just did, because you wrote to me in the same way on other Afds. Anyway I guess we have to agree to disagree. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "as already established her notaiblity goes beyond WP:NOTNEWS." that is an opinion. if it was established I would easily vote keep. LibStar (talk) 12:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This isnt a vote, it is a forum to raise "opinions" on a certain article and per other Keep sayers opinions I personally think it truly has been established that her notability goes beyond WP:NOTNEWS.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "as already established her notaiblity goes beyond WP:NOTNEWS." that is an opinion. if it was established I would easily vote keep. LibStar (talk) 12:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Stop accusing me of things that arent true. And for the record you tried to force your view on me on other Afd if you are implying that I just did, because you wrote to me in the same way on other Afds. Anyway I guess we have to agree to disagree. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- this is not established. please stop forcing your view onto others. LibStar (talk) 12:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
then it is not "already established her notaiblity goes beyond WP:NOTNEWS." it is more correct to say "many people believe she goes beyond WP:NOTNEWS". yes I agree it is not a vote, and therefore you have no right to ask an admin to close this ASAP. this can only be done under WP:SNOW or WP:SPEEDY. otherwise AfDs run for 7 days not for how long you think they should run. LibStar (talk) 13:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I havent claimed to have the power to make a admin close a Afd, but you have and I dont honestly see where from you have been given the impression that I have the power to make a admin close a Afd as you claim?.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The guidance of Wikipedia:DUCKSEASON might be helpful. Fæ (talk) 13:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wikinews is a more appropriate place for this content. LibStar (talk) 13:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to make something clear, I havent contacted or asked a admin to close thid Afd I have simple stated that I personally think that notaiblity beyond any reasonable doubt has been established. So please dont accuse me of anything that isnt true.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I will end my part of this discussion here and now, im feeling a meta-debate starting and those always end up ugly with a "im right you are wrong" kind of situation. I think keep you think delete. Its OK to have different opinions. Also, in my opinion its only a matter of time before this Afd is closed as Keep.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- you said " would suggestion a close of this Afd discussion ASAP so that we can focus on doing the article even better. " we do not make demands to close discussions ASAP, this never occurs in AfDs, especially articles you have been closely involved in. LibStar (talk) 13:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I will end my part of this discussion here and now, im feeling a meta-debate starting and those always end up ugly with a "im right you are wrong" kind of situation. I think keep you think delete. Its OK to have different opinions. Also, in my opinion its only a matter of time before this Afd is closed as Keep.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- in fact you make a request twice "Comment: I think it has been established that Linda was notable, both as a person and what happened to her. Lets end this Afd ASAP". I've never seen this in an AfD except from an article creator desperately wanting to keep. who are you directing these comments to? an admin who has the power to close? LibStar (talk) 13:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As I was asking how can you say that an opinion is a request to an admin? and were from do you get the impression that I have the power to get an admin to close a Afd. I believe that any admin review this can make up his own mind with or without any comments from me about it my friend.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- as you can believe this person is so obviously notable looking at the discusion, then any closing admin (a non involved third party) will close it as such. there is no need to pre-empt especially as your the article creator. LibStar (talk)
13:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- It could also be because a large majority here think that Keep is the best option, have you considered that to be a reason for closing it as sutch?--BabbaQ (talk) 13:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Stong keep. Personally, I find statements such as, "if she still gets coverage a year or even 6 months from now..." virtually beyond polite description. I wonder if this debate would even be taking place if the subject was American. Nick Cooper (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess that the simple answer to that is No. And I totally agree with your point.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. —LibStar (talk) 13:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —LibStar (talk) 13:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- Snow/Speedy. I urge that this be closed at this point as a speedy and/or snow, as it is clear that there is not a snowball's chance this AfD (where deletion is not even clearly endorsed by the nom) will result in deletion.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS. Example of Recentism, in form of writing without a long-term or historical view that inflates the importance of a topic. Mootros. (talk) 04:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you read beyond the blurb you will find that this article meets the inclusion criteria for recent events, the guideline in which NOTNEWS draws from. To quote form the guildeline verbatim: Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect. and Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards. This incident is not only a international humanitarian and political incident but also a crime and notable military operation. I suggest you read a bit further into the guideline you're citing. TomPointTwo (talk) 04:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly! Nothing like this comes really through in the article in its current form. At the moment it primarily focuses on the person and the moment of her death. Mootros (talk) 05:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As you will (should?) notice the article, in it's infancy, already meets the general notability guideline and has achieved coverage from diverse sources. It is also an event that is garnering extensive analyzation (from a political, military and NGO perspectives) and therefor meets the guideline as I laid out above. I'm not really sure where you're coming from by saying "nothing". TomPointTwo (talk) 05:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree w/Tom. First, the article does evidence the widespread intl impact, etc., evidencing notability. second, if Moot believes simply that the article in its current form does not do so -- but that in reality it is notable as Tom points out-- the answer is sofixit. Fix the article. Don't delete it. That's why an overwhelming percentage of the editors here have voted !keep.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As you will (should?) notice the article, in it's infancy, already meets the general notability guideline and has achieved coverage from diverse sources. It is also an event that is garnering extensive analyzation (from a political, military and NGO perspectives) and therefor meets the guideline as I laid out above. I'm not really sure where you're coming from by saying "nothing". TomPointTwo (talk) 05:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly! Nothing like this comes really through in the article in its current form. At the moment it primarily focuses on the person and the moment of her death. Mootros (talk) 05:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Mootros--please stop deleting references from the article during the AfD. It could be seen as an effort to adversely impact the !votes here, and is an effort that does not have consensus support.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Nothing to add to points which have been made already. Philip Cross (talk) 07:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tentative Keep in light of todays developments [10]. It looks like a full scale review/investigation will occur which means ongoing coverage/analysis and possible widescale impact. Certainly it is going to be controversial. Recommend revisiting the article in a few months to re-assess. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 11:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as tmorton has said, this is no ordinary "hostage takers kill hostage" story Janemccallion (talk) 14:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC) — Janemccallion (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep as per above, with mention of dishonour for nom. 124.147.112.36 (talk) 14:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC) — 124.147.112.36 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- There is no need to bad-mouth the nominator. This AfD was raised on an early badly named BDP that appeared to be a blatant NOTNEWS failure and was marked for a speedy deletion (A7). The nomination was raised to have wider discussion than a speedy would allow. Most of the comments raised in this AfD relate to a better sourced renamed version which is about the event rather than the person. Fæ (talk) 22:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand. 67.177.203.207 (talk) 15:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 04:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow keep This is not WP:NOTNEWS; she has received international coverage and will likely stay notable due to the ramifications of this incident. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep After reading news here in Czech Republic, I looked naturally for Wikipedia - whether there might be any other supplemental information on Linda Norgrove. It was only natural for me to expect, that she would be covered here. Her unfortunate death meets beyond doubt the criteria of notability, not only because of the international coverage, but also due the following ramification - consequences of the action of the rescue team and related debate. If this article will be well categorized now, it will stay valuable enough also for the future, as it will create part of the substratum on the picture of the whole conflict and so it will become right target to be linked at from other more general articles on the Afghanistan war, hijack & Rescue topics. Reo ON | +++ 16:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - this seems to be an event which will have ramifications on the overall handling of the Afghanistan War and abductions of civilians. Deleting it will play into the hands of those who like to have unpalatable news hidden in obscurity and forgotten... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.169.141.54 (talk) 17:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Has been reported upon in major international media. —Lowellian (reply) 19:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Given the rapidity with which story-of-the-week gets forgotten in the mainstream media (a particular issue when it comes to civilian deaths in war), Wikipedia serves a vital role in preserving such matters for the sake of researchers looking to follow up on a "memory hole-d" story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.68.143 (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC) — 64.134.68.143 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep - Let's be serious! Huge notability. Everywhere in the media. Important person also! (Gabinho>:) 20:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Keep - While she was not notable, her death has ongoing "stickiness" - the sequelae will almost certainly be ongoing and notable. VIPs will get fired (sacked) for this. Bearian (talk) 21:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (replacing my initial comment above raised before the article was renamed) if the article is not about Norgrove's life history but the kidnapping, terrorist negotiations, probable death by friendly-fire, misreporting, political impact and the official investigation. A further rename might help keep the article on track. Fæ (talk) 22:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I second this! Mootros (talk) 22:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- While I do not support returning to the original article title, a biographical outline as part of a wider article on the kidnapping, terrorist negotiations, possible death by friendly-fire, misreporting, political impact, wider reactions and the official investigation is warrented as it provides background. I know that some deletionist Wikipedians have a particular dislike for biographical information (although I not sure if that is what is being suggested above) but as many reliable sources which are independent of the subject have given Norgrove's background some significant attention, biographical information is appropriate for inclusion here. I would however consider any proposed rename on its merits or demerits. Given that this seems to be very clearly a Snow Keep, I would suggest that this AfD be closed any any discussion on renaming be taken to the article's talk page. Greenshed (talk)
- Agree completely w/Greenshed (and the above 29 or so !keep votes). This AfD no longer serves any useful purpose.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- While I do not support returning to the original article title, a biographical outline as part of a wider article on the kidnapping, terrorist negotiations, possible death by friendly-fire, misreporting, political impact, wider reactions and the official investigation is warrented as it provides background. I know that some deletionist Wikipedians have a particular dislike for biographical information (although I not sure if that is what is being suggested above) but as many reliable sources which are independent of the subject have given Norgrove's background some significant attention, biographical information is appropriate for inclusion here. I would however consider any proposed rename on its merits or demerits. Given that this seems to be very clearly a Snow Keep, I would suggest that this AfD be closed any any discussion on renaming be taken to the article's talk page. Greenshed (talk)
- weak keep not notable of herself, but there is some precedence set what with the probe et al. If it is not suitable here, where wouldbe suitable (bearing in mind the article is longer than just a brief mention ifn soem War in Afghanistan spliy off page.(Lihaas (talk) 00:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC));[reply]
- Delete If her death changes anything, then it would be notable; but as of now, it is an article about somebody dying, possibly under unclear circumstances, possibly with minor repercussions. Nergaal (talk) 03:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Ms Norgren has been reported as being an aid worker. However, DAI is a FOR PROFIT company operating out of Washington DC. They have a list of positions open on their website and the list is hardly anything like aid workers. Unless someone can verify just what her real employment position at DAI was, I think this "celebration" of her unfortunate demise is premature. I am guessing, but seems that DAI would do work for the US Government. That she was British is not really pertinate to the story except that it seems to have elevated her death to the PM level within the British Government. There is more to this story than has been made available so far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LouAz (talk • contribs) 04:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC) — LouAz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Note to closing admin A very high number of single purpose editors have appeared here which is a sign of off-wiki canvassing. LibStar (talk) 04:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are a few SPAs. But I don't know why that would be viewed as a sign of canvassing (if anything, perhaps socking, but there is no evidence of that). And let's face it -- the nom himself is an SPA, with this nomination his fourth edit ever. In any event, we often see more SPAs when an article is very much in the news, such as this article which is attracting 10,000 viewers a day in its first two full days. People come to a page that they think clearly of interest, see an AfD notice, and say "what the hell ... I'll leave my opinion". The SPAs are in line with the vast majority of !voters here -- even if you limited it to !voters with 1,000 or more !votes, it would be an overwhelming !keep. The same if you limited it to !voters with 21,000 or more !votes -- though then Libstar's !vote would not be counted ... in fact, then none of the few !delete voters !votes would be counted.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- but would attract someone to simply come here and vote keep with little knowledge of the deletion process in Wikipedia? LibStar (talk) 04:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- People have to start sometime. What seems to them like an outrageous effort to delete an item as non-notable would be one of the more compelling reasons to start. Their comments are in line with that -- they are not, as you can see, heavy on wiki concepts/terminology. Starting an AfD, as the nom did on his fourth edit ever, is by far the more curious happening, IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Libstar, I admire your entusiasm, but its time to let this one go. Its obvious that a majority on Wikipedia think this one is a keeper. Also its more usual that a Delete Afd get mass-delete "voting" with little or non other explaination than that the article is non-notable. With no further explaination fromhte Delete saying party.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- People have to start sometime. What seems to them like an outrageous effort to delete an item as non-notable would be one of the more compelling reasons to start. Their comments are in line with that -- they are not, as you can see, heavy on wiki concepts/terminology. Starting an AfD, as the nom did on his fourth edit ever, is by far the more curious happening, IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- but would attract someone to simply come here and vote keep with little knowledge of the deletion process in Wikipedia? LibStar (talk) 04:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 04:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- LibStar time to read WP:LETGO. no way in hell that this article will be deleted.--Wikireader41 (talk) 04:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- not expecting it to be deleted, but have never noticed so many single purpose editors popping up on one AfD. LibStar (talk) 05:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have -- in articles like this one about someone getting 10K hits a day. I've never noticed an AfD that I can recall, however, nominated by an editor on their fourth edit ever.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- very interesting [11] It was his FIRST edit not 4th Epeefleche. looks like we may never hear from him again.--Wikireader41 (talk) 17:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Great point. I stand corrected. Though I differ ... we may hear from him again. Wearing a different mask. Or in a sock investigation.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- very interesting [11] It was his FIRST edit not 4th Epeefleche. looks like we may never hear from him again.--Wikireader41 (talk) 17:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have -- in articles like this one about someone getting 10K hits a day. I've never noticed an AfD that I can recall, however, nominated by an editor on their fourth edit ever.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- not expecting it to be deleted, but have never noticed so many single purpose editors popping up on one AfD. LibStar (talk) 05:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- LibStar time to read WP:LETGO. no way in hell that this article will be deleted.--Wikireader41 (talk) 04:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - killing had international repercussions between the US and Britain and is thus notable. David Straub (talk) 10:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - For all the reasons already given above. International attention. Political and diplomatic implications. Likely effects on public opinion. No coherent or plausible rationale has even been offered for deletion of the article. It appears to be unsupported and tendentious caprice. Lachrie (talk) 10:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Isnt this starting to look like a snow keep?--BabbaQ (talk) 20:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd call it flurries. Bearian (talk) 20:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- At 34 !keeps, and 4 !deletes (if I am counting correctly), it looks like white-out conditions to me.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - at least until death has been investigated, discussion has died down, and full ramifications somewhat understood.