Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 November 11

< 10 November	12 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 17:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roadmender (nightclub)[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this nightclub. Joe Chill (talk) 23:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, and you're not likely to with a search term that specific, because the venue's not just a nightclub. It's better to search for 'Roadmender -wikipedia' by itself, which returns around 42,000 hits on google.co.uk. Hope this helps! Matthew (talk) 00:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did your suggestion and I couldn't find anything that would make it pass WP:CORP. Joe Chill (talk) 00:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Using this Google News Archive search, I found a number of sources about Roadmender. See this article, this article, this article, and this article from BBC, as well as this article and this article from Northampton Chronicle & Echo. Notability is fully established. Cunard (talk) 06:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Local news doesn't show notability. Joe Chill (talk) 12:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can you back that statement Joe~? I remember a similar claim for a local newspaper in Smallville somewhere, and it was challenged, but not for local news per se that find way into RS. Power.corrupts (talk) 20:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - If local news showed notability, every business, band, etc. could have an article. Which you're fine with because you only care about verifibility. Joe Chill (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Is that a personal opinion, or can you back it? Power.corrupts (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        That's what I've seen in most AfDs. Asking me to back it up is like asking me to find links that say that all high schools are notable, all species are notable, all colleges are notable, or all villages are notable. My second post is a fact. The main times that I see people say that local news is alright is when it is used by people that are like "It's verified". Joe Chill (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        There is nothing wrong with local coverage, as long as the publications are from reputable sources. In this situation, there are ample sources in two reputable publications. WP:GNG is met, so I believe that this article should be kept. Cunard (talk) 23:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Not really should. Joe Chill (talk) 23:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        If a topic were to receive only one article from a local newspaper, I would vote "delete". However, this topic has received six articles from two reputable publications. Therefore, in my opinion, this article should be kept. Cunard (talk) 23:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        So you should say "I think it should" or something like that. I know that I shouldn't correct you, but that bugs me for some reason. Joe Chill (talk) 23:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        If I write "it should be kept", I'm stating my opinion about the matter. I don't need to prefix it with "I think" because my opinion is implied whenever I comment in a deletion discussion. However, per your concern, I have added "I believe that" to the comment. Cunard (talk) 00:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep WP:LOCAL is an essay, WP:LOCALINT a failed proposal. The relevant rule is not one requiring non-local sources, the rule is requiring sources that do not indiscriminately list everything, and do not contain PR, rather than genuine independent 3rd party reporting. Tol determine this, one has to look at the actual sources presented. The multiple BBC local articles cited above are more than PR, not an indiscriminate directory, provide substantial coverage, and explicitly indicates notability. DGG ( talk ) 21:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per DGG. In addition, since the GNG is satisfied, passing/failing WP:CORP is no more relevant than passing/failing WP:ATHLETE. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. I used the Google News archive search, but I obviously didn't look at the sources good enough. Joe Chill (talk) 01:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Fuels[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 23:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [1] [2] Polargeo (talk) 23:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See these references, found with a Google News archive search. -- Eastmain (talk) 01:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. – Eastmain (talk) 01:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. – Eastmain (talk) 01:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found. Bearian (talk) 01:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Icewedge (talk) 02:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pelotón III[edit]

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

There should be a main article about the show before single seasons are covered. De728631 (talk) 23:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. – Eastmain (talk) 01:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This reference could be added to the article. To address the nominator's concern that "There should be a main article about the show before single seasons are covered", this article could be moved to Pelotón (reality show), which does not require an AfD. Some of these references could be added to an article about Pelotón (reality show). -- Eastmain (talk) 01:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk) 01:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the contents of this article, which are hidden, are in Spanish. A serious effort was made for a legitimate translation of the related Peloton 3.1 without success. This show needs a main series article, not individual seasons. If no one is willing to translate the Spanish wiki version of the show, which is also unreferenced, or any reliable sources, then I see no hope here. Sarilox (talk) 04:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Imagine a US reality show with nationwide coverage, being so popular that a third series is in production. Would this ever be nom for AfD? Has the deletion rationale on sequencing any basis in policy, guideline, even essay(?) I looked for Chilean newspapers, La Nación seemed to be a decent one with national coverage, searched for "Pelotón" [3] -- loads and loads of hits. I would say it is vere likely to pass any bar for WP:N. If the content of the Pelotón III should be merged into a parent articles is a secondary question and a not a valid deletion rationale. Power.corrupts (talk) 21:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there seems no doubt that this is a notable TV game show - UK/US equivalents have separate articles for each single episodes, so I really see no problem with a stub for an entire series. And while it would be useful to have an uber-article on Pelotón the show - and don't doubt that there will be in due course - I really don't see why there has to be a deadline for it. HeartofaDog (talk) 13:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Janette Smith[edit]

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

This apparent autobiography does not indicate how its subject meets WP:BIO, and a Google search does not immediately provide links to the required substantial coverage. Sandstein 22:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Probable vanity page. --MelanieN (talk) 01:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Delete, appears to fail notability, coming close to A7 speedy. Nyttend (talk) 03:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm hard pressed to understand how something with several assertions of notability (remember, that's all an article has to do to avoid speedy deleting) is "close to A7". That said, I very vaguely remember trying to spiff this one up last summer and welcoming a new user and guiding her on the COI guidelines. The references are thin, but they are there. She has appeared on national television (US) programming and several high profile local programming as well. I'm not around anymore, and frankly forgot about this article, but at the time I felt it worth inclusion and spent a brief amount of time on it. Reading it again, it does need more cleanup, and removal of some spammy language. Not delete though. Overall, a Weak keep. Keeper | 76 17:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. She is the Director of Media for Fred Hammond Family Entertainment. "Media for Fred Hammond Family Entertainment" returns zero Ghits, "Fred Hammond Family Entertainment" returns 22 Ghits. She was Executive Director of Media for Creflo Dollar Ministries, another non-notable org that returns 7 hits. "Janette R Smith anchorwoman waff" returns no useful links supporting that she should be notable for being second African-American woman to anchor a prime time newscast in the Huntsville market. Power.corrupts (talk) 09:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentFirst, please forgive me for being a newbie and perhaps not understanding all protocol, but there are several people on Wikipedia (former and current news people) who have pages that directly linked from wikipedia pages for the stations they worked for. I have not only worked in two of the top 10 markets and am listed as 'notable' on each, but have also hosted two shows on national networks for over 6 years (DIY and HGTV) one that remained in syndication.

Creflo Dollar Ministries is one of the largest churches in the country and is often in the news. (including TIME magazine which I believe is referenced) Unfortunately, it's good and bad press. I don't know what Ghits are...but that can't be google hits. Creflo Dollar Ministries returns 69,700 results.(Creflo Dollar himself returns 200,000 results) Fred Hammond Family Entertainment Inc. (which returns 32,400 google results) is two year old company and while it is new, FRED HAMMOND (who also has an extensive career history and page here on Wikipedia - returning 822,000 google results) is a Gospel trailblazer and considered among the top 3. C

Lastly, on a personal note- I wonder why all this has come about on my page when I just worked to find links to verify everything listed in bio. Keeper did help by cleaning up things...which I have NOT touched. I only added links to meet criteria and ask for help to post a picture. Perhaps that is seen as vanity, but most all profiles have a picture.

If you do decide to delete my profile, will you be deleting all others like it? Thank you for your continued discussion. 08:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnette66 (talk • contribs)

As a newbie you probably didn't realize this, but Wikipedia guidelines strongly discourage writing an article about yourself. See Wikipedia:Autobiography. --MelanieN (talk) 03:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

Comment Yes Melanie, I admit that to be true. I noticed many collegues had links to their own pages via former networks or affiliates

and thought I would add one too. I humbly share though that I was only submitting it for reference sake and was very appreciative for the guidance I got from Keeper/Wikipedia expert because I do respect protocol (helps to know what it is I admit)and so I ask... if I am within guidelines for being eligible for a reference bio page - can't I get assitance with whatever needs to be updated, deleted, brought into be compliance amd standing, particularly when other pages exist without being contested or challenged? I submit that I had did not have full information on the process and only followed by example. 07:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnette66 (talk • contribs)

Well, Janette, I think you should have every chance to prove "notability" by Wikipedia standards. So I went to your article and inserted a few references, and I deleted the complaint about the article not having any references.

Here's the problem, and here's what people need to see to establish that you are "notable": there need to be some mentions of you in journalism sources, independent third-party sources - newspapers, magazines, etc. Some of your "external links" could serve that purpose, except that for many of them it's impossible to tell the source of the information because they are from a Zoom cache, which doesn't (as far as I could see) give any information about where the article comes from, who wrote it and when, where it appeared, etc. So see if you can locate some actual articles about yourself in mainstream sources, and list them as references with all the source information. If you look at how I did it you will see how to make them into references.

For more information see Wikipedia:Notability (people). Summary in a nutshell: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." --MelanieN (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

Comment Thank you MelanieN for solid information and assistance. I understand your point about the cache pages. Unfortunately, the work the newspaper articles and other references were referring to spanned 1995 - 2002. Therefore, many have been deleted to include more current personality bios and information. However, the Zoom info link you included contains most all the articles I found in cache versions and even refernces their sources. (e.g. Eclipse magazine/Dallas. Fox5 website entry, DIY website..etc.) With that said what would you recommend I do with the other cache references i posted. Delete them? I did list the Dove award article and HBFF article for reference sake. Again, thank you for your time and consideration.

07:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnette66 (talk • contribs)

No, I wouldn't suggest that you delete any of your references. I would simply add some that are verifiable. If you know the source and date information of any of your cached references, you can add that information to your citation.

I'm glad you understand that this is not about evaluating YOU, your career and your significance. It's all about the outside sources - who has said what about you. Those outside citations - recognition by unrelated third parties - are what Wikipedia requires to determine "notability". --MelanieN (talk) 16:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

Response I do understand and again, I think some of the other comments confused me a bit, but your information and clear direction plus that provided by "Keeper" help untangle the debate for me. Thank you again. I will work on what you have shared.19:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnette66 (talk • contribs)

Comment To MelanieN and Keeper...I found the 'published on' dates for the references listed and have added them, as well as the wiki links to

the two notable gentlemen mentioned that I worked for. I was hoping someone could look it over and see if I'm on the right track. Thank you very much for your time.05:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Does not meet notability guidelines. Perhaps information (but on a smaller scale) on the media director can be included in an article about the company, the Fred Hammond Family Entertainment. This article has yet to be created.--Pink Bull 18:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Travis (chimpanzee)#2009 attack. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 04:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charla nash[edit]

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

Contested prod. While this person received some media coverage when the attack happened and is receiving some now due to the appearance on Oprah, they do not meet notability guidelines specifically because they are known only for this one event. RadioFan (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear BLP1E violation. The attack was not particularly notable either. Triplestop x3 22:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
redirect keep victim of attack is candidate for face transplant and may be appropriate for linking to overall chimp attack, possibly to facial transplant (before and after photos) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.197.181 (talk) 17:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete BLP0E. DMacks (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC) Change to redirect since the event now seems notable enough to get mentioned in some larger article. DMacks (talk) 16:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tempted to continue the countdown below zero, but seriously: this is nowhere close to being notable. Favonian (talk) 22:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
change to Redirect per WWGB's persuasive argument below. Favonian (talk) 13:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I think having most of your face pulled off by a friend's pet is particularly notable - mostly pets just sit on your lap, swim around a tank, lick your hand, shag your leg etc. But it was just one event. pablo_hablo. 22:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per triplestop.Tim1357 (talk) 22:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pablo says, this is "notable" (as these things go), but WP:BLP1E. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 23:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC) Redirect as per Pablo -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 16:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This barely even meets Wp:BLP1E. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 23:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Seeing as "Charla Nash" redirects to Travis (chimpanzee) (as pointed out by WWGB below), I can't see why this one shouldn't redirect there as well. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 13:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - looks like snow, folks. Redirect per Pablomismo's excellent suggestion --Orange Mike | Talk 00:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - BLP1E, except, that event isn't particularly notable either... Having something bad happen to you (in this case, have face ripped off by chimp), then being on Oprah for it is not grounds for notability.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail ^Review 00:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:BLP1E. Joe Chill (talk) 01:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Redirect to Travis (chimpanzee) or keep. There are continuing references about the attack: [4] and, fwiw, the Oprah interview now has international coverage itself: [5] &c -- I wonder if it will be internationally notable. I'm not suggesting that every subject Oprah interviews is notable--but when the particular interview itself is covered by multiple international sources.... DGG ( talk ) 03:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a likely redirect target for the chimpanzee, and she definitely counts as a BLP1E case. Nyttend (talk) 04:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, "not a likely redirect target"? At 1,800 people on one day the redir seems pretty plausible to me. --78.34.223.227 (talk) 07:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Travis (chimpanzee)#2009 attack where the 'one event' in question is already covered. pablo_hablo. 09:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn and redirect (with both correct and the current incorrect capitalization I suppose) to Travis (chimpanzee)#2009 attack.--RadioFan (talk) 01:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Travis (chimpanzee)#2009 attack while I can see how BLP1E might apply I think this applies in this case: "If the event is significant, and if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources." The event is certainly significant and she is certainly a major participant and is likely to be the subject of continued media coverage for some time to come especially now that she can give interviews. This at least warrants a redirect. The smilodon (talk) 01:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - Obvious from above comments. Redirect is not at all a plausible search term. Shadowjams (talk) 11:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand - what is implausible about "Charla nash" as a search term? pablo_hablo. 12:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I don't know what I was thinking. Shadowjams (talk) 00:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Redirect - what WWGP pointed out below trumps all. The title is improperly formatted. But the info in this article should have an exclusive section on the Travis (chimpanzee) page if it doesn't already.--K10wnsta (talk) 11:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A great deal of the notability comes in the before and after pictures (just a heads up, they're pretty GRAPHIC) - they can be seen under the Wednesday Nov. 11th show at oprah.com. Seeing as how she's only shown her face on Oprah, I don't know that there would be any images we could get that didn't violate copyright.
--K10wnsta (talk) 21:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The correct title, Charla Nash, is already a redirect to Travis (chimpanzee) which is how it should be. This poor woman is WP:BLP1E and deserves some dignity. WWGB (talk) 05:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. For reasons already stated above by DGG and others.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge somewhere. However, the difference between "merge" and "keep" at AfD is marginal; therefore, a more conclusive discussion should be conducted to decide whether or not merging is indeed appropriate. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Child marriage in Judaism[edit]