--Alterrabe (talk) 20:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Alpha Quadrant talk 22:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Article is about a very important event. The article is well written and well sourced, 31 references. That clearly establishes notability. I don't understand why there was a CSD in the first place. --Alpha Quadrant talk 22:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:SNOW. SnottyWong gab 22:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep per WP:SNOW; it's definitely a notable topic under the guidelines. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 23:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Major International event, and that;s enough reason. I am not able to predict exactly what will be in history books 50 years from now. Perhaps she will not be mentioned in one volume school histories of the US involvement in the Middle East. But based on what historians actually do, this will certainly be in the detailed comprehensive works, and probably feature in some special books as well. The world tends to get interested in specific cases involving particular individuals. We're part of the world. DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Enough valid information to fill an article. Over ten thousand people came to read the article in a single day! [12] I agree that a Prime Minister commenting on this case, makes it notable. Dream Focus 11:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems like an odd precedent to set and not supported by the GNG; that everything the Prime Minister is reported to have commented on is notable. By that rationale The Border Cod should be notable based on his widely reported photo op there after a post-ash-cloud helecopter ride. Fæ (talk) 11:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If it ever does anything historically significant worthy of international media attention and comment by the leaders of nations, then of course, it'll have its own article as well. Maybe after the pilot has a heart attack, it jumps up on the controllers, hits the autopilot it saw the pilot pushing and knew by now needed to be done, and thus saves the life of the Prime Minister. That'd make the little dog notable. Dream Focus 13:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify it was a chip shop rather than a dog. Cameron was (notably?) widely reported in the national press as buying 26 portions of fish and chips there after his heroic ash-cloud-defying helicopter ride. There were no reports of survivors. Fæ (talk) 13:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The burger place American President Obama went to has its own article, it surviving the AFD for it as I recall. Dream Focus 21:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify it was a chip shop rather than a dog. Cameron was (notably?) widely reported in the national press as buying 26 portions of fish and chips there after his heroic ash-cloud-defying helicopter ride. There were no reports of survivors. Fæ (talk) 13:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If it ever does anything historically significant worthy of international media attention and comment by the leaders of nations, then of course, it'll have its own article as well. Maybe after the pilot has a heart attack, it jumps up on the controllers, hits the autopilot it saw the pilot pushing and knew by now needed to be done, and thus saves the life of the Prime Minister. That'd make the little dog notable. Dream Focus 13:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems like an odd precedent to set and not supported by the GNG; that everything the Prime Minister is reported to have commented on is notable. By that rationale The Border Cod should be notable based on his widely reported photo op there after a post-ash-cloud helecopter ride. Fæ (talk) 11:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as the subject clearly satisfies the notability guideline via significant coverage in multiple, reliable, third-party sources. Article is also well-sourced, satisfying WP:V. No clear, logical, policy-based rationale has been made for deletion. It may be better to rename the article "Death of Linda Norgrove" to cover the actual event as opposed to the person. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep "Linda Norgrove", delete/merge "Death of Linda Norgrove" as unuseful fork. 142.167.66.225 (talk) 17:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC) — 142.167.66.225 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Towards the top of this AfD I suggested that it was re-opened as a discussion about "Death of Linda Norgrove" when the article "Linda Norgrove" was renamed. Mistaken comments based on the confusion that the nomination as stated is no longer valid could have been avoided. Fæ (talk) 20:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you disagree with the name, you discuss it and then rename it. No need to open a second discussion about the same article. Dream Focus 21:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing the fundamental context of an article by default invalidates any active deletion discussion. Many of the comments on this page make the point that the article should be about the event not the person which was exactly what the rename was for and none of these comments are relevant for a keep or delete discussion (after all, the article "Linda Norgrove" no longer exists so how can we now choose to keep it?). I struck out my initial comment for this reason and I encourage other contributors to do the same if they were confused about the name of the article under discussion. Fæ (talk) 21:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you disagree with the name, you discuss it and then rename it. No need to open a second discussion about the same article. Dream Focus 21:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Towards the top of this AfD I suggested that it was re-opened as a discussion about "Death of Linda Norgrove" when the article "Linda Norgrove" was renamed. Mistaken comments based on the confusion that the nomination as stated is no longer valid could have been avoided. Fæ (talk) 20:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow Keep Per most of the above keeps — BQZip01 — talk 05:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow Keep Reo_On has spoken about the Czech Republic above, it is also notable here in France : "Une otage britannique en Afghanistan tuée par une grenade américaine?". Libération. October 11, 2010. Comte0 (talk) 16:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- One more step towards snow keep. This is starting to look ridiculous. Its time to close this discussion.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I swear there must be a "cabal" or committee of vultures always swooping overhead to slam the delete hammer on any new article that tarnishes the holy pure Wikipedia. This is getting really ridiculous. We need to start sanctioning people who post frivolous deletion recommendations. Or have a mandatory 3 week waiting period. Back to the topic at hand, I came to this article because my browser is set to search Wikipedia when I type something in the URL box. I typed "Linda Norgrove" and it came to this page. People are looking for this page. I see no reason at all why it should be deleted.--Metallurgist (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, had it been the opposit way that there had been a huge number of delete sayers then this article would have been deleted already. But as this is a Keep majority then it should be weeks of waiting and that is always encourage by some fanatic delete sayers. There is a huge double standard when it comes to Afds on Wikipedia.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to remind you that articles do improve over time. This AfD was raised by X sprainpraxisL on this version well before 95%+ of the published sources now in the article existed and when there was a reasonable rationale for considering such an article in breach of WP:NOTNEWS. If there is some sort of secret cabal keeping Wikipedia holy and pure, then this AfD would be a rather poor example of it in action. If you want to complain about the secret cabal, I'm sure most of us would love to see you do so at WP:ANI. Fæ (talk) 18:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We're getting off track. Yes, when the nom made his first-ever edit, nominating this article for deletion, there were fewer refs (always the case with breaking news, whatever it is). Yes, even at that point, the first five commentators !voted keep, suggesting that there was reason to question the first-time-ever nom. Yes, the above !votes are enormously in favor of !keep. Yes, most !delete voters have not changed their !votes even after new coverage surfaced (I applaud Fae for doing so -- so few people change their minds upon looking at the facts). And yes, I would support a tracking of success levels of noms at AfDs. And think that a slow-down of those with the lowest success levels would be appropriate. But having said all that, we are getting off track, and discussion here is probably best kept to this AfD, which curiously has not been closed as a snow despite all the above, and the (44-4?) !vote at this point.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are so right Epeefleche.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is indeed surprising that this AfD has not been snow-closed. It is very easy to nominate an article for deletion and then lots of work goes into the discussion which might more profitably go into improving something more important such as verifiability in the rest of the encyclopedia. Greenshed (talk) 10:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are so right Epeefleche.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We're getting off track. Yes, when the nom made his first-ever edit, nominating this article for deletion, there were fewer refs (always the case with breaking news, whatever it is). Yes, even at that point, the first five commentators !voted keep, suggesting that there was reason to question the first-time-ever nom. Yes, the above !votes are enormously in favor of !keep. Yes, most !delete voters have not changed their !votes even after new coverage surfaced (I applaud Fae for doing so -- so few people change their minds upon looking at the facts). And yes, I would support a tracking of success levels of noms at AfDs. And think that a slow-down of those with the lowest success levels would be appropriate. But having said all that, we are getting off track, and discussion here is probably best kept to this AfD, which curiously has not been closed as a snow despite all the above, and the (44-4?) !vote at this point.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:18, 14 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. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mass action (physics)
- Mass action (physics) (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 seems to be incorrect or extremely uncommon use of term (I couldn't find any sources for "mass action" that weren't talking about Law of mass action). Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Trivial and unneeded. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Although I appear to have created this article, I did not in fact do so. I think I renamed it, but can't remember exactly. Anyway, I agree, it should be deleted.Petergans (talk) 12:53, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 19:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Outline of basketball
- Outline of basketball (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 - article seems to be intended as a combination of the existing Basketball article and an index of every conceivable basketball-related topic. Not seeing how the existing material is not already well enough integrated through articles, text links, templates, lists and categories as to justify a separate "outline" article. A Radish for Boris (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rename - There is a redlink showing for Index of basketball articles, which would be a much more descriptive name for this piece. This is not an article but rather a navigational tool, and a damned useful one, it would seem. —Carrite, Oct. 9, 2010.
- Keep per Carrite. Wow, I'm actually agreeing with Carrite for once. Did I just fall into a parallel universe? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above. Peter Karlsen (talk) 19:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. This seems to be in the process of becoming a very well-made outline which will serve as a nifty guide. However, I can already tell this is going to be very USA-centric (full disclosure: I'm American) and will barely touch upon basketball outside of the country.
- Proposed solution: Rename the article to "Outline of basketball in the United States". This will immediately narrow down the overwhelmingly large topic of basketball in general to a more manageable, and frankly accurate, title. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is only 4 days old! Please have some patience. It isn't done yet! (Note the revamp/restructuring tag). Thank you. The Transhumanist 05:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Proposed solution: Rename the article to "Outline of basketball in the United States". This will immediately narrow down the overwhelmingly large topic of basketball in general to a more manageable, and frankly accurate, title. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I am fearful of the Index of basketball articles being made, because (a) it will never, ever come remotely close to being complete, (b) that's what categories are for, and (c) it will get abandoned and serve no real useful purpose in the long run. If it ever does get created, I think an AfD would be in good measure. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done - Index of basketball articles created. Indexes of popular topics get a fair amount of support. I'd be surprised if it didn't grow. The Transhumanist 04:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, as a complement to Index of basketball articles - Wikipedia has hundreds of outline-index pairs. The two types of article complement each other well because they support different styles of browsing. Outlines are structured topic lists while indexes on Wikipedia are alphabetical topic lists. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixIndex&prefix=Index+of&namespace=0 ). For the set of articles Outline of basketball belongs to, see Portal:Contents/Outlines, one of Wikipedia's content navigation subsystems. The Transhumanist 04:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why not put all this effort into revamping and improving the basketball portal - which badly needs it. This article seems redundant to me - what is the focus? Rikster2 (talk) 18:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a branch of Wikipedia's table of contents. Are you suggesting that basketball not be covered in the table of contents? The Transhumanist 02:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Way to twist words. No, I'm only suggesting that as of today there are numerous ways for WP users to start when looking at basketball as a broad topic - this article, the main basketball article, the index, the basketball portal(s), WP basketball Projects, etc. Some thought should go into how these various structures fit together so it is cohesive. Sometimes I think we forget that the vast majority of WP users aren't article creator/editor weenies like us, they are just people trying to find out information about things. These types of articles should advance that, not add another "competing" place for them to start. Rikster2 (talk) 11:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Editors are free to choose the areas that interest them in order to develop articles. If somebody wants to devote their energies to developing better navigation for our articles on basketball, that's great. -- Whpq (talk) 14:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Rikster, AfD isn't the proper venue for determining WP-wide strategy on navigation. And Portals don't provide the same service as outlines. Portals are collections of excerpts, and therefore have limited usefulness as navigation aids. The Transhumanist 19:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Way to twist words. No, I'm only suggesting that as of today there are numerous ways for WP users to start when looking at basketball as a broad topic - this article, the main basketball article, the index, the basketball portal(s), WP basketball Projects, etc. Some thought should go into how these various structures fit together so it is cohesive. Sometimes I think we forget that the vast majority of WP users aren't article creator/editor weenies like us, they are just people trying to find out information about things. These types of articles should advance that, not add another "competing" place for them to start. Rikster2 (talk) 11:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – with a topic as big as basketball, I think some outline (as done with many of our larger topics) is likely necessary. –MuZemike 15:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as a good navigation aid. -- Whpq (talk) 14:08, 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) 19:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Modern weapons
- Modern weapons (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 has not improved since the no consensus keep in 2007: it's still unsourced and has an extremely vague scope that lends itself to original research. The core problem seems to be that there is no commonly accepted meaning of "modern" in this context. Right now the article essentially says that "modern weapons" are whichever weapons are new at any given time, which is ... not very helpful. Unsurprisingly the content is also a mess and does not appear to have been worked on for a long time. We should delete this and, if really needed, start over from scratch with a well-sourced definition.
List of modern weapons (which could be a redirect target) and Category:Modern weapons have similar problems, but these could at least be salvaged by defining temporal inclusion criteria. (Though these would be arbitrary: after 1945? after 1700?) Sandstein 16:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If "modern weapons" means the current weapons being used (as the article seems to be saying) then it is just a dictionary definition. The information on different weapons and which are being used where should be given in other articles. For instance: United States Marines should inform us of what they are using with wiki links to the article on each weapon. Etc. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Just for information, my first-year history class defined 'modern' as after 1500 AD. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Nonsensical definition torpedoes it from the get-go. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: mess and of no practical use. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 05:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - basically a dictionary definition. And description of specific "modern weapons" are better served in their own article. -- Whpq (talk) 14:09, 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) 19:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Robin Santana
- Robin Santana (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 independent of the subject to sufficiently establish notability. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or any subsection of WP:BIO J04n(talk page) 16:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 16:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No significant coverage of evidence of notability PortP (talk) 05:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No significance coverage under any of the searches I tried (Robin Santana Paulino; Robin Paulino; Robin Santana) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete' lacks coverage to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 14:12, 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) 19:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
COPS in popular culture
- COPS in popular culture (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)
WP:IINFO. Every reference is egregiously trivial, not even worth a merge. No sources whatsoever. Tagged as trivia since July 2008. Last AFD was in 2007 with a result of no consensus. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 15:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - nominator says it well. This is an indiscriminate collection of every time the series COPS is referenced, parodied, mentioned or alluded to. It is trivia and Wikipedia is not a trivia repository. The "influenced by" section is particularly egregious as it is almost pure original research. "So-and-so worked on COPS and also worked on this other show therefore the other show must have been influenced by COPS." If the sources exist, then a reliably sourced section within the main article that actually discusses the cultural impact of COPS would be worthwhile. A Radish for Boris (talk) 16:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Besides what has already been said: COPS is a part of popular culture, so everything about it is already in popular culture. No need for this article at all. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge the dribs and drabs of significant material to COPS and Delete the mass of the trivia. —Carrite, Oct. 10, 2010.