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

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marriageable age in Judaism - another of a series of POV forks mainly designed to make Judaism look backward. JFW | T@lk 22:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What exactly are you claiming its a POV fork of? There isn't any other article on this subject. And if it had been my intent to make Judaism look backward, I would have left out all the stuff about mi'un (annulment rights, during child marriage), and the effective suppression of it. Christian England in the 12th century had people legally having sex with 12 year olds - later even just 10 year olds; mentioning this would not be an attempt to make Christians in modern England look backward. That's just a ridiculous conclusion to reach. Newman Luke (talk) 22:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I question the need for 2 separate articles on Child marriage in Judaism and Marriageable age in Judaism. But that would be a merge, not a delete. Beyond that, I'd need to see a more detailed argument before I could support a delete. -Verdatum (talk) 22:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Related comment - information. I created both of those articles, so, for the record, one is not a pov fork of the other. Newman Luke (talk) 22:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - I suspect JFW believes that both are, effectively, POV child articles of the high level articles on Jewish marriage. It's not an exact subject mirror (a fork doesn't necessarily mean identical subjects like you think, it can include the parent-child relationship of a subarticle when the parent, by all rights, should include the information directly). If I understand JFW's argument correctly, he believes that rather than make your controversial edits on the main article, you are "hiding" them in these child articles, where you are less likely to have your edits contested. Clearly, if that was your aim, it failed. :-) More seriously, I understand JFW's reaction; anti-Semitism often hides itself in a guise of academic knowledge. But I think in this case the reasoning for splitting this article off is good; putting the information in a higher level article would distract and distort the article it was placed in. As long as the article makes it clear, up front, that this is a historical curiosity and not current practice, I think it's okay. --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, I'd have thought that if people wanted to hide controversial edits, they'd have made them in the middle of the main article, instead of somewhere as public as a distinct article. The article is derived from the Jewish Encyclopedia, so I suppose he must be claiming that the Jewish Encyclopedia - which was written by Jews, including certain rabbis, is somehow anti-Semitic? How amusingly absurd. Newman Luke (talk) 22:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hiding in a subarticle works, as long as no one notices it early on (I never would have noticed either of your articles if I wasn't engaging in recent change patrolling). After all, the main article has an existing base of editors watching it, subarticles don't. To get in vandalism on the main article you need to sneak it past every watcher for as long as it takes for someone else to make subsequent edits, then hope a reader doesn't notice. Creating a new page only briefly risks notice by RCP. --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh I see. I thought it stayed in some 'recently created articles' pool thing that administrators kept watch over. Newman Luke (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        There is a process like that, though I'm not entirely sure if it's opt-in by the article creator (the article wizard will add a tag asking for review). In that case, the admin likely has little familiarity with the subject and is less likely to note non-obvious sources of controversy; once it is marked as reviewed no one is likely to recheck it. By contrast, adding information to the main article means you are risking notice by multiple, presumably interested and informed watchers. --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 23:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Assuming Marriageable age in Judaism is deleted, this article serves a purpose. It may require more balance, possibly a disclaimer in the intro noting that it deals with biblical law long since discarded or interpreted out of existence by rabbis (like much of the rules laid down in Leviticus-Deuteronomy), but it's nevertheless interesting and historically relevant. --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or keep I agree with the sentiment that the two articles (marriageable age and child marriage) should be merged into one article that would be kept. Both articles are very well sourced, and I'm surprised that the nominator is offended by references to historic texts. Mandsford (talk) 22:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge as others and I have discussed here and at the other AfD. Just because an ancient religion appears backward does not mean it is not notable. Much of this is of interest to our core audience. Bearian (talk) 01:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Jewish views of marriage. It's a valid topic but does not need an article on its own quite yet, otherwise this could lead to redundant forks like Widows marrying in Judaism, Converts marriage in Judaism; Marriage after divorce in Judaism; Remarriage in Judaism or even Bachelorhood in Judaism, all interesting but not really worthy of separate articles. So one needs to stay focused and not let the topic splatter all over the place. IZAK (talk) 01:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Child marriage in Judaism and Merge Marriageable age in Judaism into a section of Marriageable age on Judaic views. Redirect Marriageable age in Judaism to that section. Move the extensive list in Marriageable age to an article entitled list of marriageable ages by country. Expand Marriageable age to include sections on Hinduism, Islam, UN laws, Western, Eastern, etc. laws on record all of which controlled the age of marriage. Child marriage in Judaism could be a fork from the Judaic section on age of marriage. Make the definition of age of marriage clear between age of majority and age of consent and when these concepts are prerequisites. I can start this process tonight. I'd need support from deletionist to protect list of marriageable ages by country while I complete the process. Sound like an acceptable strategy? IMO, it maintains a NPOV for various religions and cultural laws on age of marriage will be compared/contrasted. Alatari (talk) 04:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment All religions I've looked at have scripture that would be unpleasant or unacceptable in these times. I can only speak for myself; an encyclopedia can't ignore politically incorrect views of anyones religions if it is sourced and fact. I'm assuming WP:FAITH so far in this. Alatari (talk) 04:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I have sources on 'age of marriage' views from Muslim, Hindu, the UN and some British Law ready. Alatari (talk) 04:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 04:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Merge into Jewish views of marriage. Does not require its own subarticle. Avi (talk) 15:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Avi, into Jewish views of marriage. --Whoosit (talk) 23:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Avi. No need to split this out into its own article. Fences&Windows 00:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No need to merge--there's enough material available. If there;s a POV problem fix it. Merge the other related articles into here--this may be the best of the group to start out with. We could of course, limit the number of articles we have on Judaism--which is what some people seem to be advocating here. There is no rule against specialized material in Wikipedia, as long as sources are available--and there certainly are for this one. Proposing yet more specialized articles can be read as a strow man argument--except that they too might be eventually possible. The relevant Wikipedia policy is NOT PAPER DGG ( talk ) 21:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, do not merge. The (much more often accessed) Jewish views of marriage article, concentrating on how Jews get married today, is in much better shape without all this material. This material, in this level of detail, doesn't need to be in that article, nor does it sit well there. Better to pretty much keep it out, in an article of its own. Incorporating all of this into Jewish views of marriage would bend that article seriously out of shape; but leaving material out would deprive WP of accurate well-sourced information. Per DGG above, there is enough material here for a stand-alone article. Jheald (talk) 09:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Jewish views of marriage. No need for a separate article. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 11:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Jewish views of marriage. The subject of marritable age is very notable. Just make sure the merge is executed by somebody who is knowledgable and serious about it. If none can be found, approach me. Debresser (talk) 11:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge: I think it would be best merged into a topic dealing with age for Jewish marriage or more general criteria for Jewish marriage, but it can also stand on its own if desired. I don't see any need for deletion, the content is very interesting. —Dfass (talk) 11:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jewish views of marriage This is information that belongs on Wikipedia but needs greater context in regard to views of marriage as a whole. Alansohn (talk) 13:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would reiterate that Jewish views of marriage would be a poor choice of merge location. The topic deserves only a couple of lines in that article - any more would be undue and unbalancing. Given that, as the present article shows, there is more to be said on the subject than just a couple of lines, that makes it a classic case for WP:SUMMARY style: a couple of lines in the top-level article, leading to a more detailed and extensive treatment elsewhere for those who would find the more complete detail useful. Jheald (talk) 23:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to second that re-iteration. Newman Luke (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect into Jewish views of marriage, per above. Any issues post-merge should be dealt in accordance with WP:UNDUE.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment' WP:UNDUE is about undue weight given to viewpoints, not to subjects. The issue with merging to views of marriage is about the size of that article, and that the topic would be overpresent if placed there wholesale. The content is notable, and if anything it needs expanding - for example, with whatever the official position is these days (given that it was never officially abolished). Its not appropriate to do that in the Jewish views of marriage article. Somewhere else, perhaps, but not there. Newman Luke (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 16:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carel Berend Meijwes[edit]

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

This person does not exist. The same article, by the same author, has been removed from the Dutch wikipedia three months ago. Mvdleeuw (talk) 21:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hoax. Can it be speedied? --Paularblaster (talk) 00:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail ^Review 02:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax - searches find nothing, and it was deleted from :nl as a hoax. JohnCD (talk) 12:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:HOAX; unfortunately, it is remotely plausible, thus WP:CSD#G3 does not apply. Intelligentsium 01:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Given the recent potentially noteworthy events, it would probably be best to reevaluate this once more becomes known. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wyatt Gallery[edit]

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

Doesn't pass relevant notability guidelines, WP:N and WP:PROF. — Jake Wartenberg 21:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This appears to be either a fan-page or a vanity-page. Article talks mostly about jobs the subject has had and where he has traveled. Notability might rest on claimed awards, but these are neither verified nor significant. WP:PROF could be relevant, since there's a claim that he's an adjunct at Penn (funny that article does not even spell the school's name correctly), but GS does not show any contributions that would pass art. #1. Finally, all the references supplied by the article are actually the subject's own PR materials. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete on above conclusive arguments. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep It meets the relevant standard for creative professions: "Wyatt’s photographs are in the permanent collection of the Museum Of Fine Arts in Houston, Texas and The George Eastman House" two unquestionably major museums. Have the people who don;'t want to keep even considered that? (Third party documentation is of course needed.) True, it doesn't meet PROF, but that's not his main profession. DGG ( talk ) 21:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:CREATIVE per DGG. Joe Chill (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. With regard to the museum holdings, I certainly see the claims, but no accompanying WP:RS. The only sources in the article are still all limited to his own web-pages. We all seem to agree on this. However, I still don't see that real sources would even be enough for a "keep". The claim of something like "so-and-so's photographs are in 2 museums" is pretty much on par with "so-and-so's research is in 2 journals" – this is far more of a necessary condition rather than a sufficient one, considering the oodles of museums and oodles^2 number of artists represented therein. There is nothing substantive which really makes this person stand out from the herd of others. (I'm sure lots of artists have "explored Japan, Vietnam, Cambodia" et al. for inspiration.) Awards such as "25 Under 25, Up-And-Coming American Photographers" seem to me to be hollow accolades, on par with Who's Who and such. Add to this the fawning tone ("a celebrated American Photographer"), and it sure paints a picture of being a WP:PUFF fan-page. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: Notability just skyrocketed. Mkro (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hiroko Mima and Anya Ayoung-Chee are notable themselves, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. This appears to be a classic WP:BIO1E case for the boyfriend (i.e. our subject) in a "yet another sex tape"-type scandal. If the tape goes on to become notable on its own, then maybe Wyatt will ride those coattails, so to speak. However, since this evidently just happened, it's probably a bit early to pronounce him "notable" on this account. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Keep: Notability is getting stronger by the second - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you're confusing 15 minutes of fame with genuine notability. There are notability criteria for WP:PORNBIO, but he doesn't satisfy any of them. Agricola44 (talk) 15:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Note to closing admin. Several guidelines have been floated, including WP:PROF and WP:PORNBIO, none of which Wyatt Gallery passes individually. I have argued that proponents are overlooking blatant issues of WP:RS, WP:NOTINHERITED, and WP:BIO1E. (The most serious issue for a WP:BLP, lack of reliable sources, is still not resolved.) Conversely, the tacit argument they seem to have formed is that there's a little bit of each of WP:PROF, WP:CREATIVE, and WP:PORNBIO such that, if you add all these up, you get what is essentially a "piecemeal notability". Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Cricket World Cup squads[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL - There will be no information that could be put here for at least a year. The world cup does not start until February 2011. No need to create a place holder. Article creator removed prod. noq (talk) 21:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a good example of a placeholder. "The squad of the 2011 world cup is not declared yet." I note that the 2007 Cricket World Cup squads weren't named until February of 2007. No point in keeping an article with no content waiting more than a year until February 2011. Mandsford (talk) 22:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 22:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and permit recreation in only in December 2010 when squads will be finalized. -SpacemanSpiff 22:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Whilst Wp:CRYSTAL doesn't apply here (it's almost certain to happen), there's no need for a page which isn't going to have anything other than "The squad of the 2011 world cup is not declared yet" until December 2010/January 2011 - at which point it can return. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 23:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there's nothing certain that can be said about the subject of the article. Nyttend (talk) 04:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:CRYSTAL. Recreate on December 2010 or January 2011, for squad updates.----_{Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN} 05:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until there are squads to include. Mattlore (talk) 20:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Medicine Show (band)[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:BAND. Only claim of notability is "the song was well-received by London’s alternative music scene, selling 1,000 copies in three weeks and prompting comparisons with Buddy Holly and The Black Lips", but the source cited does not support the first part of the sentence, and I don't believe the source is reliable enough to support notability on its own. In any event, selling 1,000 copies of a song in three weeks is not a criteria for WP:BAND. Singularity42 (talk) 20:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article barely asserts notability, much less provides sources to confirm anything other than the band's existence. Citation in The Independent would be good, but the link implies it is just a profile. The link destination is a search of the Independent's site which, incidentally, yields nothing related to the band. Fribbulus Xax (talk) 20:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability, seems like any other local band trying to make a name. But, this is not the place to do it. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 20:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 20:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 00:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find nothing to satisfy WP:BAND, they just formed a few months ago so it isn't surprising. J04n(talk page) 00:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was : Speedily deleted. Failed attempt at a dictionary definition, the supposed word is either non-existent or so badly misspelled that I wasn't able to deduce just about what word it was trying to define - deleting for lacking any useful context and/or under snowball clause. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pendalate[edit]