- Delete - it's a huge trivia list. I fail to see the improvement to be had in the COPS article by adding trivia. -- Whpq (talk) 14:13, 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) 19:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Karl Kennedy and Susan Smith
- Karl Kennedy and Susan Smith (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 has no sources and the sunjects of the article already have articles that are stable, well written and sourced. This doesn't contribute to the subjects any further and is a interest to fans only, plus it's written in universe style. RAIN..the..ONE HOTLINE 15:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As the nominator says, the topic is already covered in the Karl Kennedy and Susan Kennedy articles. This fork is a mass of original research, is unreferenced, and is wholly unnecessary. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If we have an article on the show and one on each of the two characters that is probably enough. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, more or less per User:Dylanfromthenorth above. Lankiveil (speak to me) 21:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Strong Delete per all of the above, plus this is fancruft at its most obvious. Jenks24 (talk) 03:24, 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) 13:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shakir green
- Shakir green (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)
None of the information in this WP:Biography of a living person is confirmed by WP:Reliable independent sources - all sorts of claims are made, including production and composition credits for several famous artists, but removing all of the unsourced and unverifiable information from this article leaves us with no information at all. Can't find a single reliable source online on Shakur Green, Shakir Green or Donnell Green. Top Jim (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that because the name "Shakur Green" is blocked on WP due to repeated re-creation of that article, I had to list this under the altered spelling, so I'll list the previous AFDs here:
- WP:Articles for deletion/Shakur Green
- WP:Articles for deletion/Shakur Green (2nd nomination)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Top Jim (talk) 15:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt per nom and with respect to previous AFD discussions. JNW (talk) 14:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, because this article has been deleted at AfD before. As a second choice, just delete, because I can't find any reliable sources that say this person is the major producer this article claims he is.--Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sorry, I should have mentioned above that I did nominate it for speedy db-repost, but the declining admin said that the content of the article was different from the last deleted version, and was therefore ineligible. Top Jim (talk) 20:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete with salt Plenty for a 'Shakir Green' from PA - but it all looks like school football - and possibly a different school to boot. Not much better for 'Shakur Green' (I notice that a previous version had him with that spelling - as does Roynet. Confusing.) If this article is 50% accurate, he's a very busy lad. But it doesn't seem to have been noticed by anyone. And at "around $25,000-35,000 a track", he should be rather wealthy by now, too. He is registered with Roynet (per external link and as '-ur'). That was seven months ago - so he certainly has been busy. Reading some of the entries for other new signings there, I would say with fair certainty that the info posted comes from the signings. I am willing to eat humble pie (probably taste better than this pork chop...) if reliable references are produced for all the claims in the article. Now, there's an incentive... Peridon (talk) 21:27, 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. I'm sorry about this but the arguments for deletion are grounded in policy, the arguments to keep are not. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NOÖ Journal
- NOÖ Journal (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)
Unreferenced article on literary magazine with only included authors' names used to assert notability (Wikipedia:GNG). Article was created by single purpose account, so possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose NOÖ is a very prominent journal nominated regularly for major prizes JenzAccount (talk) 14:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Based on reliance of proposed notability guidelines for periodicals Wikipedia:Notability_(periodicals), subject meets at least some minimum threshold guidelines -- such as at least having an ISSN (1939-4802) -- but fails to demonstrate longevity or impact in its field. Being nominated for an award is not the same as winning an award. Publishing well-known writers, poets, etc, does not count toward the magazine's notability. Mtiffany71 (talk) 04:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Publishes major writers, clearly a journal with major impact in field Vrivers (talk) 22:20, 8 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) 14:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Some mentions in blogs, but nothing in RS, so fails WP:GNG. Notability of published authors is irrelevant as notability is not inherited. Jimmy Pitt talk 19:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete due to lack of independent sources provided which would establish that this publication meets the general notability guideline. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Well-known journal, frequently recognized as such in the field. PortP (talk) 05:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's so, where are the reliable sources? Jimmy Pitt talk 13:54, 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) 13:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Phil Davison
- Phil Davison (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)
A fine example of WP:BLP1E — the guy is known only for a single YouTube video and a few closely related TV appearances. He's never done anything else to attract significant coverage from reliable sources, and he's neither held nor run for any political office that comes close to passing WP:POLITICIAN. Nyttend (talk) 13:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Minor flash-in-the-pan internet celebrity. Pburka (talk) 14:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, Phil Davison has received a sufficient amount of coverage in multiple reliable sources (PBS, Politico, Huff Post, etc.) for inclusion on wikipedia. His video has become a part of American pop culture.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And how does he not fit under BLP1E? Nyttend (talk) 21:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." As you state above, he was interviewed multiple times afterward and not all involved his speech.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But it wasn't persistent. All of the media coverage was in the two or three days after the speech. Once his fifteen minutes were up he was promptly forgotten. Pburka (talk) 12:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, still receiving some coverage. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Plus, he's described here as an "internet sensation", and is identified by PBS as a potential presidential candidate for 2012. Internet sensations should certainly be included on wikipedia, and even more so if they receive coverage as a potential presidential candidate.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All Internet sensations? This is the type of thing that gets forgotten very soon. You can't really build a proper biography of the guy: everything is concentrated on his speech. Can't beat Metropolitan's wording: this guy is a perfect example of a flash in the pan. Nyttend (talk) 13:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "This is the type of thing that gets forgotten very soon." That is an opinion. Please back this with evidence. And if you believe internet sensations are not notable, please nominate all (or some) of the articles from Category:Internet memes.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rather, please provide evidence that he will be remembered for anything other than this. Everything that you've shown is at least several weeks old (just after the video became big news), and thus in the wake of the event; it's all part of the single event. I'm not saying that Internet sensations can't be notable; I was simply challenging your claim that all of them are. Nyttend (talk) 19:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See recent coverage above.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rather, please provide evidence that he will be remembered for anything other than this. Everything that you've shown is at least several weeks old (just after the video became big news), and thus in the wake of the event; it's all part of the single event. I'm not saying that Internet sensations can't be notable; I was simply challenging your claim that all of them are. Nyttend (talk) 19:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "This is the type of thing that gets forgotten very soon." That is an opinion. Please back this with evidence. And if you believe internet sensations are not notable, please nominate all (or some) of the articles from Category:Internet memes.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All Internet sensations? This is the type of thing that gets forgotten very soon. You can't really build a proper biography of the guy: everything is concentrated on his speech. Can't beat Metropolitan's wording: this guy is a perfect example of a flash in the pan. Nyttend (talk) 13:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But it wasn't persistent. All of the media coverage was in the two or three days after the speech. Once his fifteen minutes were up he was promptly forgotten. Pburka (talk) 12:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." As you state above, he was interviewed multiple times afterward and not all involved his speech.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is a classic case of WP:BLP1E. A small-time local politician makes a six-minute campaign speech to his local party committee, it gets put on YouTube and becomes one of the many YouTube flash-in-the-pan sensations, and there are a few follow-up articles about it. If this guy becomes a bigger name in the future, or if he becomes a household name (rather than just being "that guy, what's his name, who did the overly excited campaign speech"), the article can be re-created at that time. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per 1E. ShepTalk 00:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, even if his NAME! IS! PHIL! DAVISON! There are a ton of popular YouTube videos, there's not an article for each one. County treasurer-to-be isn't notable either. 74.61.10.229 (talk) 04:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Individuals from popular videos such as Antoine Dodson, actually do have articles.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Are not all councilmen of the Village Of Minerva notable? Somebody tell Randy Gonzalez about this AfD discussion! OK, my personal opinion is that having this article does no harm, but I know Phil is likely to lose yet another battle here.--Milowent • talkblp-r 20:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The relevant criterion for all politicians is WP:POLITICIAN — basically, the lowest office that you can hold that, by itself, makes you notable is that of a state legislator. Members of village councils definitely aren't notable because of being village council members; any notable ones are notable for other reasons. Nyttend (talk) 00:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As in this case, Phil Davison is notable for his YouTube video, media appearances and presidential speculation. The fact that he is a member of a village council and is frequently featured in the local media, is only additional to his previously established notability.--William S. Saturn (talk) 03:45, 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 no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
XYZ (band)
- XYZ (band) (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)
To quote PaulHammond (talk · contribs), "it was corrupted by two known sock accounts (possibly a third) which affected the outcome (see below). XYZ lasted only two rehearsals before splitting, with no official output." and "Without the sock votes, the margin would have been 3 (to delete) to 2 (to keep, one of which was a weak keep)." See user's comments at this AFD. Also, the article is super thin on sources; I would agree that a band that only rehearsed twice is not notable per WP:BAND. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 12:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: To add to the above, XYZ produced no official recordings. XYZ wasn't even an official name - There was no decision to use it. It should be noted, this XYZ should not be confused with an American band of the same, which did record albums and tour. PaulHammond2 (talk) 13:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I don't see significant coverage. Nyttend (talk) 13:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Some of the songs from this band were later reworked and released. --I'm with Coco (talk) 14:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is not an assertation of notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 14:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I understand an issue has been raised with the previous AfD, although I would have thought that its outcome would still have been "no consensus" (and thus the article kept) without the queried contributions. To largely repeat what I said in that previous AfD, I think this was a significant project, even if nothing was ever (officially) released. It has something of a legendary status. Several released pieces of music did arise from these sessions (one by The Firm and two by Yes) and the article material is appropriately cited. I think there is an argument that it is better to cover the material in its own article than repeat it over the Yes, Led Zeppelin and The Firm (and possibly Chris Squire and Jimmy Page) articles. That said, if the outcome of this discussion is to delete, please do make sure the content is salvaged and I'd stick it in the Yes article to begin with (as the project makes more sense within the narrative of Yes's history). NB: The unconnected band of the same name has an article at XYZ (metal band). Bondegezou (talk) 17:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- PS: I note 7 other language's Wikipedias have felt the article is notable. Bondegezou (talk) 17:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like copies of the English article - All of them contain the same unsubstantiated claims that were recently removed from the English language article. PaulHammond2 (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The German one is clearly different. Not saying this is a winning argument or anything. Just that it should give a moment's pause for thought. 83.104.35.37 (talk) 17:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have already seen the german page - it's no different from the the English article before the unsubstantiated claims were removed. The only difference is that it added the bootleg songs from the English article into a separate section. PaulHammond2 (talk) 20:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually the german article is worse - it's still included the claim removed some years ago from the English article that ""Run With the Fox", which is based on an XYZ-tune as well (December 1981)" - which is not true. Run with the Fox is not based on an XYZ tune. Whoever wrote the german article simply copied the English version from many years back, when that error still existed. PaulHammond2 (talk) 20:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have already seen the german page - it's no different from the the English article before the unsubstantiated claims were removed. The only difference is that it added the bootleg songs from the English article into a separate section. PaulHammond2 (talk) 20:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The German one is clearly different. Not saying this is a winning argument or anything. Just that it should give a moment's pause for thought. 83.104.35.37 (talk) 17:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like copies of the English article - All of them contain the same unsubstantiated claims that were recently removed from the English language article. PaulHammond2 (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Simple Google Books search shows more than enough coverage, some contemporaneous, to write an article and establish notability. While not themselves reliable sources, the number of circulating video/audio clips relating to the band that barely was (eg, [13] [14]) also indicate enough notoriety to suggest notability. The nature of the project means there's no single suitable merge or redirect target, another signal that keep is the best option. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Two unfinished bootlegged songs is hardly notorious nor notable. PaulHammond2 (talk) 00:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There's four unfinished bootlegged songs, but that's not really the point. This is clearly an unusual case. As such, I think the keep option is based on general WP:GNG arguments because this isn't a case that fits the usual WP:BAND criteria! 83.104.35.37 (talk) 17:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC) (Many apologies -- I wasn't logged in. The above and the comment about the German article were me. Bondegezou (talk) 17:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Its not that unusual - a "band" (it never really got to that stage) that had two rehearsals then vanished is not notable. Perhaps you should give a moment's pause for thought, that you're love for Yes has perhaps clouded your position PaulHammond2 (talk) 20:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There's four unfinished bootlegged songs, but that's not really the point. This is clearly an unusual case. As such, I think the keep option is based on general WP:GNG arguments because this isn't a case that fits the usual WP:BAND criteria! 83.104.35.37 (talk) 17:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC) (Many apologies -- I wasn't logged in. The above and the comment about the German article were me. Bondegezou (talk) 17:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Two unfinished bootlegged songs is hardly notorious nor notable. PaulHammond2 (talk) 00:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Two rehearsals? Agree with TenPoundHammer. This is not a notable group. Almost all of the information for XYZ comes from fanboy sites. Unprovenanced bootlegs on YouTube isn't a reliable source either. SteamboatBilly (talk) 04:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. References establish notability. --Niegrzeczny (talk) 11:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Non-notable. Most references are from fan sites. Bootlegs don't establish notability. Laetoli2 (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Plenty of sourcing available [15] to establish notability. Easily meets WP:BAND criterion 1 (multiple independent sources) and criterion 6 (two independently notable musicians). 28bytes (talk) 02:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Satisfies several criteria in WP:BAND. --Tagtool (talk) 13:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This one is an unusual case about a maybe-supergroup that never got off the ground. But this one has been covered in old sources as an item of historical interest. Some of the folks in favor of deletion are forgetting that not all old things are covered online, and you have to remember the dead trees standard for stuff found in crusty old paper books. The band has been covered and is strangely notable, just not in the usual way. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:58, 14 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. -- Cirt (talk) 09:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Air Midwest (Nigeria)
- Air Midwest (Nigeria) (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 fails to meet the guidelines of WP:ORG. I doubt the airline was notable for only having one plane and there seems no evidence that it was notable for anything else. Articles for organizations need more that the fact they existed to be encyclopaedic. Fæ (talk) 11:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 11:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 11:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Probably. I reserve the right to change my mind completely. This is a strange one, as the article as-nominated was about a failed airline with no coverage. Looking around the net for sources, however, I'm finding quite a bit of coverage. This and this look like enough to justify retention under WP:CORP to me. But I can't find a single source to suggest that they had their license revoked as claimed in the article, so I've removed that bit for now. If anyone can find a source that knows better, please readd it. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for the exact same reason as the user above me.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the sources linked above and these: [16][17][18]. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep numerable in-depth sources that meet the criteria outlined in WP:CORP. Arsenikk (talk) 15:13, 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 keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Declaration of Reasonable Doubt (neé Shakespeare authorship doubters)
- Declaration of Reasonable Doubt (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)
The topic as it stands "people who do not think that the actor from Stratford wrote the plays that we commonly ascribe to Shakespeare" is (a) not notable and (b) so vague as to be meaningless, (c) mostly pure OR. It is massively significant that certain serious scholars in the field believe that someone else wrote the things. It is of little relevance that Paul H. Nitze (a US defence expert) believes the same. The article (list) just contains a mishmash of names, some added with quite dubious sourcing, some of no relevance whatever to the field (I see a couple of Supreme court judges in there who appear on the basis of their having commented on one of the popular books on the subject). Most of these are OR, sources having been combed to find out if they have ever been asked for an opinion at a cocktail party. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC) Striking nom - renamed and rewritten article is notable, sourced and encyclopaedic (thank you Uncle G).--Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I note the article has been repurposed to be about the Declaration. I have said that I thought this was a notable topic in its own right, and the list of persons named in the declaration is acceptable. I would not like to see an indiscriminate list of signatories added to the article, but as it stands I have no objection to its retention. If Nishdani wishes to rewrite the articles he lists below to repoint to it rather than rehash it, I assume there would be no problem with that. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and change to a list. This article originated as part of Shakespeare authorship question and is a subarticle of that article (why o why does Wikipedia insist on not using subarticles?!?). It should actually have been created as a list (and possibly a number of people can be removed from it). But as part of that top-level article, it should be kept in principle, if transformed to a proper list. -- BenTels (talk) 12:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure in this case a subarticle would have helped. I would agree with your list proposition only if a proper specification could be drawn up - notable people who have some claim to academic credibility in the area who think some other chap wrote Shakespeare's plays, perhaps sorted by who exactly they think did write the things, might be just about OK - particularly if the individual's own article covers that they have gone on record with this opinion (ie that it's not WP:UNDUE, which it almost certainly is with the judges and the defence expert). As it is, it just reads like one of those lists of famous people who believe Jesus rose from the dead that some churches find value in putting about - possibly useful if you are trying to make converts, but not suitable for an encyclopaedia. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The idea that you are referring to is what the Institute for Propaganda Analysis called Testimonial. "Famous person believes X, so X must be true.". Uncle G (talk) 15:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite. I believe this is the aim here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The idea that you are referring to is what the Institute for Propaganda Analysis called Testimonial. "Famous person believes X, so X must be true.". Uncle G (talk) 15:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure in this case a subarticle would have helped. I would agree with your list proposition only if a proper specification could be drawn up - notable people who have some claim to academic credibility in the area who think some other chap wrote Shakespeare's plays, perhaps sorted by who exactly they think did write the things, might be just about OK - particularly if the individual's own article covers that they have gone on record with this opinion (ie that it's not WP:UNDUE, which it almost certainly is with the judges and the defence expert). As it is, it just reads like one of those lists of famous people who believe Jesus rose from the dead that some churches find value in putting about - possibly useful if you are trying to make converts, but not suitable for an encyclopaedia. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep
DeleteThe bulk of this article is a list of celebrities that have no reason to have any expert or informed opinion on the origin of Shakespear plays. That said, the 'Declaration of reasonable doubt' sounds like a document that warrants some form of inclusion in wikipedia. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 12:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Keep after the modifications described below Clovis Sangrail (talk) 02:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No probs with an article on that - I think it created quite a stir at the time. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't take the exercise of the administrators' deletion tool to get to there from here. With one use of the rename tool, to rename this page to Declaration of Reasonable Doubt, and one use of the editing tool, to take out the introduction (redundant to the purported parent article in any case) and the famous-people-who-believed-X list of "Skeptics through history", you could end up with a stub article on that very thing. No administrator privileges required. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 15:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Declaration of Reasonable Doubt is on numerous pages already. No one contests that notice of this is important. What is contested is the proliferation of essentially the same blob of material on several pages, with minor adjustments, in what looks like advocacy abuse.
- (a)List_of_Oxfordian_theory_supporters
- (b)Oxfordian_theory_of_Shakespeare_authorship#Notable_anti-Stratfordians
- On all competing Shakespeare Authorship Question pages it is given due mention.