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

Zero relevant ghits for this deprodded WP:NEO. DMacks (talk) 19:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources; Wikipedia is not a dictionary and is not for words made up one day. JohnCD (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced dictionary definition. Shame we cannot speedy this. Polargeo (talk) 20:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Nyttend per WP:CSD#G3: Vandalism. Non-admin closure. KuyaBriBri^Talk 05:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shnugen[edit]

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

contested prod. unreferenced WP:NEOLOGISM RadioFan (talk) 19:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Per G3. Warrah (talk) 20:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:CSD#G3, so tagged - if it were just a WP:NFT neologism it wouldn't count, but "it was discovered by the polish discoverer Coldcuttis Bologna" qualifies it as "blatant and obvious misinformation". JohnCD (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as above Polargeo (talk) 20:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete this obvious hoax article. --MelanieN (talk) 01:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

Speedy delete as nonsense. Alexius08 (talk) 03:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted as vandalism. Nyttend (talk) 04:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Blood Alliance[edit]

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

This seems to be a non-notable webcomic. Google returns a decent amount of hits for the name, but almost all seem to be from forums, social networking sites, Youtube and so on. It's hard to sift through all the cruft, but I couldn't find any independent coverage of the topic at all. Maybe someone else can. Rnb (talk) 18:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this webcomic. Joe Chill (talk) 23:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Emperor (talk) 21:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I flagged notability concerns in April and nothing has been done about it since. Also, as I noted on the talk page it is recreation of speedily deleted material and needed the notability issue sorting out asap, if I had been more active following that I would have proposed it for deletion. So it has had a lot of chances to address this. I'd suggest if anyone wants to recreate this that they do so in the sandbox and, if they can demonstrate there are enough sources it might be possible to make it live but it will require a lot more work first. (Emperor (talk) 21:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was redirected to List of Ben 10: Evolutions episodes (note colon) in order to consolidate deletion discussions. Additionally, this article had no content and was merely an outline. The redirect target has actual content. Non-admin closure. KuyaBriBri^Talk 05:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ben 10 Evolutions episodes[edit]

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

This is just nonsense, there exist three Lists of Ben 10: Evolutions episodes, and the author of this one made a new one, just because he forgot List OF Ben 10....

Still going with my main reason, this should be made after we get some proof, or the episodes actually air. Speeda psx (talk · contribs) 18:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No sources. Racepacket (talk) 21:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted G6 Skier Dude (talk) 03:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List Ben 10: Evolutions episodes[edit]

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

This is just nonsense, there exist three Lists of Ben 10: Evolutions episodes, and the author of this one made a new one, just because he forgot List OF Ben 10....

Still going with my main reason, this should be made after we get some proof, or the episodes actually air. Speeda psx (talk · contribs) 18:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - no sources and it is a duplication of List of Ben 10 Evolutions episodes (but with a colon in the title). Racepacket (talk) 21:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tagged for G6 speedy deletion--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail ^Review 02:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 16:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corona Park (band)[edit]

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

Note: AFD was proposed by an IP, so I'm copying their rationale in good faith. tedder (talk) 18:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Band does not fulfil the criteria’s of Wikipedia:Notability (music) as the you can find no sources that confirm the awards or even the contract with Warner. In fact, besides a few self-made pages on myspace, lastfm etc. and some youtoube-videos you can’t find any information about the band. Even after some search you will find no place in the real world or the web, where you can buy the music of the band. All in all: this band seems more like a private project. --134.106.119.61 (talk) 14:26, 27 October 2009

Delete. I can find nothing to suggest this band meets WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 18:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (A9). No assertion of notability; fails WP:BAND [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 18:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it qualifies for speedy deletion, but I can't find any reason to keep it under WP:BAND policy either. The article states that this was a tribute band so I would think it unlikely they've released any albums, and since they have apparently split up this year, they're not likely to become any more notable in future. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 19:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 19:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 16:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Lombard[edit]

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

Article about an unelected mayoral candidate. Does not meet the notability standards on WP:POLITICIAN, and if anything, is really notable for only one event. TheLetterM (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added to this AfD the article Is Awesome about the political party he set up for his campaign, which has been redirected to his article and stands or falls with it. JohnCD (talk) 19:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - making up a party, standing for mayor and coming sixth is not notable, and no other notability is indicated. JohnCD (talk) 19:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both For the double absence of notability. Warrah (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both: Per JohnCD. Joe Chill (talk) 21:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both As per above. For the record, the editor that created both, has been vandalizing various other articles, and then reverting his own edits, as well as uploading a hoax (fake) image. He/she has since been blocked indefinitely. QueenofBattle (talk) 17:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish breakfast[edit]

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

Self-admitted newly invented cocktail, article creator is trying to use Wikipedia as a medium to gain notability for the drink. It's fairly obvious it's not yet notable, so therefore the article should be deleted. JIP | Talk 17:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Step 2 of AfD process was not completed correctly. It has been fixed. KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never made the cocktail, I had it at a bar, wanted some backstory on it, did extensive research. The sources are all people whom i discussed the drink with, so I couldn't really cite them. I figured it would be a good idea to at least get someting started on the drink and its origins, so other people don't have the same problem as me, and isn't that sort of the whole point of wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by FunkadellicFRED (talk • contribs) 20:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know Fred, I used to think that was the point of wikipedia as well, but its not, because as an encyclopedia it tries to cover things that can be independently verified, and this cannot. You can blog about it, discuss it in forums, etc., but wikipedia is not the original source for things like this.--Milowent (talk) 22:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Searching for "Finnish breakfast" yields hits, but none of them are about a cocktail.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable cocktail. However, it really is a good idea to finish breakfast. Mandsford (talk) 22:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, I guess that all makes sense, but it is a drink, so it should at the very least go on the list,even if it doesn't have its own article. Can we at least agree on that?FunkadellicFRED (talk) 03:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it should be mentioned on a list, it's just not notable for its own article. There are some persons, of course, who believe that a list should only invite the "cool kids" and that we should censor anything that doesn't have its own blue link. That's something that has zero basis in policy, kind of an anal approach to an encyclopedia. chances are, they wouldn't know what "q.v." means even if they ever looked at an article in the Britannica, but not everything in an article has to be q.v. My view is that if it's not a blue link, leave it black, don't make it a red link, throw in a cite to a source. Luckily, their right to edit is no greater than your right to edit. Mandsford (talk) 13:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Platinum (band)[edit]

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

Nonnotable band, no sources cited. Anon IP removed prod tag without explanation or adding sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 22:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This "band" does not actually exist, it merely combines elements from other South Korean groups and pokes fun at them. Plus there is no coverage on this group. ^N_P^e_e^e_r^b_v^s_e^s_z (Push) 20:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g3, on reading the article, enough of it is clearly a big joke that it qualifies as a blatant hoax. Also WP:SNOW per below. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nordic Egg Toss[edit]

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

Wikipedia is NOT for something made up one day. WuhWuzDat 16:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find anything to suggest that it's anything other than something made up one day. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 16:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:MADEUP. Warrah (talk) 17:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NFT. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:MADEUP. Loves Macs (talk) 17:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The article certainly needs more work, but there is no clear consensus to delete. As DGG rightly points out, just because the article needs work, is no reason to delete. Content issues are solved by collaborative working. The Fund meets the criteria for inclusion; the actual content of the article is not a matter for AfD. Ged UK 09:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fondul Proprietatea[edit]