- (c) Shakespeare_authorship_question#Authorship_doubters
- (d) Talk:Shakespeare_authorship_question/sandbox_draft
- (e) Talk:Shakespeare_authorship_question/sandbox_draft2
- (f) Talk:Shakespeare_authorship_question/sandbox_3
- These are just a few I recall. Nishidani (talk) 16:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't take the exercise of the administrators' deletion tool to get to there from here. With one use of the rename tool, to rename this page to Declaration of Reasonable Doubt, and one use of the editing tool, to take out the introduction (redundant to the purported parent article in any case) and the famous-people-who-believed-X list of "Skeptics through history", you could end up with a stub article on that very thing. No administrator privileges required. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 15:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
* Delete - a list of every time someone gives an interview and says "I don't think Willie wrote them there plays" is trivia and Wikipedia is not a trivia repository. One of the many articles on the subject of Shakespearian authorship can easily accommodate an appropriately sourced section on the significant players in the debate. I'm sure at least one of the ones noted above already does. A Radish for Boris (talk) 16:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - with the repurposing of the article to be about the Declaration rather than a simple list of doubters, it now meets the standards for inclusion. I strongly suggest that the article be monitored to keep it from degenerating into a list of everyone who signs the declaration, which would veer this back into trivia. A Radish for Boris (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now. Shakespeare authorship question seems to be under some kind of renovation. A list of prominent doubters will have a place somewhere, as part of that article or as a list. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I cannot for one moment imaging merging this list with that article. Do you want to draw up some criteria for 'prominent doubters' and cut this list down to that? If not, I would have thought that starting again would be better, as this list is so full of dubious entries.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete, not notable. This is an argument, in the form of a list of testimonials, aiming to show that the "doubts" "must be true", as Elen and Uncle G point out above. An argument is suitable (on a good day) on a talkpage, but never as an article. What this text argues for is User:Smatprt's passionate support of the fringe authorship theory known as the "Oxfordian" theory. Together with Shakespeare authorship question and Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship, and perhaps others I haven't noticed (oh, hey, I just realised there is in fact a List of Oxfordian theory supporters, who'd have thought it?), these articles are jealously guarded by Smatprt. See this ANI thread for what happens if somebody who doesn't share Smatprt's fringe views tries to edit "his" Shakespeare articles for balance, or even merely copyedit them or provide more professional references. Speaking for myself, I'd delete the lot of them—not because of the "owner's" behaviour, as such, of course—but because of their resultant poor quality and inherently POV topics. Bishonen | talk 00:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as per nominator. A list of scholars in the field who held this fringe view would be notable. This is just a hodgepodge of trivia. Edward321 (talk) 13:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Changing to Keep based on repurposing of the article. The new subject appears to be notable. Edward321 (talk) 13:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Keep The declaration is quite notable as we see from the international coverage by the BBC, NYT and other major media. It is the work of moments to find substantial sources which list more doubters such as The anti-Stratfordians. Compilation of such sources is not OR but commendable diligence. The rest is a matter of ordinary editing and not a reason to delete, per our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just pointing out that the article has changed substantially since listing, it now focuses on the Declaration and the list of random celebrities has been removed. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 02:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This "Declaration", as noted above by Colonel Warden, has been reviewed in countless major news media, including [19] (and gets over 20,000 Google hits). It therefore meets notability, like any such document or publication. The notable signatories (and the number of them) also create an added notability. It is therefore notable enough for an article on its own. Softlavender (talk) 05:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, the original article was about something else entirely. Uncle G has rewritten it to be about the Declaration, which is undoubtedly notable. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep current version. Notable and sourced. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:15, 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) 13:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FSU Cowgirls
- FSU Cowgirls (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 significant coverage in third-party reliable sources to establish notability. Google news archives brings back trivia mentions related to Sterger. CutOffTies (talk) 11:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Does not seem to meet WP:ORG. Also the lack of references in the history section makes even WP:GNG doubtful -- BenTels (talk) 13:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep: Seems notable to me, and ties in with the history of the Florida State Seminoles which are a major D1 athletic program. NorwalkJames (talk) 13:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete lacks significant indepth coverage. gnews includes some passing mentions [20]. LibStar (talk) 14:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If Wikipedia can have articles on once-a-year intercollegiate rivalries, its not unreasonable to have articles on student organizations of those colleges. Vince220 (talk) 17:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not at all a reasonable argument, those are totally different things. Rivalries are major affairs, many covered nationally, that bring in thousands of fans and tons of money. They have significant outside media coverage from unbiased and respectable sources. Most student groups, barring some sort of controversy, never get significant outside coverage. In this case, the sources are mostly internal, which presents conflicts of interest. Discarding the bad sources, there isn't enough left to establish notability. Sven Manguard Talk 21:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete All the sources have COI issues except for one from Maxim, which by itself fails to establish notability. Sven Manguard Talk 21:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable, insignificant coverage to pass WP:GNG. The Keep rationales are baffiling. Grsz11 00:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete among many other things, Wikipedia is not your college yearbook. As to other items, fails WP:GNG, is not "widely regarded" in any way, and is only a local event/group. Try another wiki.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Definitely a BIO1E, possibly a BLP1E depending on whether the original trio meet WP:WIALPI or not. The Maxim ref doesn't appear to be currently active, which was about the only RS alleged. Jclemens (talk) 04:39, 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) 09:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Huw Phillips
- Huw Phillips (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 an reliable sources to verify the article and assess notability. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG and without sources unable to determine if meets WP:ATHLETE#Rugby union. J04n(talk page) 10:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 10:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 10:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not appear notable. FruitMonkey (talk) 11:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unverified. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 13:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete—search produced no results supporting notability. Bjenks (talk) 14:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unreferenced article with no sign of notability. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 15:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't find anything about this rugby player at reliable sources -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: no sign that he ever played with Harlequins; good chance that it was made up one day by a long suffering spouse --Shirt58 (talk) 09:04, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 09:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Michelle Newman
- Michelle Newman (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 coverage of this voice actress in any reliable sources to verify the article and assess notability. There is a list of her roles here but any registered user can edit that site. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. J04n(talk page) 10:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --J04n(talk page) 10:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 10:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: CSE search shows she exists, but little more than that. --Gwern (contribs) 00:50 10 October 2010 (GMT)
- Delete per Nom. Fails WP:Notability and WP:BLP. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete does not meet the criteria for inclusion at WP:NACTOR or WP:NOTABILITY -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:24, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 09:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mumpsy
- Mumpsy (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. Neither the band, the members or albums have had any real media coverage. The speedy deletion of this article was refused as the article claims they had undergone a national tour, but I am unable to verify this after searching the web. The east-coast tour was described as "three bands in a van" which suggests the level and standard of touring was limited. This article has been listed before in 2006 [[21]] and appears to have been deleted but then recreated on the strength that their upcoming album would be sold nationally and would be in the charts. It seems that this success did not occur. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 10:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If they ever have a hit, someone can write a better article. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - There is cover age for this band, like this. But all of it is from the Orlando Sentinel, which indicates they still haven't made it yet. They may qualify under item 7 of WP:BAND, but it's not clear they are the most prominent band in their local scene. -- Whpq (talk) 14:26, 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 redirect to Challenge_of_the_GoBots#Characters. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Treds
- Treds (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)
Insufficiently sourced Gobots fancruft. Delete. Divebomb (talk) 09:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - We just started having this talk on the page for Small Foot. There is a perfectly acceptable list of character started at Challenge_of_the_GoBots that all these minor character could redirected to. Deletion is unnecessary. Mathewignash (talk) 12:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Challenge_of_the_GoBots#Characters per WP:BEFORE. --Malkinann (talk) 00:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify this, per Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Process, I feel the page history should be retained for the possible creation of a future List of Gobots characters, which would contain this character and others from Category:Gobots. --Malkinann (talk) 06:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per Malkinann --Khajidha (talk) 14:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 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) 09:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Armando Fredriksson
- Armando Fredriksson (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)
Disputed PROD. No evidence of notability. Only 13 ghits, none RS. Article claims he is a Swedish "champion", but only source suggests he came 2nd at best. Fails WP:BIO. Jimmy Pitt talk 09:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as there is no coverage in reliable sources. Armbrust Talk Contribs 12:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not too much reliable sources, doesn't show much notability. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 15:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Checking Swedish online sources, I only find evidence of the above-mentioned 2nd place in the 1996 championship, which doesn't seem enough for notability. Tomas e (talk) 11:30, 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 redirect to Challenge_of_the_GoBots#Characters. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Turbo (Gobots)
- Turbo (Gobots) (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)
Yet more Gobots fancruft to go through. A YouTube video, a link to a Transformers fansite and a patent is not enough to establish notability. Delete. Divebomb (talk) 09:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Redirect - TUrbo was one of the stars of the Gobots show. He does have one magazine reference. We just started having this talk on the page for Small Foot. There is a perfectly acceptable list of character started at Challenge_of_the_GoBots that all these minor character could redirected to. Deletion is unnecessary. Mathewignash (talk) 12:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Challenge_of_the_GoBots#Characters per WP:BEFORE. --Malkinann (talk) 00:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify this, per Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Process, I feel the page history should be retained for the possible creation of a future List of Gobots characters, which would contain this character and others from Category:Gobots. --Malkinann (talk) 06:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I added another book reference to Turbo in the Gobots movie. Mathewignash (talk) 01:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with the other GoBots character articles into a List of GoBots characters like other ficional universes have (such as Transformers, the thing this is most like). 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Challenge_of_the_GoBots#Characters per WP:BEFORE or delete. Dwanyewest (talk) 06:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - While the other Gobots artricles are VERY minor characters, I wonder if Turbo belongs there. He was one of the three main heroes the whole series was about. He's the only one I'm hesitant to merge into a list. He does have some third-party references. Does he really belong with the likes of Spoons and Loco? Mathewignash (talk) 12:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How the hell am I supposed to tell the main characters from the minor nobodies if all the articles are only sourced to YouTube videos or fansites? --Divebomb (talk) 14:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer Possibly from the three other citations in the article from books/magazines? The article itself says he is a main character appearing in every episode of the TV series and the movie. Mathewignash (talk) 16:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment besides there is insufficent third person sources to show that that the character is notable. Dwanyewest (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How the hell am I supposed to tell the main characters from the minor nobodies if all the articles are only sourced to YouTube videos or fansites? --Divebomb (talk) 14:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as suggestd by Dwaynewest --Khajidha (talk) 14:57, 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 Challenge_of_the_GoBots#Characters. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Geeper-Creeper
- Geeper-Creeper (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)
Yet more Gobots fancruft. Article is hardly sourced. Delete. Divebomb (talk) 09:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: single sourcing to a site dedicated to cataloging every toy of this kind that ever existed is hardly proof of notability. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - We just started having this talk on the page for Small Foot. There is a perfectly acceptable list of character started at Challenge_of_the_GoBots that all these minor character could redirected to. Deletion is unnecessary. Mathewignash (talk) 12:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Challenge_of_the_GoBots#Characters per WP:BEFORE. --Malkinann (talk) 00:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify this, per Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Process, I feel the page history should be retained for the possible creation of a future List of Gobots characters, which would contain this character and others from Category:Gobots. --Malkinann (talk) 06:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with the other GoBots character articles into a List of GoBots characters like other ficional universes have (such as Transformers, the thing this is most like). 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Challenge_of_the_GoBots#Characters per WP:BEFORE or delete. Dwanyewest (talk) 05:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as suggested by Dwaynewest --Khajidha (talk) 14:58, 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 Challenge_of_the_GoBots#Characters. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tank (Gobots)
- Tank (Gobots) (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)
Gobots fancruft, single source fails to establish notability. Delete. Divebomb (talk) 09:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only reference is to the patent. Patenting something does not make it notable - just look at all those patents for perpetual motion machines --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - We just started having this talk on the page for Small Foot. There is a perfectly acceptable list of character started at Challenge_of_the_GoBots that all these minor character could redirected to. Deletion is unnecessary. Mathewignash (talk) 12:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Challenge_of_the_GoBots#Characters per WP:BEFORE. --Malkinann (talk) 00:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify this, per Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Process, I feel the page history should be retained for the possible creation of a future List of Gobots characters, which would contain this character and others from Category:Gobots. --Malkinann (talk) 06:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with the other GoBots character articles into a List of GoBots characters like other ficional universes have (such as Transformers, the thing this is most like). 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Challenge_of_the_GoBots#Characters per WP:BEFORE or delete. Dwanyewest (talk) 05:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as suggested by Dwaynewest --Khajidha (talk) 14:59, 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 Challenge_of_the_GoBots#Characters. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Zeemon
- Zeemon (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 is nothing more than Gobots fancruft. Only one source and that's a Transformers fansite. Delete. Divebomb (talk) 09:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - We just started having this talk on the page for Small Foot. There is a perfectly acceptable list of character started at Challenge_of_the_GoBots that all these minor character could redirected to. Deletion is unnecessary. Mathewignash (talk) 12:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Challenge_of_the_GoBots#Characters per WP:BEFORE. --Malkinann (talk) 00:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify this, per Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Process, I feel the page history should be retained for the possible creation of a future List of Gobots characters, which would contain this character and others from Category:Gobots. --Malkinann (talk) 06:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with the other GoBots character articles into a List of GoBots characters like other ficional universes have (such as Transformers, the thing this is most like). 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Challenge_of_the_GoBots#Characters per WP:BEFORE or delete. Dwanyewest (talk) 05:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as suggested by Dwaynewest --Khajidha (talk) 14:59, 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 Challenge_of_the_GoBots#Characters. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rest-Q
- Rest-Q (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)
Gobots fancruft. Sources fail to establish notability. Delete. Divebomb (talk) 09:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - We just started having this talk on the page for Small Foot. There is a perfectly acceptable list of character started at Challenge_of_the_GoBots that all these minor character could redirected to. Deletion is unnecessary. Mathewignash (talk) 12:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Challenge_of_the_GoBots#Characters per WP:BEFORE. --Malkinann (talk) 00:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify this, per Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Process, I feel the page history should be retained for the possible creation of a future List of Gobots characters, which would contain this character and others from Category:Gobots. --Malkinann (talk) 06:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with the other GoBots character articles into a List of GoBots characters like other ficional universes have (such as Transformers, the thing this is most like). 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Challenge_of_the_GoBots#Characters per WP:BEFORE or delete. Dwanyewest (talk) 05:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as suggested by Dwaynewest --Khajidha (talk) 15:00, 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 Challenge_of_the_GoBots#Characters. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Loco (Gobots)
- Loco (Gobots) (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 Gobots fancruft. Delete. Divebomb (talk) 09:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - We just started having this talk on the page for Small Foot. There is a perfectly acceptable list of character started at Challenge_of_the_GoBots that all these minor character could redirected to. Deletion is unnecessary. Mathewignash (talk) 12:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Challenge_of_the_GoBots#Characters per WP:BEFORE. --Malkinann (talk) 00:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify this, per Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Process, I feel the page history should be retained for the possible creation of a future List of Gobots characters, which would contain this character and others from Category:Gobots. --Malkinann (talk) 06:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with the other GoBots character articles into a List of GoBots characters like other ficional universes have (such as Transformers, the thing this is most like). 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Challenge_of_the_GoBots#Characters per WP:BEFORE or delete. Dwanyewest (talk) 05:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as suggested by Malkinann --Khajidha (talk) 15:01, 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 Challenge_of_the_GoBots#Characters. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Spoons (Gobots)
- Spoons (Gobots) (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 Gobots character. All sources in the article are fansites. Delete. Divebomb (talk) 09:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Challenge_of_the_GoBots#Characters per WP:BEFORE. --Malkinann (talk) 23:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify this, per Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Process, I feel the page history should be retained for the possible creation of a future List of Gobots characters, which would contain this character and others from Category:Gobots. --Malkinann (talk) 06:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with the other GoBots character articles into a List of GoBots characters like other ficional universes have (such as Transformers, the thing this is most like). 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Challenge_of_the_GoBots#Characters per WP:BEFORE or delete. Dwanyewest (talk) 05:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Challenge_of_the_GoBots#Characters per WP:BEFORE. --Khajidha (talk) 15:02, 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 speedy delete. Good call Nyttend but you could have closed the AFD :) Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mutter (window manager)
- Mutter (window manager) (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 real assertion of notability (one mention on google that might indicate some low level notability) as well as blatant copyvio (see [22] [23][24]. →ROUX ₪ 07:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - WP:COPYVIO. The article has been blatantly copied and pasted from posts on the Bugzilla development forum. Such as here for example - you'll need to scroll down the forum to find them. --Kudpung (talk) 08:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I didn't speedy it as a copyvio because I honestly don't know whether this is notable enough to be kept or not. If it is, presumably it can be chopped down to something non-copyvio and expanded from there. if not, I figure this discussion will unearth that and it'll go anyway. → ROUX ₪ 08:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as unambiguous copyvio. I've tagged the page as CSD because the copyvio is so blatant it should override AfD. Per Kudpung, one needs to scroll down to near the end of the forum post dated 2009-07-16 18:12:06 EDT to see the copyvio source. Jimmy Pitt talk 09:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted as a copyvio. Nyttend (talk) 14:25, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 09:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Symphony X's Eighth Studio Album
- Symphony X's Eighth Studio Album (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)
Clear-cut example of WP:HAMMER. Still being recorded with only source being facebook updates. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 07:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:HAMMER, no tracklist, cover or release date. Armbrust Talk Contribs 12:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:HAMMER. And some fanboy just wet himself because he was the OMG FIRST to get the info out to the masses. How can someone GET that devoted? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 12:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Really no need for an article of an album without, tracklist or even name. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 15:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I guess I can agree that it could be deleted. There is a lack of information about the upcoming album, perfectly accented by a lack of reliable sources. Until more information gets released, there doesn't need to be an article about this. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 18:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 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.
Withdrawn Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 21:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Koyunbaba
- Koyunbaba (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)
(Speedy declined) Copyright infringement http://www.kultur.gov.tr/AR/Genel/BelgeGoster.aspx?17A16AE30572D3131C7D512769965A8E5285946FF25011AA
Website itself says "rumours" [sic]... fails WP:N
Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
but it is a fact that he lived there, has a tomb, has a bridge made for his sake, has an inscription on Osmancık Castle. these are not rumours. the "rumours" refers to only ways how these things have been made, not Koyunbaba himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.10.136.112 (talk) 21:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment See spelling differences — "Rumour" is the proper spelling outside of the USA. Nyttend (talk) 22:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- oh, thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 21:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A copyright violation can be removed by editing the article, it does not require a speedy deletion or deletion request. Simply remove the copyright violation. See Wikipedia:Copyright violations for more information. In many cases you might also put notice at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations. --KMLP (talk) 21:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, well, if I blank the article, it's vandalism :) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 21:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 09:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sam Mederios
- Sam Mederios (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 BLP about a retired Canadian soccer coach. No sources found at all. A search for "Sam Mederios" and "Vaughan Shooters" together retrieves only Wikipedia and mirrors. I tried "Sam Medeiros" in case the name had been mis-spelt but that doesn't find anything more convincing. Michig (talk) 07:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - a Canadian soccer coach by this name does exist, but the article doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 13:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Clear failure of both WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails all relevant notability criteria. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 12:08, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 09:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jeremiah Ledbetter
- Jeremiah Ledbetter (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, orphaned BLP article about someone who has made three short films, with no credible assertion of notability anywhere in the article's history. Article history shows speedy and PROD removed without any real improvement. Michig (talk) 06:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Google searches do not turn up anything about this person, besides a video on Youtube.Kitfoxxe (talk) 08:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unsalvable violation of WP:BLP. Earlier versions[25] of this article refer to his films The Man with Apple-Shaped Boxing Gloves and Hallelujah! Gorilla Revival... which led me to the Jeremiah Ledbetter listed at IMDB.[26] In April 2009 a SPA editor apparently vandalized the article without it being reverted... removing all the article's text and changing birthdate and birthplace (which greatly added to confusions).[27] Pretty much, the article remained in the vandalized version ever since. So let's look to the last version that had any verifiable facts about the real Jeremiah... the guy born in Alabama and not an imaginary one about some guy allegedly from Seattle: The subject of this article is unsourcable... being found only in non-RS and wiki-mirrors. His films, while verifiable, have not themselves gotten press nor distribution. Neither he nor they have won awards. And so, while feeling a bit grumpy that a vandalized article was able to sit un-mended in mainspace for over a year, the fact of the matter is that even were it mended... notability is lacking. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:50, 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 per G3 (blatant hoax). Dabomb87 (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Teleconnetic twins
- Teleconnetic twins (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)
(Speedy declined) Hoax. (This should go here) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Probably a hoax. And even if it isn't, it gives absolutely zero sources. JIP | Talk 07:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No sources given, no sources found. Very likely a hoax. Jarkeld (talk) 07:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Cute, good imagination shown, but not suitable for an encyclopedia. Seems to be a joke. Kitfoxxe (talk) 08:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article fails GNG, no coverage in reliable sources. Armbrust Talk Contribs 12:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this is someone's inside joke. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No coverage in reliable sources. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 15:53, 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: nomination withdrawn (non-admin cliosure). Whpq (talk) 14:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
William H. Brackney
- William H. Brackney (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)
Person's notability is uncertain. I deleted the speedy delete tag, as it doesn't meet that criteria, but a delete might still be justified thru AfD D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – I just searched and found 20 references to him in other Wikipedia articles, so I’ve linked them to the article. I've added a list of over a dozen books he authored. In adding references to the article, it became clear to me that he satisfies several of the WP:ACADEMIC criteria, so I have no doubts about my recommendation to keep this article. I should add that I have no connection with Dr Brackney or any of the subject matter of the article. The AfD nomination was useful because the article at that stage was insufficiently referenced, making it impossible to verify his notability. I hope that the work I've done this morning is sufficient to settle the matter. Do feel free to reply if any concerns remain. Regards — Hebrides (talk) 10:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Endowed, named chair at a respected college, meets WP:ACAD. Vrivers (talk) 13:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Concur with the above, meets at least two points of WP:ACADEMIC. -- BenTels (talk) 13:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Meets WP:ACADEMIC #5, and #6 (if being dean and principal count), probably #1, and possibly another or two. The article could use more third party RSs, but this seems like a pretty clear keep to me. Novaseminary (talk) 18:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as above, particularly per Vrivers. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- I presume that "Distinguished professor" in Canada is similar to professor in UK (not a mere lecturer as in USA). The article lists a number of books publihsed by academic publishers: this is quite enough to make him notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Distinguished Professor" in Canada is similar to "Distinguished Professor" in the US, and the process of being named distinguished is less formal that in Europe. But please continue to make the point about UK lecturers versus US professors in other AfD discussions. Abductive (reasoning) 18:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Named distinguished professorship with a cartload of comprehensive books on Baptism. I hope the nominator does not become discouraged from finding and nominating pages on non-notable professors for deletion; they are plentiful. Abductive (reasoning) 18:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I didn't nominate for bragging rights, you know :) D O N D E groovily Talk to me 00:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep - I don't normally withdraw nominations (doing so potentially constitutes one user overruling all of Wiki), but in this case I will. The article was written by a new user and improperly nominated for speedy delete, and now this. This new user wrote a good first article and didn't deserve this treatment. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:15, 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 no consensus. There does however appear to be a good case for merging into Judaism and violence as this article appears to have been spun off that one. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Peace and violence in Judaism
- Peace and violence in Judaism (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)
Original Synthesis, plain and simple. The Final Straw for me was not the pointy AFD else where but its recent name change to "Peace and violence in Judaism." Two users where discusing the scope of the article which is clear sythesis work. Either a Topic is indpendently notable or it isnt and the topic itself should have a scope defined by RS. A RFC (at least by my reading) came to a clear consensus that it lacks a coherent source that adesses the topic as a whole Thus Synth. A WP:OR-noticboard thread also came to same conclsuion. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 05:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is an almost identical article Judaism and violence, also up for deletion, shouldn't the two discussions be merged? MrCleanOut (talk) 11:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree: it is wasteful and disruptive to have two AfDs (however, to be clear: the two articles are not strictly the same: Judaism and violence it a top-level article, and Peace and war in Judaism is a sub-article that deals with one specific sub-topic). But you are correct: the AfD arguments will be identical. --Noleander (talk) 14:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is an almost identical article Judaism and violence, also up for deletion, shouldn't the two discussions be merged? MrCleanOut (talk) 11:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - This article was named Judaism and violence for a long time, and only changed to Peace and violence in Judaism two days ago. I suppose the recent re-name to "Peace and violence in Judaism" could be a bit confusing, but that could be undone (I was not the editor that renamed it). This article is a highly notable subject, comparable to:
- Mormonism and violence
- Christianity and violence
- Islam and violence
- Religion and violence
Especially with recent events in the Middle East, the topic of how religions interact with violence is very topical and notable. There are a large number of reliable sources on the topic, listed at Judaism and violence#References. A few are:
- Boustan, Ra'anan S., "Violence, Scripture, and Textual Practice in Early Judaism and Christianity", in Violence, Scripture, and Textual Practice in Early Judaism and Christianity, Ra'anan S. Boustan, Alex P. Jassen, Calvin J. Roetzel (Eds), BRILL, 2010 pp 1–12
- Chilton, Bruce, Abraham's Curse: The Roots of Violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, Doubleday, 2009
- Ehrlich, Carl. S, "Joshua, Judaism, and Genocide", in Jewish Studies at the Turn of the Twentieth Century, Judit Targarona Borrás, Ángel Sáenz-Badillos (Eds). 1999, Brill. pp 117–124.
- Ellens, J. Harold (Ed.), The destructive power of religion: violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2007
- Firestone, Reuven, "Judaism on Violence and Reconciliation: An Examination of Key Sources", in Beyond violence: religious sources of social transformation in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, James Heft (Ed.), Fordham Univ Press, 2004, pp 74–87
- Glick, Leonard B., "Religion and Genocide", in The Widening circle of genocide, Alan L. Berger (Ed). Transaction Publishers, 1994, pp 43–74
- Heft, James (Ed.), Beyond violence: religious sources of social transformation in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam , Fordham Univ Press, 2004
- Hirst, David, The gun and the olive branch: the roots of violence in the Middle East, Nation Books, 2003
- Hoffman, R. Joseph, The just war and jihad: violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, Prometheus Books, 2006
- Horowitz, Elliott S., Reckless rites: Purim and the legacy of Jewish violence, Princeton University Press, 2006
- Juergensmeyer, Mark, Terror in the mind of God: the global rise of religious violence, University of California Press, 2003
- Kuper, Leo, "Theological Warrants for Genocide: Judaism, Islam, and Christianity", in Confronting genocide: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Steven L. Jacobs (Ed.), Lexington Books, 2009, pp 3–34
- Pedahzur, Ami, Jewish terrorism in Israel, Columbia University Press, Columbia University Press, 2009
- Perliger, Arie and Weinberg, Leonard, "Jewish Self-Defence and Terrorist Groups Prior to the Establishment of the State of Israel: Roots and Traditions", in *Phillips, Gary A., "More Than the Jews … His Blood Be Upon All the Children: Biblical Violence, Genocide and Responsible Reading", in Confronting genocide: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Steven L. Jacobs (Ed.), Lexington Books, 2009, pp 77–87
- Van Wees, Hans, "Genocide in the Ancient World", in The Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies, Donald Bloxham, A. Dirk Moses (Eds), Oxford University Press US, 2010, pp 239–258.
- Weisburd, David, Jewish Settler Violence, Penn State Press, 1985
As indicated above, there is a large amount of material on the topic.--Noleander (talk) 05:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As we discussed on the talk any one of the sections possibly notable and possible for in an article intself but string all these souces into one lump topic is Original SynthesisThe Resident Anthropologist (talk) 05:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't make any sense. You're saying it is okay to have three separate articles on "Judaism and peace", "Judaism and modern violence" and "Judaism and ancient violence" (the three big sections in the article); but you're saying it is not okay to have a single article that presents those topics to readers in a unified manner? --Noleander (talk) 06:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I should have been more diecrptive with "Subsections"" Radical Zionists" is possibly a notable topic, some have thier own articles but as a whole its synthesis. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 06:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't make any sense. You're saying it is okay to have three separate articles on "Judaism and peace", "Judaism and modern violence" and "Judaism and ancient violence" (the three big sections in the article); but you're saying it is not okay to have a single article that presents those topics to readers in a unified manner? --Noleander (talk) 06:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So far you have provided no source only you synthesis, Your Arguement of WP:OTHERSTUFF is an invalid arguement. `The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 06:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have no stake in this whatsoever, have no idea what's going on, and don't know if this is either A) A legitimate discussion on deleting an article, B) An anti-Semitic attack, or C) Purple cows, but if we're nominating this article for deletion, why are we not also nominating Mormonism and violence, Christianity and violence, Islam and violence, and Religion and violence? Would they not also fall under this same category? Feel free to nominate them if you think this is a surefire win, but considering how loaded that article is, I'm not comfortable voting to delete it in the least. Vodello (talk) 06:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The ill advised and somewhat bizarre renaming aside, there is nothing in this article that meets the criteria for deletion. The only justification given by the nominator is that of synthesis which even a cursory glance at the references shows to not be the case. The relationship between Judaism and violence is a clearly established field of academic work. TomPointTwo (talk) 07:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article contains many POV issues, gross distortions of cited sources based on a clear agenda, and undue weight to fringe opinions, issues which need to be resolved. However the topic in whole is notable and covered by many scholarly works which explicitly discuss the topic of Peace and violence in religion and specifically in context of Judaism. I believe the nominator is misinterpreting WP:SYNTH, which says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" and WP:NOTESSAY which says "Personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic (rather than the consensus of experts)." This article is neither. Peace and violence in Judaism is just as a good topic as Judaism and sexuality, Judaism and abortion, Christianity and homosexuality, or thousands of other articles in Wikipedia which are notable topics based on reliable sources. Judaism and Bus stops which was given as an example fails the notability guideline, and not WP:SYNTH or WP:NOTESSAY. Marokwitz (talk) 07:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The writing style is not wonderful, the style of citation could be better, someother issues to deal with. But nothing that warrants the deletion of the article, which covers Jewish views on war and peace and therefore certainly is notable and encyclopedic. -- BenTels (talk) 13:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Per the above, Wikipedia apparently has Islam and violence and Christianity and violence articles and even Mormonism and violence articles without comment or debate, but instead of a matching Judaism and violence article, we're now treated to yet another POV push... Rename back to Judaism and violence to match. This POV crap has got to stop. —Carrite, Oct. 9, 2010.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete.
1) This article is a collection of topics that would make an excellent position paper for a discussion group or an ethical think-tank discussion. As a WP article it a mashup and creates the impression of a larger topic where none exists. The scope is problematic and lends itself to WP:SYNTH.
As John Carter pointed out on the article talk page, some of the sub-topics could be notable enough to have an article. For example, "Military history of Judaism". The fact that the range of topics covered could just as well be titled "Judaism and things that make people go Ouch" tells me that the topic is of an inherently vauge nature, hence the article scope is problematic and lends itself to WP:SYNTH.
2) The words Judaism and the word violence are sufficiently unclear that the article lends itself to be a dumping ground for agenda pushing.
Questions that are unclear in the current article: Does the word "Judaism" mean I should talk about religiously mandated violence or violence perpetrated by jews? If it appears in the Jewish bible, does that mean it is Jewish violence? (for example, were the biblical wars of Joshua religious violence or were they politically motivated wars waged by religious people? What about wars of the modern state of Israel which is not a religious state in nature)
Does the word violence include all violence acts? All things that physically hurt people? Is terrorism a violent act? Yes. Is war a violent act? maybe? Is capital punishment a violent act? I don't think so. Is spouse abuse a violent act? Spanking my 12 year old?
The above unclarities mean that any consensus on the article scope is by nature a POV-fork from a larger theoretical topic "All things Jewish and All things that make people go Ouch". As can be seen from the early revisions of this article, it is/can be/was a dumping ground for agenda pushing.
Joe407 (talk) 05:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The logic of your first point is precluded by the citation of numerous reliable sources discussing the subject of the article. This demonstrates that the topic is both notable and not synthesized by editors.
- I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about with your second point but from what I can understand I'm lead to believe that you feel that this is a difficult topic to edit. This may be the case but this is not a part of wikipedia's criteria for deletion. Only if the subject itself is inherently POV (i.e. Jewish megalomaniacism or Evil acts of Christianity) does an article meet the criteria for deletion on NPOV grounds. TomPointTwo (talk) 06:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Judaism and violence its original name, as it fits with the rest of this group: Mormonism and violence; Christianity and violence; Islam and violence; Religious violence the latter being a very broad and serious topic, and then work on improving it. But the word "peace" inserts a different subject and focus. Please avoid WP:POINT. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Judaism and violence, per IZAK. I find the AfD nomination concerning and not a little WP:POINTY. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment To be clear, in addition to keeping this article, I too believe the recent unilateral name change should be undone. TomPointTwo (talk) 19:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It wouldn't matter what the title was if the overall topic reflected in the title were not supported in sources. The problem as I see it with this article is that its overarching topic is utterly nonexistent in reliable sources. If sources don't support a topic, Wikipedia shouldn't have an article on it. I think the onus is on those who argue "keep" to show where sources support this topic—however you construe its title to be. Bus stop (talk) 22:32, 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 Bus Stop 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 or Violence in Jewish law, or War in Jewish law, would neatly limit the scope to verifiable, NPOV, facts. "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) 23:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since there is already a Judaism and violence article, merge into that one. StAnselm (talk) 23:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Errr, that's at AfD too Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judaism and violence... Peridon (talk) 13:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENT: At this time, it's become evident that this article and AfD have become pawns in a drawn out struggle that's beginning to violate WP:POINT and even WP:WAR, starting with the creation Judaism and bus stops, and then the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judaism and bus stops, then this AfD, and then 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) 08:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- IZAK—I don't see one article or AfD as a "pawn" in any other article or AfD. Nor do I see any "vicious cycle." You refer to "rational mature editorial behavior." I think that would entail bringing sources for this article's overall scope. There are no sources establishing satisfactorily that "Peace and violence in Judaism" is anything but 5 ordinary words that someone feels should be an article title on Wikipedia. But where are the sources establishing that string of words as a "known quantity"? Do we have the foggiest idea what correctly belongs in an article by that title? Sources are not available to provide us with guidance. This is not a topic that meets criteria for article-creation. The title merely provides an undefined receptacle that neither justifies the effort of the editors writing it or the readers reading it. Editors have no recourse to sources to resolve disputes over the purpose of the article because no such sources are apparently available. Readers deserve credible articles. A credible article is based on sources from beginning to end. Not only is every component of a credible article well-sourced, but additionally the topic of a credible article should be firmly anchored in sourced material. "Peace and violence in Judaism" does not have a preexistence outside of Wikipedia. Or, if you think otherwise, please bring sources. They should define or at least describe the parameters of such a topic as understood by those sources. Bus stop (talk) 14:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- IZAK: Those are wise words. I agree, and propose the following: both AfDs be abandoned; both articles (Judaism and violence and Peace and war in Judaism) be re-combined into a single article named Judaism and violence (which was the article's original name since its creation). Then a "rename proposal" be initiated on the article's Talk page. That would be the most sensible approach that would get everyone back to building an encyclopedia. If a bold Admin concurs, their help will be needed to move the Peace and war in Judaism back to Judaism and violence, since a non-admin cannot do that move. --Noleander (talk) 14:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Noleander, I agree with you. And dear Bus stop: My proposal was to let go of this article and "Rename" it to Judaism and violence its original name, since this article is basically just a DUPLICATE, and because the word "peace" inserts a different subject and focus, there should and could be an article about Judaism and peace (I just started it) including the meaning of "Shalom" separate from the direction and meaning of "violence". IZAK (talk) 01:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- IZAK: Those are wise words. I agree, and propose the following: both AfDs be abandoned; both articles (Judaism and violence and Peace and war in Judaism) be re-combined into a single article named Judaism and violence (which was the article's original name since its creation). Then a "rename proposal" be initiated on the article's Talk page. That would be the most sensible approach that would get everyone back to building an encyclopedia. If a bold Admin concurs, their help will be needed to move the Peace and war in Judaism back to Judaism and violence, since a non-admin cannot do that move. --Noleander (talk) 14:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- AgreementI would like to support the posts by IZAK, Bus stop and Noleander. (Not volunteering, though...) Peridon (talk) 14:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, since the topic is significantly covered by reliable sources. Peter Karlsen (talk) 22:08, 11 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] - Delete as this article contravenes WP:NOT#ESSAY. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Judaism and violence. Per my keep vote on that AFD, I think this topic is worthy of coverage. However, I cannot see that this a well-defined sub-topic, so it is better that the coverage be condensed into one article instead of two. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete
- There's a clear POV push to make historic peaceful nation of the Jews look "violent."