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

Previously nominated for deletion in June, the article was kept, but consensus was that it needed stubbing, and if problems persisted, the closing administrator should be contacted in a couple of months. Well, I contacted him, but he made no reply. I then took the step of stubbing the article, but was soon reverted by its owner. We should delete this because it's an attack page, a soapbox written by someone who refuses to understand basic policies (WP:NPOV, WP:PSTS) and shows no evidence of having read WP:MOS (I refer you to his other masterpiece, Toma T. Socolescu). Yes, the fund is notable, but we can't keep this version lying around forever under circumstances where its creator and defender is clearly biased and refuses both to keep that bias out of mainspace and to compromise in order to follow policy. The page should be recreated when someone with an understanding of policy who has an interest in writing on the subject comes along. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stub it - It is definitely a complete mess of an article, maybe not an attack page but it is pretty close in some places. The company is notable, but the article should be drastically reduced to a stub, and then subsequently be re-written in an encyclopedic manner. -Marcusmax(speak) 16:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a bad idea, and one I've tried myself. Let's just hope this AfD impels the author to cooperate. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I have written this article and I still do not understand its is considered by someones as not acceptable. The fund is real, its problems also and the court decisions are real and have been made public. It would not be fair to describe the fund as if it worked as designed, which is false. So if someone can explain to me what needs to be changed and why I'll be glad to modify and/or adapt the article. The French version of the article does not raise any problem and it is exactly the same text.
  Anyway, I have a suggestion that may solve the issue: to limit to the minimum the titles dedicated to the complains and condemnations, and create a specific article in the "Human Right in Romania" category, dedicated to private property abuses or violations in Romania. It could be named "Private property abuses in Romania" or "Violation of private property in Romania". The title remains to be chosen. What do you think of this proposal? --Cbrajon (talk) 12:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I strongly suggest you read WP:PSTS, but let me quote some of it for you. "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources... All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors". Now, aside from a Ziua article that barely mentions the fund, and an Evenimentul Zilei one that does so at greater length, almost the entire article relies on court cases. For verifying certain facts, that's fine: see our Featured Articles Dietrich v The Queen, Al-Kateb v Godwin, Roe v. Wade. But not, I should stress, to build an entire article around. For that we need "mainly published reliable secondary sources" - newspaper and magazine articles and, if applicable, books. As for the other issue: neutrality demands Wikipedia's narrative voice not be negative, but it does not require a positive portrayal either (an obvious problem in your Toma T. Socolescu article, which makes it clear you are very sympathetic to that individual). After all, our articles on Goebbels or Beria are not exactly endorsements of those subjects. Featuring criticism of the Fund is a good idea, provided it appears in published reliable secondary sources and is attributed as such. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK. I read the famous WP:PSTS. This issue (property spoliation) is not a minor issue and I suppose you know it since you have a Romanian username. Moreover, secondary sources include magazines, books and serious written sources. I consider it also includes Court decision that are public, written and published. I do not consider these decisions as "interpretive claims" because they cannot be interpreted. The decisions are clear, simple and the repetition of the decisions in now 30 cases, if we refer only to the specific point of the Fondul Proprietatea issue, build the truth. It is in fact the recurrence of the condemnations for exactly the same reasons, and the questioning of the fund on each case, that is particularly interesting. Without this recurrence, I would not have mentioned the issue. The only thing I regret is not being able to give the English version of the decision because most all of them are written in French and not translated by the ECHR. Unfortunately Romania has lost all of the cases on this issue. So obviously the image is negative for this fund. But this is what is really going on.
      In this debate we perhaps eventually disagree on the "published reliable secondary sources" concept. What kind of event do we have to wait to write in Wikipedia that this fund is ineffective? There are regularly articles published on the issue:
      
      - Ziarul Financiar written on 03/09/2009 : [6] => Summary: "Still remaining undistributed dividends of the fund test the patience of thousands of people waiting for years to collect cash value part of property confiscated by the communist regime."
      - Ziare.com written on 03/09/2009 : [7] => Summary : "The fund is suing the Romanian State for not fulfilling its legal duty: paying the social capital of the fund"
      - BloomBiz.ro written on 04/09/2009 : [8] => Summary : "Romanian state does not pay its own participation in the fund which is obliged to enforce it to pay..."
      - Ziarul Financiar written on 30/07/2009 : [9] => Summary : "State is trying to find solution in order to compensation former owners but many obstacles remain" + At the end o the article, a list of blocking issues regarding the fund is available: "1/ after four years of its establishment FP does not have a manager 2/ listing will meet the deadline of November 30, 2009 3/ FP can not yet provide dividends of record profits in 2008 4/ social capital and par value of a share should be reduced by 23% 5/ Although it is the largest fund in Europe, it is not functional."
      - Hotnews.ro written on 10/06/2009 : [10] => Summary : "Four years since the founding of the Property Fund, as a means of compensation to former owners of buildings abusively taken by the Romanian state, if the restitution was not possible, the Property Fund is not yet an effective mechanism for compensation of victims of these abuses, which stain the honor of the Romanian State."
      - The Romanian Digest written in June 2009 : [11] (in English) => Summary : "Four years after the creation of the Property Fund (“Fondul Proprietatea” in Romanian) as a means of awarding restitution to former owners of properties confiscated by the Romanian state where in-kind restitution is no longer possible, Fondul Proprietatea still does not represent an effective mechanism in awarding compensation to the victims. This is a stain on the honor of the Romanian state. "
      -- The same article has also been published in another site: romaniannewswatch on 03/06/2009: [12]
      - FrontNews.ro written on 12/11/2008 :[13] => Summary : "The excessive and undeclared executives salaries raises a scandal at Fondul Proprietatea"
      - Ziarul Financiar on 31/01/2007: [14] => Summary: "European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg demonstrates that the non-operating Property Fund makes compensation impossible for the Romanians, owners of nationalized houses, so that Romanian Government is sentenced to pay damages for infringement of property rights."
      - Gandul, written on 14/07/2006: [15] => The title is clear enough : "Fondul Proprietatea Juggling is denounced by the ECHR"
      
      And I have only been searching for half an hour on the net...
      Reading these articles, I believe anyone realizes that this fund is a mess, and that it does not fulfill its mission at all.
      Moreover, it seems obvious to me that 30 condemnations in the highest European jurisdictions are the best proof you ever may have. Now on, taking into consideration the pace of the condemnation, we may reach 100 before the end of 2011.
      On the other hand, Since it has been stated that this fund is not effective, why would Wikipedia sponsor the opposite? I mean not explaining that the fund is not working (and in fact is closer to a cheat than to a useful compensation scheme) would not be honest for the reader. Therefore, if you decide to stub this article you have to include the information, in a way or another, that it is not effective. If you do not, I suppose it is better not even to write an article on this subject. It would be as fair as writing an article on Staline or Lenine and retaining only the official communist figures and publications. --Cbrajon (talk) 14:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're making some progress. Hopefully you can include some of those press sources, make the language more neutral, and have this more in line with other Wikipedia articles. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK. Let me just one day to do it. It may be finished in a couple of hours if not today, tomorrow. --Cbrajon (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stub it. A notable subject, however the current article is just a soapbox. If third opinions are needed, please post announcements on relevant WikiProjects/Noticeboards, there's no need to delete the article.Anonimu (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean by "stub it"? English is not my mother tongue and dictionary did not give any useful clue to understand... By the way what do you think of my proposal? --Cbrajon (talk) 19:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - A stub is "an article containing only a few sentences of text which is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, but not so short as to provide no useful information, and it should be capable of expansion". This should become a stub, like I did to it but you reverted me. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you --Cbrajon (talk) 14:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep The reason given for deletion is invalid "Yes, the fund is notable, but we can't keep this version lying around forever under circumstances where its creator and defender is clearly biased and refuses both to keep that bias out of mainspace and to compromise in order to follow policy." That makes it a content dispute, and there are ways to settle such. AfD is not one of them. DGG ( talk ) 22:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Author: I am at present working on the article to develop secondary sources references and make the article as neutral as possible.--Cbrajon (talk) 14:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Author: I have achieved my changes. The secondary sources are numerous, the ECHR text is much shorter and synthetic, the text has been modified. Two subtitles dedicated to ECHR and Council of Europe condemnation and requests have disappeared. I think the article is now in a much better shape. The title "Effectiveness of the fund and challenges" is corroborated by 29 secondary sources and 33 court decisions. Each statement has at least one secondary written source. Awaiting your comments. --Cbrajon (talk) 15:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep as bad faith nomination. 1) vandalism is not a valid reason for deletion; 2) this is not vandalism, but an editing dispute. Please see WP:DR. Non-admin closure. KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

State Guard Association of the United States[edit]