- Cherypicking - information to suit the anti Jewish trend of the article.
- Besides the reasons provided above, it has multiple falsification of Judaism, for instance the attempt to broaden the extermination order outside the Amalekites and falsely stating that the Canaanites were such a target, when in fact the Israelies were only required to clear the land out of the inhabitants not to "exterminate."
- Noam Chomsky and Shulamit Aloni both notorious 'anti-religious-Jews' activists are not the best sources one can have for clarity on Judaism, religion, or else.Marias87 (talk) 17:28, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 09:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Guy Pierre
- Guy Pierre (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)
A couple of hits in Gnews but nothing stands out as more than trvial coverage The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 05:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete - He appears to have significant coverage in local sources but not enough to qualify under WP:GNG. If someone could find some more sources showing significant coverage, I would happily change my vote. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 23:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete per above.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:24, 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 keep. -- Cirt (talk) 09:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Martiros Kavoukjian
- Martiros Kavoukjian (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)
Could be a langage Bias here but i can find no english sources that explicitly mention him nor any more than a handul of citations for his work. Seems Non-notable The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 05:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep On the contrary, the subject seems quite notable per the reliable sources provided in the article. He was apparently a subject in the Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia. Just because we may not know him doesn't mean he isn't notable. The country of Armenia clearly thinks that he is notable. I think this article has a fair amount of potential, and I find no valid reason to delete this article. Vodello (talk) 07:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: He clearly seems to meet WP:AUTH, from the given references. That they aren't in English makes no difference and discounting Kavoukjian on that account seems like systemic bias to me. That said, I can't read the references either, so I don't know if they really support the article (so if an Armenian speaker discounts them, I'll accept that). Also, the article makes a big point of the citations, which seems to be to justify the subject under WP:AUTH; needs a rewrite in that area at least. -- BenTels (talk) 13:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I am an Armenian speaker and I can vouch for the authencity of the links provided. He is a well known figure within Armenian academia. Also, he has at least one book which has been translated into French and English from the original Armenian.--Moosh88 (talk) 22:16, 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 redirect to Last Letters Home. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Michelle Witmer
- Michelle Witmer (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 soldier D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Soldier's death covered in a documentary on HBO, establishing notability. ABC News did a piece on her.[28] There is coverage in books[29] and newspapers[30]. This comes off as an incredibly rude, weak WP:Not notable nomination. Vodello (talk) 07:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rude? Excuse me? Another soldier profiled in this show ended with a redirect and delete, so I hardly think this nomination is weak, or a strong keep. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 16:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Vodello (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not quite sure how that applies. Altho WP:NOTNEWS might. She is no Jessica Lynch or Pat Tillman D O N D E groovily Talk to me 19:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How does an AfD nomination equate to rude? bahamut0013wordsdeeds 00:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am capable of assuming good faith, but your comment, as well as this nomination, is ignorant. The nom could have put this article up for deletion with a less disrespectful and consensus weak rationale. This woman is a soldier that was a casualty of war, and received significant coverage from books, newspapers, and television. Donde's comments repeatedly treat the subject like trash. You can nominate an article for deletion without being utterly disrespectful. I stand by my claim that this subject has received enough significant coverage to establish General Notability Guidelines, trumping all the essays and WP:JNN votes. Vodello (talk) 01:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I am not ignorant simply because I disagreed with you; if you are indeed capable of AGF, then you need to do so immediately becore you cross the incivility line again. Nobody has treated the article's subject like trash either. I don't see why you feel the need to be defenseive, and AfD nomination is not a slight against nor disrespect of the person; rather, it just says that she is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. The only significant coverage arose from her being featured in the LLH documentary. If there is indeed significant coverage, then where is it? The article cites only LLH , one newspaper article, and a Social Security database. In any case, sheer quantity of media coverage for one event does not equate to notability; additionally, WP:NOT is a policy and would trump a guideline. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 14:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On a somewhat related note, while reliable, I don't think citing the Social Security Death Index is appropriate on Wikipedia. It is more of a genealogy resource for non-famous people. If you need to cite it, it means the topic isn't notable. Notable topics will have plenty of other sources for year and place of death. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 15:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I am not ignorant simply because I disagreed with you; if you are indeed capable of AGF, then you need to do so immediately becore you cross the incivility line again. Nobody has treated the article's subject like trash either. I don't see why you feel the need to be defenseive, and AfD nomination is not a slight against nor disrespect of the person; rather, it just says that she is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. The only significant coverage arose from her being featured in the LLH documentary. If there is indeed significant coverage, then where is it? The article cites only LLH , one newspaper article, and a Social Security database. In any case, sheer quantity of media coverage for one event does not equate to notability; additionally, WP:NOT is a policy and would trump a guideline. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 14:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am capable of assuming good faith, but your comment, as well as this nomination, is ignorant. The nom could have put this article up for deletion with a less disrespectful and consensus weak rationale. This woman is a soldier that was a casualty of war, and received significant coverage from books, newspapers, and television. Donde's comments repeatedly treat the subject like trash. You can nominate an article for deletion without being utterly disrespectful. I stand by my claim that this subject has received enough significant coverage to establish General Notability Guidelines, trumping all the essays and WP:JNN votes. Vodello (talk) 01:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How does an AfD nomination equate to rude? bahamut0013wordsdeeds 00:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not quite sure how that applies. Altho WP:NOTNEWS might. She is no Jessica Lynch or Pat Tillman D O N D E groovily Talk to me 19:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Vodello (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rude? Excuse me? Another soldier profiled in this show ended with a redirect and delete, so I hardly think this nomination is weak, or a strong keep. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 16:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/Delete: Due to WP:BIO1E. If there is a suitable article to merge it into, merge; otherwise, delete. -- BenTels (talk) 13:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Last Letters Home. Markus Schulze 16:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect per WP:BIO1E and the above arguments Nick-D (talk) 23:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect per Nick-D. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Last Letters Home. No real independant notability as a person, per WP:MILPEOPLE, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTMEMORIAL, and WP:BIO1E; and precedent per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonard Cowherd. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 00:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - notability needs to be lasting, and despite the media coverage I don't believe it meets WP:MILMOS/N. As such WP:NOTNEWS seems relevant. Likewise argements like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as a rationale for keep generally should be avoided at AfD. Anotherclown (talk) 03:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You misunderstand. It was the nominator that used WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as an argument to support deletion. "Well they deleted X, so they should delete Y as well." When I link to this to counter someone's weak argument, I expect them to read it or already understand it. In the future, I'll use WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST to clear up any confusion. Vodello (talk) 05:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the nominator used the non-notability argument. It's right up there where he nominated the article! bahamut0013wordsdeeds 14:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect: unfortunately I don't believe the subject has lasting notability in relation to Wikipedia's understanding of the term (see Wikipedia:N#Notability is not temporary), however, I think a redirect to the Last Letters Home article per Bahamut0013's suggestion would be a way to preserve the search term, which seems like it might be something that some internet users might search for. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - There is nothing notable about this soldier other than she died. It's sad, but that's not an inclusion citerion. -- Whpq (talk) 14:36, 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) 09:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shadowgirls
- Shadowgirls (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 initially nominated for speedy, but its been the subject of one before. I found a RS source that had the author quoted as saying he was going to start it but no source after it. Thus non -notable. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 05:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete barring the emergence of a third party reliable source covering the webcomic in order to establish notability. TomPointTwo (talk) 07:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and I agree with the iriginal speedy, no notability is asserted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Its mentioned during an interview along with another comic made by the same artist, they giving it coverage plus showing some images of it at [31]. comicbookresources.com I believe is a reliable source, there even a Wikipedia article on it. Dream Focus 04:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- yep thats the one RS i found mentioning it at all, no follow ups on it on CBR or newsarama. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 04:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not a single reliable source in the article. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 09:39, 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) 09:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
X-Bike
- X-Bike (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 product. It's a stationary bike, and stationary bikes are notable, but there really isn't anything notable about this one. Google search came up with plenty on where to buy one, but no good sources to establish notability. Deletion was initially suggested by Mandolinface. Sven Manguard Talk 05:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, doesn't appear notable, but the article is almost purely an ad. Nyttend (talk) 14:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Seems like promotion article, not very notable either. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 15:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Blatant advertising, copyvio of a syndicated press-release [32]. 2 says you, says two 06:00, 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 keep. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shoe Goo
- Shoe Goo (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)
Inadequate references, Google search didn't help. Not notable product for any discernible reason. Reads like a promotion. In all honesty, the delete was Mandolinface's idea. Sven Manguard Talk 05:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Company is not notable, article cites no independent references to establish notability, fails WP:PRODUCT, WP:GNG. -- BenTels (talk) 14:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find independent sources showing this particular product is notable. (Full disclosure: when I owned a retail store I sold a couple of other products made by this company. They were a minuscule part of my business, I have no current relationship to this company, and no feelings one way or the other about the company or the product.) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No sources, no valid assertion of notability. 2 says you, says two 05:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Leaning toward keep. IMO, it's become a generic term for similar products and is a mainstay of the hobby and skateboarding industries. I've even seen it repackaged in hobby shops by a major manufacturer, but darned if I can remember which one. Might have been Trinity Electronics. Besides, Wikipedia is not paper and articles like this are what set the project apart. PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not above making mistakes, but we need to address the primary concern here: "Inadequate references, Google search didn't help" (i.e. not notable by our guidelines.) WP:PAPER is policy, but is secondary to the core policies of 'notable, verifiable, and not illegal' which take precedent. Sven Manguard Talk 17:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This brand is so well known as the exemplar of the (relatively rare) polyurethane solvent glues that its name has become generic for them. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DELETE. This item is strictly promotional. I came online to find out how the product is used, why it was invented, what makes it superior (or so popular) etc. This article answers none of these questions and reads like a poor promotion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quimbys (talk • contribs) 11:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The topic has received sufficient coverage to establish notability. This article from People (titled "Shoe Goo Guru Lyman Van Vliet Cures Tattered Tennis Toes with Sheer Stick-to-Itiveness") provides history about how and why Shoe Goo was invented. There are more sources, though they cover Shoe Goo in less depth than the People source:
See this entry from Constructing Robot Bases by Gordon McComb, this entry from Slot Car Racing in the Digital Age by Robert Schleicher, and this entry from Anybody's Skateboard Book by Tom Cuthbertson. Furthermore, see this article from Cosmetics & Toiletries & Household Products Marketing News in Japan and this mention in Toledo Blade.
The People article, published on August 9, 1982 is one of the best sources for Shoe Goo. Add this to the second best source, this article from Inc. (titled A Shoe-repair Product For People On The Run), and notability is solidly established. Cunard (talk) 07:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - People magazine article constitutes independent coverage. Speaking as someone who works in the shoe retailing industry, Shoe Goo is a widely sold and well known product for probably two decades now, not some 15 minute Billy Mays-style flash-in-the-pan. Carrite (talk) 17:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'll spend a few minutes this morning trying to get this article up to WP quality standards. Carrite (talk) 17:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've despammed things and made it a bit of a history piece. I think after the AfD closes (presumably with a KEEP result, since there are now non-trivial articles on the product from People and Inc. magazines showing and this now obviously clears General Notability Guidelines) the article title should probably be changed to Eclectic Products, with a bit of rewriting to match the new name. Carrite (talk) 19:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Modified: Carrite (talk) 19:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'll spend a few minutes this morning trying to get this article up to WP quality standards. Carrite (talk) 17:11, 17 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) 09:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Travis Watkins (computer programmer)
- Travis Watkins (computer programmer) (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)
BLP of non-notable person who helped to write a kind-of notable program D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete like most programmers, there just isn't much of anything to say about him within an encyclopedic context. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not notable. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not notable person. OSbornarfcontributionatoration 17:15, 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) 09:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
D.v.p.s.p.