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

Page being vandalized by organization member. This organization, bylaws or website does not support "rump" or "private" militias. This organizations advocates for the establishment and support of state defense forces regulated by state governments under the authority of 32 USC 109 [16]and National Guard Bureau Regulation 10-4 [17].22015va (talk) 15:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ben 10: Evolutions episodes[edit]

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

This is stupid and wrong. This was mostly composed by IP's with no source citation or anything. Both of the episodes on the list belong to the movie (they are the movie). This should be created again when this show starts airing. Speeda psx (talk · contribs) 15:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ delete ~~as duplicative of List of Ben 10 Evolutions episodes (missing colon) and List Ben 10: Evolutions episodes (missing "of").~~ No sources. Very poorly written. No evidence of notability. Racepacket (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I redirected List of Ben 10: Evolutions episodes (without the colon) to this article and NAC'd that AfD in order to consolidate the deletion discussion of what is essentially the same article into one place. List Ben 10: Evolutions episodes (without "of") was deleted. KuyaBriBri^Talk 05:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced WP:CRYSTALballing. No prejudice to re-creation if/when these episodes actually air or are announced on an official basis. KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gogol Street[edit]

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

The article fails to establish notability, is unreferenced, and has no counterpart in the Russian Wikipedia. The street is just one of many in Yekaterinburg; there's nothing special about it. —Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:31, November 11, 2009 (UTC) 14:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:STREETS. --Milowent (talk) 15:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh the irony :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:39, November 11, 2009 (UTC)

LOL. That essay is a hoot. One Street per 50,000 people?? Even accepting that, Gogol street appears to be 3 blocks long.--Milowent (talk) 18:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tempted to point out that the street was featured on City FM in 2007, but will stick to delete, as there is no indication (beyond that) that this street is notable. --Paularblaster (talk) 00:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 16:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Web squared[edit]

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

Delete No evidence of notability. Article gives no independent sources. Google search provides scarcely any independent reliable sources, and one of the few that do show up ([18]) mentions "Web squared" only to dismiss it as "just another vacuous buzzword". JamesBWatson (talk) 14:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails even as a dictionary definition because there's nothing there to define. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The way I see it, this article goes against WP:NFT (or WP:NOT#OR Number 2), even though it wasn't the creator's idea. Yes, it has some coverage on google, but none of the sources seem to be both independent and reliable. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 15:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failed neologism. Artw (talk) 17:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 23:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Web 2.0. This is notable as a continuation/evolution of terminology by some of the most important figures related to Web 2.0, but it isn't yet ready to be its own article. It may be someday, but for now it's clearly a buzzword without a lot of attention from reliable sources independent of its core proponents. Steven Walling 05:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If it is is "notable as a continuation/evolution of terminology ... " then it ought to be possible to find reliable independent sources indicating the fact: if not then it should not be kept, whether in its own article or merged. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - A quick Google News search immediately brings up articles devoted to or mentioning the term in Forbes [19] [20] ReadWriteWeb [21] and Information Week [22]. That's clearly enough for it to be merged into Web 2.0, if not enough to exist in its own right as a neologism. Steven Walling 18:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - One of the articles cited in the above comment is coauthored by Tim O'Reilly, another is an announcement of a paper by O'Reilly and Battelle, and another is an announcement of a show organized by O'Reilly and Battelle. It is not clear to me that this is evidence that the term has a significant amount of use by people other than the two people who coined it. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm normally for merging, but if this was added into Web 2.0 it would probably be deleted for lack of notability. The BBC tech blog mentioned it but only emphasises that the name failed to catch on. - Fayenatic (talk) 08:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are more than the BBC's post about it. See above. Steven Walling 18:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO Crafty (talk) 05:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Loser girl[edit]

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

Contested prod. Unreferenced article about an incident on Korean TV. In any case, the title of the article is wholly inappropriate. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If this is true then it is about one small incident which certainly does not warrant an article. In addition, I can find no sources to confirm this: for example a Google search for "Loser Girl?" "Chitchat of beautiful ladies" returns only this Wikipedia article, and other searches produce similar results. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced article about something that happened on an episode of an interview show does not appear to satisfy notability guideline. Edison (talk) 16:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You can learn the most interesting oddball things, despite an article being doomed, by perusing AfD. The typically wacky korean show at issue is apparently formally called Global Talk Show, and the whole episode is on youtube, split into parts. Part 1[23] (possibly running into part 2) must be where the incident occurred based on the comments to it. I'd love to see these parodies referenced in the wiki article and such but I probably would have to use korean search terms. I could make a decent blogpost out of this, but as for wikipedia its Doomed to Deletion--Milowent (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 07:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Grossly POV article on a stupid internet meme from three days ago. Korean newspapers have reported about the incident [24] if any editor wants to add some content about this incident to the (woefully-underdeveloped) article about the TV show, but is not an appropriate topic for a standalone article, and this unsourced junk should not be merged anywhere. cab (talk) 07:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- English-language newspaper article too, for non-Korean speakers wondering about this storm in a teacup [25]. cab (talk) 16:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Milowent, keep us posted about this blog of yours; sounds exciting. Drmies (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g11, advertising - "Since its launch, WhiteLabelDating.com has gone from strength to strength" etc. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WhiteLabelDating.com[edit]

Non-notable website, also reads like an advert. Speedy G11 declined by user with one edit. A few mentions on google news but mostly rehashed press releases. One mention on foxnews.com but only in passing in relation to another subject. Couldn't find enough reliable sources to establish notability. --Pontificalibus (talk) 13:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge. The target of the merge needs to discussed, either an article about the incident or about racial violence in Australia. Consensus is clear that the person's death is notable for inclusion but not the person itself (per WP:BIO1E), so a deletion of the information in this article is not favored by consensus but neither is leaving it at its current place. Regards So Why 14:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Zhongjun Cao[edit]