- D.v.p.s.p. (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)
Previously prodded by another editor, who removed their own prod with the comment that they hadn't realized it was meant to be a disambiguation page. As a disamb page, it doesn't disambiguate anything. As an article, there's no claim this phrase meets WP:Notability, or even much of anything beyond a dictionary definition. Fabrictramp(public) (talk) 04:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Nothing but a dictionary definition. I have to assume the disambiguation template was entirely accidental. 28bytes (talk) 04:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Dictionary definition. Incoming links from two articles, these could be served with a footnote. JIP | Talk 07:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It is just a dictionary definition. Armbrust Talk Contribs 11:56, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 09:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Copperpeace
- Copperpeace (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)
Borderline advert with no claim in article of meeting WP:Notability. Good faith gsearch turns up a lot of sales sites and advertising, but no notability; gnews search comes up empty. Speedy deletion tag was removed by author, but original tagger did not replace it in subsequent edits, so erring on the side of caution by AfD'ing rather than respeedying or proding. Fabrictramp(public) (talk) 04:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Yeah, I would have re-speedy nominated this. Clearly not notable. Nothing on it other than sales stuff and the article claims association with several bands but I can't back that up. Sven Manguard Talk 05:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Walks like an advert, talks like an advert, quacks like an advert. <2k ghits without official MySpace/Facebook/etc. Nothing on gnews. OSbornarfcontributionatoration 17:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This business makes guitar straps. No indication of technical, cultural, or historical significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:48, 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 merge to Matteo Ricci. Was already merged to Matteo Ricci. Further discussion can take place on talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 17:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven
- The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven (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)
Horrible article. I have serious doubts about the notability of this work. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven is not an article. It is a small section in the WP article about Matteo Ricci. While that section clearly needs referencing, I do not think that AfD should be used as a tool for editing articles. Uncensored Kiwi Kiss 09:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Close discussion This should be a paragraph on Talk:Matteo Ricci and not here at AfD. A 'citation needed' tag on the section would have sufficed. 'Horrible article' is not a ground for deletion. The section in question does need referencing, and expansion on the controversy (perhaps), but 'horrible'? How? Peridon (talk) 12:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Close I nominated this on October 9. Aircorn (talk · contribs) merged it three days later without commenting here. Also, when I looked thru the page history a couple minutes ago, I didn't see the AfD notice on the page. Looks like me or Twinkle screwed this up and the discussion got forgotten. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 18:03, 12 December 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) 01:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rizky Warnerin
- Rizky Warnerin (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 - un-notable Indonesian musicianSatuSuro 03:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —SatuSuro 03:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No coverage in reliable sources indicates a non-notable musician. Armbrust Talk Contribs 11:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable musician, very little sources. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 15:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 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) 04:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MTV school of cinematography
- MTV school of cinematography (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)
Unreferenced and I can't find any sources proving that this term is notable. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day Kollision (talk) 03:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Kollision (talk) 03:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy and quickly delete as WP:HOAX. Mike Allen 05:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete -as per MikeAllen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NZ forever (talk • contribs) 06:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't think this is at all notable, possibly hoax. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 15:56, 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tontines in popular culture
- Tontines in popular culture (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)
Trivial listcruft at best. Articles like this are just dumping grounds, to help the main article be "clean" of trivia. If any are notable: put them in the main article and keep an eye on the article so it doesn't bloat. RobJ1981 (talk) 03:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or else merge back to main article. It does no harm. If people are interested in the topic they can check out the list, if not ignore it. Kitfoxxe (talk) 08:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no objection to a few notable and well-sourced examples in the main tontine article, but this is pure trivia and unsourced trivia at that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge back with Tontine. The list is not so long that splitting it out was necessary, however the fact that this is a fairly common plot element deserves a fair bit of coverage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - It's a big block of trivia. I fail to see how adding trivia to the tontines article improves it. And that's doubly true when it's unsourced trivia. -- Whpq (talk) 14:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- Per Andrew Lenahan, maybe the main Tontine article would benefit from a few properly sourced examples, chosen discriminately. But this list needs to go. It is an indiscriminate dumping ground of unsourced trivia- which is what "List of whatevers in popular culture" invariably are. Reyk YO! 20:22, 16 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. Deleting as an unsourced BLP per WP:BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan Vella
- Ryan Vella (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 able to be found that he's had any significant coverage in reliable sources. The-Pope (talk) 02:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 02:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 02:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No significant independent sources to confirm notability (either WP:GNG or WP:ENT).--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 03:48, 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) 01:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Karsin(novel)
- Karsin(novel) (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)
Prod declined. AFD filed by IP who couldn't finish. Reads very spammy. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NB and WP:CRYSTAL--70.80.234.196 (talk) 03:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a hoax. Google returns exactly one result for the author and the title: the Wikipedia article. 28bytes (talk) 05:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Either a hoax or a book that hasn't even been published yet. Non-notable either way. JIP | Talk 07:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The lad probably has written or thinks he is going to write a book, but there is no evidence of publication and it fails WP:Notability (books) by a mile. JohnCD (talk) 15:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable book and possible hoax, google shows no results. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 15:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not the place to advertise the story you hope to write some day. Edward321 (talk) 17:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Can't see any evidence for it being a hoax, as such, but it's definitely non-notable. --KorruskiTalk 16:48, 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 pseudoreplication. Any content worth merging can be pulled from the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
N = 1 fallacy
- Article ([[Special:EditPage/{{{1}}}|edit]] | [[Talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/{{{1}}}|history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/{{{1}}}|protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/{{{1}}}|delete]] | [{{fullurl:Special:Whatlinkshere/{{{1}}}|limit=999}} links] | [{{fullurl:{{{1}}}|action=watch}} watch] | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Essentially original research with conflict of interest (see talk page and article creator) and zero evidence of notability. Concept originally published in a paper related to malaria in 2003, could not find a single independent source after that date. The article in question has been cited 30 times according to google scholar, but only in malaria articles (high citation field it appears), I see no evidence that the "n=1 fallacy" has been used seriously outside its original article (zero true positive hits in search engines). Boffob (talk) 01:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is just a rediscovery of a well known statistical issue with a new name. pseudoreplication generally encompasses this issue. I'd say unless (until?) the meme catches on the the secondary literature with this name, this does not meet the notability guidelines. I'd propose changing it to a redirect to pseudoreplication. 018 (talk) 18:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it's "original research" in the sense intended in Wikipedia's OR policy, since it was published in a refereed journal before it appeared in Wikipedia. Conflict of interest seems like a relatively minor issue that shouldn't be considered automatically fatal. I remember thinking the article was unclearly written. In such cases, ideally one would judge its merits after that problem has been corrected. Maybe if I'm feeling ambitious, I'll look at the published article within the next few days and see if I can clarify the article after that. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the issue with it being original research is that it's the authors of the paper who made the wiki article (there was a "copyright" issue because at first it was apparently a direct copy of the published material), and that there is no evidence of notability. You can't use Wikipedia to promote your own papers that were accepted in refereed journals. If it was indeed notable, "n=1 fallacy" would have appeared elsewhere in reliable sources and picked up by other scholars, in contexts outside of malaria. I find no evidence of that whatsoever.--Boffob (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You linked to original research, but you seem to have misunderstood it. If says:
- The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources.
- That's what "original research" means according to Wikipedia's policy on it. It means research published originally within Wikipedia. That's not what this is; it was published first by a refereed scholarly journal. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I counted it as OR because the authors are the ones who created the article. It might be debatably within the OR guidelines because it was published first elsewhere, but it is not within the guidelines with respect to notability (and notability is the main concern when it comes to deletion) and advertizing of the authors' own research. --Boffob (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You linked to original research, but you seem to have misunderstood it. If says:
- This article is unclear, and I'm wondering if someone here might be able to help clarify it. It looks as if the fallacy they're writing about may be the same thing as confounding? Michael Hardy (talk) 21:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I think 018 is right, it seems to be pseudoreplication under another name. Now that article, though it could use more sources, is much easier to read.--Boffob (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Part of the article seems to define the topic as pseudoreplication, but much of the explanation and the final example seem to be about a particular form of quasi-experiment. A very muddled piece of work. The original source is a little clearer, although the example is essentially identical, and it does appear that pseudoreplication is what's meant. --Avenue (talk) 03:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to pseudoreplication. The presentation here is sufficiently unclear that merging it would be a bad idea, unless it is reworked substantially along the way. --Avenue (talk) 04:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Partial merge. The N = 1 fallacy article at least has the advantage of having several references (which could reasonably be retained) while pseudoreplication has only one. Plus it at least has some meaningful context rather than the entirely dry theoretical stuff in pseudoreplication. In addition, N = 1 fallacy has two articles making "real" links to it, while pseudoreplication has none, so presumably some people have thought is contains something useful. And there is the question of categories ...it seems important that Category:Misuse of statistics be retained, and possibly some of the others: at present there is no overlap of categories at all. Melcombe (talk) 09:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- SMERGE to pseudoreplication. Presently, the two articles are on the same topic with no distinguishing features. I prefer the pseudoreplication name better, but have no strong preference. -Atmoz (talk) 20:17, 17 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) 03:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of Mad's TV shows spoofs
- List of Mad's TV shows spoofs (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)
Listcruft, non-encyclopedic —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I don't know what policy says we shouldn't have a list of Mad's TV spoofs when we have lists of almost everything else in American pop culture. (I wonder if Mad is going to do a spoof on Wikipedia.) Steve Dufour (talk) 01:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:IINFO; Steve should prolly read WP:OSE. The fact that other similar lists exist is immaterial. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article begins with a four paragraph critical analysis of the spoofs this notable satiric magazine has been running for roughly half a century. Perhaps the magazine will publish a parody of AfD debates on Wikisnobia some day. Cullen328 (talk) 04:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as subarticle under Mad_(magazine). The article begins with four paragraphs of original research, so those gotta go. Which would leave "A list of X." The list by itself is not notable. However, the magazine is itself notable, so in the context of the magazine, its history, and its take on pop culture over the last 50+ years, the list of spoofs is notable, but only in that context. So, redirect the list as a subarticle under Mad_(magazine). That's my !vote. Mtiffany71 (talk) 05:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, the only information this article adds to the links to the TV shows is their spoof name. The article could just as well be List of TV shows. JIP | Talk 13:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 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, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:37, 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. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eman El-Asy
- Eman El-Asy (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)
Actress fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Derild4921☼ 16:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for actors.Armbrust Talk Contribs 18:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment She is Egyptian. Google News search for the transcription of her name gives you remarkable number of articles. I checked some with the help of G-translator and I guess she is quite well known in Egypt. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, to be pedantic, the searches at the top of the article are for one of the possible transcriptions of the subject's name. The searches that you linked are for the untranscribed name. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for correcting my confusional comment, Phil. We need people who can read/translate this language. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:17, 6 October 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) 00:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete if no sources are added. This happens to be an unreferenced BLP, which can be deleted through a process other than AFD. If sources are added, then I would suggest keep. --Slon02 (talk) 00:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I've found some English-language sources using different spellings such as "Eman Al Assi", "Eman Al Asi" and "Iman El-Asi". There are countless other possible transliterations. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per sources added by Phil Bridger. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:19, 6 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) 00:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Second relist rationale. Relisting so that newly found sources can be considered. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Phil Bridger's excellent source detection. By the way, she has a bare-bones IMDb page under the spelling Eman El-Assy.[33] (I am mentioning that as a matter of information, not an argument for notability.)--Arxiloxos (talk) 03:49, 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. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 20:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Australian Gospel Music Award
- Australian Gospel Music Award (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 notability shown for these awards. awards are for Australian Gospel Music Association also at afd. lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 08:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nomination. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 12:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 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) 00:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with entry below or Delete if entry below is deleted I think that this has one or two hits from not questionable but not exactly stellar sources. More hits than the organization that distributes the awards, for sure (math: 2 > 0). That being said, if a merge were to happen, I would move this into the other article. For the record, I am voting delete on the other article, and it would appear both will be deleted if nothing changes in the next few days. Sven Manguard Talk 00:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the lack of reliable sources. Because the organization to which Sven Manguard referred was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian Gospel Music Association, this award can be deleted as well. Cunard (talk) 07:48, 17 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) 10:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Australian Gospel Music Association
- Australian Gospel Music Association (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 notability shown for this association. lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. nothing satisfying wp:org. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 08:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nomination. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 12:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 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) 00:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Ironically perhaps, the award it gives out has more legitimate hits than the organization itself. That being said, I couldn't find significant coverage with a simple Google search. That means it fails the test. Sven Manguard Talk 00:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete 1 gnews hit, hardly any coverage [34]. LibStar (talk) 14:07, 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) 10:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Inner Thoughts
- Inner Thoughts (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 book. Article creator claims a world record but nothing to back this up. No independent sources. noq (talk) 16:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe weighing the level of notability applies here. As a celebrity, who ever that person marries, gives birth to, creates, dates, writes, publishes is considered notable... inherently so. Otherwise, thousands of articles on wiki should not even exist. To weigh a book as to whether it is relevant should only apply if the writer is just as new as the book, and the book carries the writer's worth and therefore should be weighed in relevance. But when the writer is a celebrity, whatever that celebrity creates for the public, (movie, books, children, dates) are relevant. I can give you an entire list of people, books, and children who shouldn't even be up there if it weren't for the notability of someone else. Please consider this. Thank you. PeterRoyce (talk) 23:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to author's page, Masiela Lusha. TJRC (talk) 18:33, 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/ 00:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, since I can't find anything to establish notability, and the title is generic enough that a redirect would not be appropriate. 28bytes (talk) 05:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete it doesn't seem notable to me either. NZ forever (talk) 07:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Doesn't seem very notable, can't find any significant coverage. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 15:58, 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 Masiela Lusha. The "keep" opinions do not address the arguments for deletion. Sandstein 09:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Drinking the Moon
- Drinking the Moon (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 book. Article consists of just a list of poems with nothing else. sources provided are to the authors own website and a self publishing company. noq (talk) 16:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Book is inherently notable because of the notability of its writer. Once you do some research on other poetry articles you will see that that all anthology collections have a list of poems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterRoyce (talk • contribs) 16:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC) more resources related to the book: http://www.seventeen.com/cosmogirl/masiela-lusha http://reelladies.wordpress.com/2008/09/01/reel-lady-masiela-lusha/ http://www.thestarscoop.com/interviews/masiela-lusha-exclusive-interview/ http://www.amazon.com/Drinking-Moon-Masiela-Lusha/dp/0805971084 —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterRoyce (talk • contribs) 16:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC) — PeterRoyce (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Your references just show the existence not the notability of the book. Please read WP:BK for the appropriate notability guidelines. noq (talk) 17:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Books are not inherently notable because of who wrote them, like everything else they need significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ 17:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe weighing the level of notability applies here. As a celebrity, who ever that person marries, gives birth to, creates, dates, writes, publishes is considered notable... inherently so. Otherwise, thousands of articles on wiki should not even exist. To weigh a book as to whether it is relevant should only apply if the writer is just as new as the book, and the book carries the writer's worth and therefore should be weighed in relevance. But when the writer is a celebrity, whatever that celebrity creates for the public, (movie, books, children, dates) are relevant. I can give you an entire list of people, books, and children who shouldn't even be up there if it weren't for the notability of someone else. Please consider this. Thank you. PeterRoyce (talk) 23:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria. #5 is similar to what you are saying, but I do not believe Masiela Lusha meets that description. So I would say that this book fails Wikipedia:Notability (books) and also fails Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. If I am missing something let me know. ~~ GB fan ~~ 02:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to author's article, Masiela Lusha. TJRC (talk) 18:28, 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/ 00:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Masiela Lusha. I can't find sufficient reliable sources to establish independent notability here. 28bytes (talk) 05:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: It illustrates what Masiela Lusha is writing about. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 20:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Shows what Masiela Lusha is writing about. Google search = topic is notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comnment Another google search shows nothing of value. Your search includes more general discussion of Lusha. noq (talk) 11:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Celebrity vanity projects lack independent notability. There's no article on Terry Bradshaw's album of Christmas songs, or Art Garfunkel's book of "prose poems". Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Masiela Lusha per the lack of reliable sources that give Drinking the Moon more than one or two tangential mentions. I concur with Noq (talk · contribs)'s analysis of the sources posted by PeterRoyce (talk · contribs), in that none of the sources significantly discuss Drinking the Moon. Cunard (talk) 07:53, 17 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of sovereign states in Europe by date of achieving sovereignty