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

Notability hinges on a single event, which is not usually considered sufficient. Favonian (talk) 11:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP , notable article has attracted worldwide attention in media. THere are many murder victims or victims of serious and violent crime that are in the scope of wikiepdia notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmy Heat (talk • contribs) 12:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The crime appears to be notable, but the victim is, tragically, known only for being killed. A solution would be to rename the article to something appropriate (Curry bashing murder may be a bit too lurid) to make it clear, that it's about the murder. Favonian (talk) 12:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Murder of Dr Zhongjun Cao per above comment --Pontificalibus (talk) 13:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes this is what I think too. Move or rename article to Murder of Dr Zhongjun Cao or The Tragic Death of Zhong Jun Cao or which ever would be the appropriate title for the incident. (Marinesuper (talk) 09:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Delete He is clearly not notable. It is not even clear to me that the murder is notable; there are thousands of murders, and every incident which has been in the news for a while is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notable as the first possible non Indian victim of this new trend in Curry bashing and the first to die as a result. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Racism Watch Australia (talk • contribs) 09:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move - Per Pontificalibus. There's a good amount of coverage in major Australian newspapers about the incident, and some "buzz" in papers outside of Australia. There was more than just a murder here, this was a Chinese academic murdered because he was mistaken for being Indian. That brought the interest of media in both China and India, which explains why this murder is more notable than others. There were also protests in Chinese communities in Australia about the lenient sentence the murderer received. But per WP:BLP1E it's best to have an article about the murder and its effects, not the person, since he is only notable for the murder. -- Atama頭 16:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Clearly non notableother then being murdered. While sad it opens the doors for everyone else ever shot that ended up in a paper. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to the above', Hell In A Bucket, the circumstances of this are unique and I totally disagree with your remark that "it opens the doors for everyone else ever shot that ended up in a paper.". This one is much different given the facts that it was a racially motivated attack that ended in a man's death and the fact that he is most likely the first non Indian victim of "Curry Bashing". (Racism Watch Australia (talk) 10:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Weak keep and Move to Murder of Dr Zhongjun Cao. Yeah, with the current article name this is a BLP1E case, but that problem would be easily cured by a move to a different title. The real question is if the underlying event (the murder, the trials and subsequent political fallout) is sufficiently notable and whether it gets over the WP:NOT#NEWS bar. It seems to me that in this case the answer to the last question is "yes", even if not overwhelmingly so. There has been a fair amount of newscoverage of the case in the Australian national (and not just local) media, as a googlenews search shows. Moreover, crucially, this coverage was not limited to the time of the murder but extended over a significant period of time afterwards: from some articles in January 2008 (e.g. [26][27][28]) and through 2009 (e.g. [29][30][31][32]). There has also been some international coverage, in India (e.g.[33]) and, apparently, in China. Overall seems enough to me to overcome the WP:NOT#NEWS bar. The article needs some clean-up though. Kinoq (talk) 18:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Racial violence in Australia. The idea behind WP:BIO1E~~BLP1E~~ is to cover the incident in a broader context rather than in the isolation of the non-notable individual. I think that this could be added as a paragraph in Racial violence in Australia with a benefit to that article without the current over emphasis on the particular victim. (Because the incident was in 2008, I could not merge it with 2009 attacks on Indian students in Australia.) Racepacket (talk) 21:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm somewhat bemused as to how an article on a murder victim could be a BLP1E case - or indeed a BLP anything else case. --Paularblaster (talk) 00:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, it is WP:BIO1E (which applies to all biographies, including for deceased individuals), rather than WP:BLP1E, but the main principle is the same. Kinoq (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Racial violence in Australia. This subject does seem to be sufficiently notable to be worth covering, but at the moment there isn't much to say about it, and it may be better covered as a subsection of a longer, more general article. WP:BIO1E possibly also comes into play here. Robofish (talk) 23:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.
Keep I'm in agreement with article originator that the murder of Dr Cao seems to have attracted significant media attention as well as continuing debate in both media and written articles on violent behaviour. Somne research as also turned up the possible formation of the Dr Zhongjun Cao foundation or trust. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Real Natural (talk • contribs) 05:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep Notable as the first possible non Indian victim of this new trend in Curry bashing and the first to die as a result. Media coverage is vast also. (Racism Watch Australia (talk) 10:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)) Re-edit (Racism Watch Australia (talk) 12:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Merge to Racial violence in Australia. Tragic case but BIO1E. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
~~Merge per above~~ Delete. Dr Cao was non-notable by WP guidelines. His death is tragic but we don't keep articles on every murder victim for obvious reasons. –Moondyne 11:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there is enough prominence with this person who the article is about and the circumstances are or were unique. (Starman005 (talk) 12:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- Every murder is unique; I fail to see how this one is moreso. The murder seems to have been a case of mistaken ethnicity which is unusual but not earthshattering. –Moondyne 12:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm also happy with merge, given that a number of people believe that it can be worked into Racial violence in Australia, but to be honest I feel that this may be tricky as the Racial Violence article is focused on riots and series of attacks rather than individual one-off murders. While it is clear that the article describes a horrible event, we don't - and shouldn't - have articles about every murder, and the only apparent connection between this and the more notable 2009 attacks was that in this case the victim was mistakenly believed to be Indian, while the later attacks were directed at Indian students. If it can be shown that it had a wider impact I'd feel differently, though. - Bilby (talk) 13:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename I don't know if "The Murder of Zhong Jun Cao" is the best title though. Possibly "The Zhong Jun Cao" death or tragedy. Having come on board here after doing some thikning about it and if it is notable, I think the incident itself is notable but not the person himself. I suggest here that the tragic event rather than the person himself is the notable aspect and should be covered. To suggest that this should be merged with another article such as Racial violence in Australia serves no point as this event tragic as it is was an actual indication of what is wrong in our society. Jun Cao's death is the result of what is taking place and whether we like it or not this is something that should be taken note of. In regard to Racism Watch Australia's theory about him being the first non Indian victim, I would like to suggest that we do some research on that first. He may be right or he may not. Still at the end of the day, a man died a horrific death as a result of a trend in Indian Bashing aka Curry Bashing. Therefore I believe that the event of his bashing and the outcome should be covered in an article that carries the title.... "The Death of Zhong Jun Cao" or "The Murder of Zhong Jun Cao" (Marinesuper (talk) 09:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC))— Marinesuper (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The sense of the debate is that, having shipped in such a volume, this manga ought to be notable and verifiable, although no one is quite sure how important it is and the article as written has not been verified with reliable secondary sources. It may pass the third prong of WP:BK, although that refers specifically to a "notable motion picture", which brings us back to the original question. This is the first time this article has been nominated for deletion; it's appropriate to close out the debate as no consensus for now, while noting that in any subsequent debate these issues, if not addressed, are grounds for deletion. Mackensen (talk) 03:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Quest Retsuden: Roto no Monshō[edit]

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

prodded because the series failed WP:BK and will likely continue to do so. ip 159.182.1.4 removed prod with the reason "21 manga volumes AND a movie seems pretty notable." However, while it would "seem" to be, there is no indication that it passes any of the tests for WP:BK. The sequal manga series has charted on the top of weekly listings in Japan, but only for the first week. There is no commentary on the original, the movie or the sequal series from reliable sources and unlikely to be any. Furthermore it is unlikely the manga will be translated, or its sequal. 陣内 _Jinnai 19:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)}}[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 04:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Its length does not make it notable, and we cannot operate on the idea that because we believe it should have coverage that it does. The lack of actually verified significant coverage in third-party reliable sources and the lack of reviews or any other coverage of its adaptation makes it fail WP:BK and WP:N. Therefore, it should not have an article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a good example of why I think WP:BK just doesn't work for manga, and an example of where the instruction in WP:N to use common sense should be followed. No matter how notable a manga actually is, if it has only been published in Japan, and especially if it is more than a couple years old, no one on the English language Wikipedia can ever find sources for it. According to Square-Enix's web site, this manga has sold over 15 million volumes [34], and the fact that they mention it there suggests that it is one of the most successful manga series they have ever published. I also want to mention that if WP:BK corresponded to WP:MUSIC, this would pass the notability guidelines easily (based on sales numbers), and it would also semi-pass WP:NF as a major work by a notable creator (Chiaki Kawamata). While WP:BK doesn't allow for similar considerations, I think that is based on an assumption that notable works will have readily accessable reviews, which just doesn't hold for Japanese works, and manga in particular. Calathan (talk) 05:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've personally never had a problem finding coverage for notable series, that are truly notable. I think Music's sales criteria was and remains a horrible criteria, resulting in a hideous number of stubs that will never be anything other than a stub and occasionally copyrighted lyrics and a plot summary of a music video. No reviews because there were none. Further, WP:BK works just fine for manga, as far as I can see. Its being published in Japan doesn't somehow negate that. Other foreign language works that are notable have been sourced by English editors. Translators may not give the best results, but they generally give good enough for the purposes of seeing what something says. With the Square Enix link, notice that even though this series is twice as long as FMA, it sold less than half as many copies, which really doesn't show it to be that successful among manga series as a whole, even if it was one of their high sellers (Square Enix is also not one of the most prolific of manga publishers).-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fullmetal Alchimist is longer than this manga (23 volumes and still running, vs. 21 volumes). Anyway, I know you are opposed to using sales figures as a notability guideline, and that you were the main person who argued against it being added to WP:BK, but I personally disagree with you. Some of the arguements you presented seemed really unconvincing (e.g. that the creator could be the one buying all the copies), and I don't see how something that sold 15 million volumes could be considered non-notable. Furthermore, I can't understand why you don't think there is a problem with how manga articles are handled right now. Currently, manga is almost never considered notable if it is just published in Japan, but is almost always considered notable if it has been published in the last few year in the U.S., France, or another country with reliable sources that review a large percentage of the manga published in that country. The presence of reviews really has nothing to do with how popular, successful, or well known a manga is, but just whether it happened to be picked up for release in certain countries. Calathan (talk) 06:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was thinking of FMA's epsiode cound. Anyway, the phenomenon of author's and/or publisher's inflating best seller numbers is well documented, but that's not a discussion for this page. I do not see manga as being special or different from any other foreign language work for establishing notability here. Its license status is irrelevant (and there have been dozens of licensed series deleted as unnotable over the last year, because they again lacked the coverage). Conversely there are several manga series which have never been released outside of Japan which are notable and have the actual significant coverage to show it. The coverage doesn't have to be only reviews, but does need to be significant and from reliable sources. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No licensor in UK/US, France, Germany, Spain & Italy. Scanlation is stall at v5c18 and +1200 days old. Least non tag non maintenance edit July 12, 2008. Currently fails WP:BK. For now i'm leaning for Delete. I should not that even if the article is kept most of the content could trimmed or removed due to verifiability issue ending up with an empty shell. --KrebMarkt 11:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If 15 million people bought it, its notable. Use common sense. A major long established company is not going to exaggerate its sales figures. Does anyone here not believe it sold 15 million copies? Do you think its just a few dozen copies, and the rest are just hype? And what difference does it make if they have another series that sold twice as many copies? That doesn't change the point that a very large number of people have bought this series, making it quite notable. Dream Focus 17:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's less than 750,000 per copy, which is not that impressive. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now wait a minute. It's one thing to say that you don't think sales figures are an indication of notability, but I don't possibly see how you can say that 750,000 copies per volume isn't an impressive number. That is a lot more copies than the vast majority of manga sell. Calathan (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, that's more people than live in my entire province. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not paper and can support niche notability. - BalthCat (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also worth noting that the source above actually said "...Dragon Quest Retsuden Roto No Monsho (15+ million shipped)"... not "750,000 copies per volume". So I'd be interested in where that lessor number came from... though 3/4 million is still impressive. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