- List of sovereign states in Europe by date of achieving sovereignty (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 redundant to List of sovereign states by date of formation, which contains information about Europe and has a better title. The page List of countries by statehood was also redundant, but is at this moment a redirect to aforementioned article. This page also fails WP:V, using almost no sources and those it does cite wrongly. (It cites the CIA World Factbook about San Marino, but the sources does not say that Sammarinese independence dates from 301.) The deletion rationale is this: questions of statehood and sovereignty are hotly disputed (in theory and in political reality), a list providing no sources and misusing the few it cites is not worthy of this project. Work to cover the same topic can be done at List of sovereign states by date of formation, which is already better organised. Srnec (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (or redirect) as it is redundant to the above-mentioned list. Arsenikk (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The lists are not redundant: One list is sorted alphabetically and by inherent design can not be sorted by date. The other list is by date. List of countries by statehood uses dates with a different definition. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 21:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the nominator makes good points: not only it is redundant, but due to different conception of statehood through time this list with all the good intentions will ever hardly make sense. Aldux (talk) 00:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - are any of these lists based on a coherent set of criteria? These two lists place the birth of Bulgaria about 1150 years apart. Comparing this list, the one to be merged into it following the recent vote, and the one with which it is redundant, there are three different dates for Austria. I have half a mind to say delete them all and let God sort it out. Agricolae (talk) 01:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think the main list should be split out into other articles (Europe, Africia, Asia, etc) due to the size of the article. Lugnuts (talk) 08:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge content into Predecessors of sovereign states in Europe and Redirect to List of sovereign states by date of formation. Weak alternative: Split List of sovereign states by date of formation by continents. Either all continents should have separate articles, or there should be a single world list. Alinor (talk) 09:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I tried to compile a list of the articles of this type (there are more than those discussed here): here. Alinor (talk) 09:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the List of countries by statehood is not redirecting - it is still present - there is a merge discussion, but nothing is finalized yet. Alinor (talk) 10:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – having no sources is not a reason to delete if the information is obviously correct or easily correctable. Sources can be found for the article quite easily. List of sovereign states by date of formation should be split into continents so more information can be added without the article become huge and cluttered. McLerristarr / Mclay1 03:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To be clear: I conted that nothing in this list is either obviously correct or easily correctable. That is the problem. As one editor has already noted, it is not based on any "coherent set of criteria". Srnec (talk) 03:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean no "coherent set of criteria"? It's exactly the same concept as List of sovereign states by date of formation except specifically for Europe. McLerristarr / Mclay1 02:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What is sovereignty and how is it attained? What is the "coherent set of criteria"? France was not sovereign in 843. Nor San Marino in 301. Nor Andorra in 1278. And why is Turkey becoming a republic more significant than France becoming a republic? No coherent set of criteria. Not that "formation" is any more clear. . . Srnec (talk) 02:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Turkey/France comment is irrelevant as clearly the page is incomplete. If you are so concerned about the word "sovereignty", then the page could easily be renamed. This page is basically a sub-page of List of sovereign states by formation date. If this page requires deletion for "coherent set of criteria" reasons, then so should List of sovereign states by formation date. McLerristarr / Mclay1 03:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is incomplete, why does it contain dates for France and Turkey? That comment is all too relevant. I don't like List of sovereign states by date of formation because the formations of states rarely have precise dates, as I tried explaining over at Talk:Kingdom of Sardinia. I wouldn't mind in the least to see that page go, but one thing at a time. Not everything can be conveniently listified. A List of sovereign states by date of adoption of present constitution would be better but would exclude states with uncodified constitutions, like the UK. A List of members of the United Nations by date of entry (or whatever word is better than "entry") would also have a clear set of criteria. Srnec (talk) 03:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "If it is incomplete, why does it contain dates for France and Turkey?" I'm sorry but that is a ridiculous question. You have to start somewhere or the page will never be complete. Also, List of national constitutions includes the dates the constitutions were adopted and List of United Nations member states includes the dates the members joined so we needn't worry about creating new pages for those things. You are correct in saying that formation dates etc. rarely have precise dates, but we have to do our best to get it as accurate as possible – it's better than not including the information at all. That's why List of sovereign states in Europe by date of achieving sovereignty contains the column on the right for including more information to show that the formation of a country happens over many stages. Sovereignty can be defined and the date of achieving that sovereignty isn't that hard to pick. It's only difficult for countries existing before the 2nd millennium, before countries really existed. McLerristarr / Mclay1 04:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is incomplete, why does it contain dates for France and Turkey? That comment is all too relevant. I don't like List of sovereign states by date of formation because the formations of states rarely have precise dates, as I tried explaining over at Talk:Kingdom of Sardinia. I wouldn't mind in the least to see that page go, but one thing at a time. Not everything can be conveniently listified. A List of sovereign states by date of adoption of present constitution would be better but would exclude states with uncodified constitutions, like the UK. A List of members of the United Nations by date of entry (or whatever word is better than "entry") would also have a clear set of criteria. Srnec (talk) 03:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Turkey/France comment is irrelevant as clearly the page is incomplete. If you are so concerned about the word "sovereignty", then the page could easily be renamed. This page is basically a sub-page of List of sovereign states by formation date. If this page requires deletion for "coherent set of criteria" reasons, then so should List of sovereign states by formation date. McLerristarr / Mclay1 03:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What is sovereignty and how is it attained? What is the "coherent set of criteria"? France was not sovereign in 843. Nor San Marino in 301. Nor Andorra in 1278. And why is Turkey becoming a republic more significant than France becoming a republic? No coherent set of criteria. Not that "formation" is any more clear. . . Srnec (talk) 02:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean no "coherent set of criteria"? It's exactly the same concept as List of sovereign states by date of formation except specifically for Europe. McLerristarr / Mclay1 02:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To be clear: I conted that nothing in this list is either obviously correct or easily correctable. That is the problem. As one editor has already noted, it is not based on any "coherent set of criteria". Srnec (talk) 03:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Useful list with good sourcing. Any problems can be fixed using the normal processes. Capitalistroadster (talk) 09:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The implication that all states "achieve sovereignty" at some specific date is ridiculous. The issues should be addressed at the individual states' articles. When did the UK "achieve sovereignty" When England united with Scotland? They were both sovereign states before that. When (the republic of) Ireland split off? 1066?? 1689?? This information is unsuitable for a list. Dingo1729 (talk) 16:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are similar problems with entries for France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Sweden, Norway, Czech Republic, Slovak Republic, Poland, Turkey, Romania, Bulgaria and several others. None of these can possibly be claimed to have a clear date. Switzerland should be OK though. Dingo1729 (talk) 19:22, 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/ 00:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment there is an AfD notice that Modern empires' loss of European territory is to be merged into this article. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment there is also a AfD discussion about Predecessors of sovereign states in Europe ongoing. That's why I tried to compile a list of the articles of this type (there are more than those discussed here): here. Consider the proposal there for arranging all such articles in a coherent way. Alinor (talk) 10:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This list should have no reference! The references should be within in the listed items. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 20:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: List of sovereign states by date of formation by design will not be sortable in the required manner. The need to correct is no reason for a deletion. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not believe that a "date of achieving sovereignty" can be assigned for every sovereign state in Europe. The articles on the individual states do not resolve the issue because they do not all deal with the definition of sovereignty. When a date is assigned to France, I want to know where it comes from. Although the date can be found at the article on the history of France, the discussion there of what occurred then does not explain why it is a "date of achieving sovereignty". Srnec (talk) 04:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- At some point all countries must have come into existence – that is the date they achieve their sovereignty. The date for France is the date the Carolingian Empire split into three. That is definitely arguable however. The dates of achieving sovereignty are difficult to define before the 2nd millennium but easier after. McLerristarr / Mclay1 11:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I certainly agree that the date for France is arguable. And that's all it is. There are many other possible dates and no reliable source to choose among them. Any date we choose is Original Research and nothing but our opinion. Many of the dates we could choose are well into the second millennium and several are in the 20th century. France is by no means an exception, it's closer to being typical. Dingo1729 (talk) 16:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say France, Denmark and Sweden are the only difficult ones because they were formed by "barbarians", making it difficult to pinpoint the exact time the tribes settled down to become a country. All the other countries are much easier to define. McLerristarr / Mclay1 11:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Such a definition of "achieving sovereignty" seems to be totally different from the one in Sovereign State. Under the definition there, it is doubtful if any state before the 19th (maybe 18th) century could be said to have sovereignty. Kings or Princes or Emperors had sovereignty over territories but that is a very different concept. Dingo1729 (talk) 22:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say France, Denmark and Sweden are the only difficult ones because they were formed by "barbarians", making it difficult to pinpoint the exact time the tribes settled down to become a country. All the other countries are much easier to define. McLerristarr / Mclay1 11:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I certainly agree that the date for France is arguable. And that's all it is. There are many other possible dates and no reliable source to choose among them. Any date we choose is Original Research and nothing but our opinion. Many of the dates we could choose are well into the second millennium and several are in the 20th century. France is by no means an exception, it's closer to being typical. Dingo1729 (talk) 16:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- At some point all countries must have come into existence – that is the date they achieve their sovereignty. The date for France is the date the Carolingian Empire split into three. That is definitely arguable however. The dates of achieving sovereignty are difficult to define before the 2nd millennium but easier after. McLerristarr / Mclay1 11:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not believe that a "date of achieving sovereignty" can be assigned for every sovereign state in Europe. The articles on the individual states do not resolve the issue because they do not all deal with the definition of sovereignty. When a date is assigned to France, I want to know where it comes from. Although the date can be found at the article on the history of France, the discussion there of what occurred then does not explain why it is a "date of achieving sovereignty". Srnec (talk) 04:10, 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. There is clearly an issue with this group of articles that needs to be resolved but it does not appear that deletion is the preferred method of doing this. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Predecessors of sovereign states in Europe
- Predecessors of sovereign states in Europe (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 is unclear what this article is about. It does not list all the predecessors of sovereign states in Europe. It does not list only the immediate predecessor. It doesn't do so because it is impossible to define clearly what is and is not a predecessor and when many states attained sovereignty. Is East Germany a predecessor of todays Federal Republic of Germany? Is the Fourth Republic a predecessor of France's Fifth? Aren't they the same France? Are the individual SSRs the predecessors or is it the USSR? Why should we even be trying to answer questions like this for the sake of a list that we cooked up and that cannot be found in the best reliable sources? Srnec (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and modify according to this proposal. Alinor (talk) 09:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – the article states quite clearly at the top that it is incomplete. Completion, not deletion, should be the response by a Wikipedian to an incomplete article. The article is very new and so the definition of a predecessor may not be completely clear but this can be resolved. I created the article to avoid cluttering up List of sovereign states in Europe by date of achieving sovereignty, which I notice has also been nominated for deletion. The articles can definitely be improved and should definitely not be deleted. Why is it that some people seem to only like summaries rather than large collections of information? McLerristarr / Mclay1 03:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it can't be resolved. That is why I am aiming for deletion. As one editor noted elsewhere about these lists, they are based on no "coherent set of criteria". The definition of a predecessor is not clear because it must arbitrarily restricted to make a meaningful list. The restrictions can be nothing but arbitrary. What is the predecessor of Germany today? It has many predecessors, all bearing different relationships to the present Germany. Which one(s) do we pick? It is arbitrary. Or we list them all, then the list is unwieldly and amounts to a List of every state or administrative unit in Europe that no longer exists. I would love a large collection of information based on a coherent criteria of inclusion/exclusion, not some arbitrary whim. Further, I don't see why ever potential piece of information must be listified. This just doesn't work. What is the predecessor of Andorra? It is better to write history, not list it. Let the articles on the histories of the present sovereign states explain how they got to be what they are and what came before them in their territories. Srnec (talk) 03:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree that the definition of predecessor cannot reasonably be resolved. The individual issues should be and are addressed in the individual articles for the states. A list is a very poor way to present this information. Dingo1729 (talk) 16:28, 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/ 00:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – This article is basically a list form of Timeline of sovereign states in Europe. It looks better as a list. McLerristarr / Mclay1 05:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment there is a AfD discussion about List of sovereign states in Europe by date of achieving sovereignty ongoing. That's why I tried to compile a list of the articles of this type (there are more than those discussed here): here. Consider the proposal there for arranging all such articles in a coherent way. Alinor (talk) 10:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: It is ridiculous to delete an article, because it has to be edited in some places. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 21:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is ridiculous to imply that that's the rationale for this deletion request. As an other editor put it: "the definition of predecessor cannot reasonably be resolved". Srnec (talk) 04:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment To expand on that, when does a state become a "new" state and so can have predecessors instead of just the same state which has changed somewhat? When it changes its name? When it has a revolution? When it acquires or loses territory? When it ""achieves sovereignty""? When it is liberated? The list is an inconsistent mish-mash of all these with some instances of each included and other similar instances ignored. No reputable historian or lawyer would ever want to try to codify this. So to create such a list we have to invent our own definition and then twist and distort history to fit our arbitrary definition. This cannot be anything but Original Research. What are predecessors? States, some of whose territories are incorporated into the "new" state? States which contributed ""a lot"" of territory? Whatever an editor chooses today? The assumptions underlying this list distort history Dingo1729 (talk) 05:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dingo gets it exactly right. Srnec (talk) 03:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is ridiculous to imply that that's the rationale for this deletion request. As an other editor put it: "the definition of predecessor cannot reasonably be resolved". Srnec (talk) 04:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Notable and useful. The fact that it may be hard to iron out the details is not a justification for deletion.--Carwil (talk) 02:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually it is. The reason is that the information presented is misleading. The article is not only completely useless, but downright damaging (distorting). It suggests that the notions of "predecessor [state]" and "sovereign state" are clear-cut when they are anything but. This information simply cannot be listified per WP:V and WP:RS to avoid WP:OR, WP:SYN and WP:NPOV. I would also say that when an article is about "Predecessors of sovereign states in Europe", the question of what counts as a predecessor and what counts as a sovereign state are not "details". Srnec (talk) 03:17, 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 keep. A bold piece of editing makes the discussion moot. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SMON
- SMON (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)
Does not seem to be a notable aspect of computer networking technology. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge content into RMON and replace with Disambiguate page for the "Japan SMON", "Oracle SMON", "RMON's SMON". Alinor (talk) 09:56, 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/ 00:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I really don't think merging two articles that do not cite a single independent source between them is a sensible idea. And if the overall concept is not notable there is really no need for a dab page explaining the different subtypes, which at this time are all redlinks. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It appears that someone has boldly converted this into a disambiguation page, rendering the discussion moot. - Dravecky (talk) 13:47, 17 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) 10:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Iberica Branch IEE
- Iberica Branch IEE (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 particular branch, which is one of ninety, is notable unto itself. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to a List of IEE branches. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as there is no reason for a single branch to have its own article. JodyB talk 00:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 4 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/ 00:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per JodyB. Perhaps it could be merged to some list or some larger article related to the topic. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 16:00, 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. (non-admin closure) Atmoz (talk) 20:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Faith Freedom International
- Faith Freedom 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)
Website does not seem to satisfy WP:WEB. The most significant coverage it's received is from a WorldNetDaily article, a highly partisan source, and even that is arguably trivial since it only summarizes some content from the website. The other sources in the article are either passing mentions, indexes of website rankings, lists of banned websites, or merely self-references. A request for additional reliable sources covering the website has been in the article since 2007. Oore (talk) 20:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:WEB The website does not satisfy the criteria given in the guidelines --NotedGrant Talk 21:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep, keep and figure out what wiki troll keeps getting pissed off by this wikipedia entry and nominating it for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.210.123 (talk) 08:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - With 21 references and dozens of crosslinks it's actually hard to take this nomination seriously. Doc Tropics 23:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's even more difficult to take this comment seriously when all it does count the number of references without taking into account what those references actually are. For example, the book references are misleading at best, as the website is mentioned in footnotes at the end of the two books cited. The only arguably substantial coverage this organization has received is contained entirely in one WorldNetDaily article. Oore (talk) 00:02, 8 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/ 00:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - The nominator of this Afd says that the article "does not seem to satisfy WP:WEB." But WP:WEB also says these guidelines are best treated with "common sense and occasional exceptions may apply." Why should this article be an exception? On one hand it certainly has the markings of a notable website- healthy amount of traffic and 8 Google sitelinks (and WP:WEB does say sitelinks are evidence of credibility and site importance). On the other hand, there does seem to be a dearth of google hits one would expect from a site which has so much traffic. So what gives? Simply this: while it may not have much notability among non-Muslims in the West(aside from some hard-core Neo-cons or Zionists), it is extremely notable among a sizable number of Muslims with Internet access. Sure, there are plenty of websites out there that Muslims loathe, but faithfreedom.org is the one website Muslims who are active online despise more than any other. It's despised so much that it has received a "shunning" of sorts. See this page which lists 6 "anti-Muslim" websites and then says there's one more which they won't mention by name: "The most anti-Islamic site will die if it faces a frozen counter..." This site quotes the page above and then the last poster mentions faithfreedom by name. There are a few Muslim websites who do mention Ali Sina by name- and spend a lot of bandwidth on rebuttals to his essays such as this one which calls him the Dajjal(Muslim Antichrist), but most avoid links to faithfreedom.org. So we should delete this article, be part of the shunning and help the "freeze the counter" campaign? The pieces to this puzzle are all there, although it is much harder establishing this website's notability (or notoriety if you will): common sense dictates that this website is notable. VictorianMutant (talk) 04:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What WP:WEB states about Google site links was only recently added and by a banned editor at that. I don't really think it's a strong indicator for inclusion. The other sites you've mentioned here are forum threads and minor polemic websites, none of which are notable in themselves or have anything to do with the criteria at WP:WEB. That a website has been discussed in some circles or groups of people does not make the website notable. If we were to use criteria as you've laid out, the scope and amount of websites able to be included on Wikipedia would be significantly expanded, so I doubt this merits an "occasional exception." Oore (talk) 15:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oore, why are you changing the rules here to get this article deleted? And why are you deleting content from the article, to make it look worse than it was?? and why cannot you just make your point, and let others comment on it, without discussing their arguments over and over again?
- Actually, I did not want to get involved in this discussion. However, Oore's methods to get this article deleted draw me to the Keep-side of the discussion.Jeff5102 (talk) 07:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think my edit summaries and talk page post more than sufficiently answer this question. Did you bother to look? Oore (talk) 12:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I did. You deleted the complete debates-section, as well as the section concerning the questionable political views of the webmaster. Thus, we are deprived of the knowledge, that the site contains debates with prominent people like Reza Cyrus Pahlavi, Edip Yuksel and the late Grand Ayatollah Montazeri. How could people have a fair judgement to this article if you delete complete sections of it?Jeff5102 (talk) 13:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think my edit summaries and talk page post more than sufficiently answer this question. Did you bother to look? Oore (talk) 12:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What WP:WEB states about Google site links was only recently added and by a banned editor at that. I don't really think it's a strong indicator for inclusion. The other sites you've mentioned here are forum threads and minor polemic websites, none of which are notable in themselves or have anything to do with the criteria at WP:WEB. That a website has been discussed in some circles or groups of people does not make the website notable. If we were to use criteria as you've laid out, the scope and amount of websites able to be included on Wikipedia would be significantly expanded, so I doubt this merits an "occasional exception." Oore (talk) 15:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Enough sources are given to establish notability by WP:GNG. Kitfoxxe (talk) 08:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Such as...what? That's the whole issue here, and it would be helpful if you could point out those sources. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject..." Simply put, there has been no significant coverage of the website by independent reliable sources. Oore (talk) 15:19, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 10:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Murder Me Dead
- Murder Me Dead (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 or other evidence of notability. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 4 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, JodyB talk 00:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SILENCE-Beeblebrox (talk) 00:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't think this is notable at all, there's very little evidence of notability. No sources. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 16:03, 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.