21 volume series...basic division. Of course, it also says shipped, not sold, but that's another issue. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've been working pretty closely with the Dragon Quest articles along with Jinnai and I have to say it'd just be simpler and more useful to Wikipedia to just move the relevent info (which I believe has already happened) to the main Dragon Quest articles.?EVAUNIT^{神の人間の殺害者} 00:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My sense is that if something it is notable enough to somone for to open their wallets and hand over money... 15 million times, we have a reasonable presumption of notability that would then indicate a "keep and further improve", rather than delete. Surmountable obstacles are to be adressed... and not deleted because of the level of difficulty posed for English-only Wikipedians. Futher assistance might be requested Japanese-reading Wikipedians. Surely some have contributed to the article in the past and could come forward to address these issues. Some might even translate these Japanese language articles for us non-Japanese-reading Wikipedians and share how much Japanese coverage there is for this Japanese manga product. Though other Wikipedia have less stringent standards toward assessing what is notability for their readership, it would be prudent to also translate THIS article from the Japanese Wikipedia to find out which sources it uses. I'd hate to have something tossed simply because it was notable only in some place other than the United States. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using the Google News Archive, one of the articles I found was the equivalent to this^[1] which is an announcement that title is one of the first titles Square Enix has started distributing via PSP. Another article^[2] is an interview with the artist, where he says that, "The truth is that they were planing on having another writer work on "Emblem of Roto" when suddenly the offer came to me. It seems that(The creator of Dragon Quest) Yuuji Horii had read my manga "Chocolate Panic"." Unfortunately, the Japanese Wikipedia article only mentions the various media generated by the franchise such as the artbooks and guide book for references, and I suspect those don't count. Really, this is another case where the manga is old enough that you won't find much reliable news coverage on it on the web, and have to rely on books and magazines that mostly can only be found in Japan after days of searching in used bookstores. Personally though, I think the PSP news points to the fact that this series has remained notable even a decade after it was originally published. SMimas (talk) 05:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. This seems like a very concise overview on a popular manga series which is already brokering into other media. I don't see any outrageous claims or undue exponential plot creep, etc. It seems well-written and anyone looking for a thumbnail sketch would seem to be well served by this article. My hunch is that some serious digging for sourcing is needed and likely won't be easy. If they are in another language then use them are try to interpret them for those looking to dig deeper. Serve our readers, who are obviously interested in this, and let the list grow organically. Likewise encourage those editors who work in manga to identify and cite sources. -- Banjeboi 03:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bearing in mind that if a strict reading of the verifiability policy is applied this article could end like that one --KrebMarkt 07:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it's really unfortunate and seems to only degrade what could be good stubby's progress. Hopefully WP:Brain will prevail. -- Banjeboi 23:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - based on the sales figures, it seems quite popular and successful. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 15 million people served, not as impressive as McDonald's billions and billions, but enough to meet notability guidelines. Ikip (talk) 05:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which guideline? --KrebMarkt 07:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Lets end this nonsense right now, and go to the books guideline page, and discuss changes. [35] Less than a handful of people ever stated their opinions about that. If consensus is clearly that sales figures from a reliable source, equal notability, then the suggested guideline must be changed. Dream Focus 10:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While I think the guidelines do not particularly work well for long-running series (particularly first-volumes in infoboxes), I'm not sure this is the best candidate to pick battles. Dragon Quest is notable as a franchise in and of itself and it is likely a rub-off effect being seen. It may be better if you decide on such course to show one that is also independently well known. For this series, not every volume even charted once.陣内 _Jinnai 19:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. It's a bit difficult for me to fathom how a series that ran for 21 volumes has no coverage at all. I understand a great amount of work has been done on researching material for the franchise, so I presume there is no mention in Manga: The Complete Guide or any other English-language review anthology. Given the age of this series, it is unlikely that there is much web coverage. Perhaps more research needs to be done on a print level to better determine the extent of its (un)popularity. FYI, all volumes are listed on WorldCat by searching the name in Japanese script. Arsonal (talk) 19:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Manga: The Complete Guide says it only covers officially English manga. No other English RSes review it; its even hard to find unreliable sources reviewing it.
- I'd like to know from Arsonal who voted "keep for now" what is "now" because this title has had notability tag for almost 1 year, has existed since 2006 and no RSes have been found beyond a few incidental ones for sales ratings, one of which is an ~~primary~~ interested source. the video game publisher, which such sources are known to inflate sales numbers.陣内_Jinnai 21:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Square-Enix (or Enix, before they merged) is the publisher of the manga, not just the games. Anyway, I didn't do an in-depth search for sources since I can't read Japanese, so I hope people aren't assuming I did a detailed search and just didn't find anything. I don't know if there are other sources out there or not, but if there are, I would expect that they are in Japanese. Calathan (talk) 00:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm going to be picky and correct Jinnai that the tag is on lack of references, not on notability. Indeed it was placed back in July 2008, and I'm going by the good faith of Rosiestep who probably thought a series with 21 published volumes should be somewhat notable. However, (s)he of course did not know the extent of its notability and therefore tagged it for lack of references. The series has probably fallen off the radar of many people because a decade has passed since it ended. This would result in the lack of coverage in present-day RS. However, contributors who have seen the article have no access to RS Japanese material published contemporary to the series. (Subjects such as this are sometimes "rediscovered" later.) In my view, it is a case of insufficient information to be able to properly discern the extent of notability, and I think we should not jump to conclusions solely on that basis. Arsonal (talk) 08:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - 1994 does not really qualify as "that old" for deference given in WP:BK. The internet was around then and moreso the sequal and movie were around then as well. There are no independant RSes for any of it that can confer notability, including sites in Japanese. Given that you cannot presume there is likely notability when this article cannot even get 1 RS commenting on just one of the 3 works.陣内 _Jinnai 18:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge The article is a bit light on details, so merging it into the main DQR article may make sense. Argel1200 (talk) 01:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is complete, and the manga has been adapted into a comic CD and an anime movie, therefore it is notable. Although one Wikipedian complained English Wikipedia's overly lenient article inclusion criteria (see User:FreeKresge/Wikipedia problems and User:FreeKresge/Notability), in fact now English Wikipedia's inclusion criteria has been more and more strict, and it can stop new Wikipedians from continuing working in English Wikipedia. --RekishiEJ (talk) 03:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It wasn't "adapted" into a comic CD, it was simply placed on a comic CD much like how the Dragon (magazine) is now on CD. It's basicaly a reprint in a different medium.陣内_Jinnai 03:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry I misunderstood the article, but since the manga was once adapted into an anime motion picture, it is notable.--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no applicable notability guideline for sales figures, and in any case there are no reliable sources for verifiability. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 12:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There're some English Wikipedians who are proficient in Japanese, found of anime, tokusatsu and manga therefore they can verify the content, so don't be shy to use Japanese sources (even if there're no reliable English sources, it is still verifiable).--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. It would be good if an editor proficient in Japanese could check this out. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 07:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To which extend? Publisher website offers reliable information on the work and the fictional characters but that is still very succinct. It won't assert claims & plot facts that people like to call spoilers. Bottom line you can't develop much the article with just publisher website as reference. --KrebMarkt 07:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no prejudices of recreation if reliable sources are found. Currently, the article is nothing more than plot information, which can easily be recreated. Instead, we strive to have articles that cover how the work came to being, its reception, and its influences on other works. Sales figures are not part of WP:BK because of the way that sales figures can be manipulated by publishers. But also popularity is not the same as notability. And while the total volume numbers is a good indication that reliable sources may exists, it does not, in itself, demonstrate notability. Notability requires verifiable evidence. —Farix (t | c) 12:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A long running manga series that has spun sequels, had a movie (Which likely fulfills criteria #3 of WP:BK, two artbooks, one guidebook, as well as having recently had a "Complete" edition released seems to me to be notable enough that it deserves an article. I'll check through some old Animage issues and see if there is any coverage of the movie that could be added to the article. While the current quality of the article is lacking, that doesn't mean that there is nothing useful there for someone who wants to expand and improve the article. SMimas (talk) 05:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 03:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frank W. Bubb Sr.[edit]

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

No sources found (apart from a blog), possible hoax. Anna Lincoln 08:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obit in the New York Times mentioning Manhattan Project, which rather implies notability. [36] Published on radiation [37] [38] from University of Chicago connects the ties -- in case you had forgotten the role of the university in the history of physics. [39] connects him to the Manhattan Project. A lot is still classified - I only found some personal information a couple years back, although I knew that anyone with a "Q Clearance" likely worked on the project. [40] gives middle initial as "O" "Early in 1942, the cyclotron was put under government control as part of the Manhattan Project, seeking plutonium in World War II. The first isolated plutonium in the world, which would barely fit on the head of a pin, was accomplished with this cyclotron. In the summer of 1943, Frank O. Bubb, head of applied mathematics, took charge of the cyclotron as it once again fell under University auspices. " but is belied by [41] [42] Compton, by the way, is the one of the "Compton Effect." "In 1944, Harry Brookings Wallace, the president of WU Corp., sent Frank Bubb, math prof, and Dr. Evarts A. Graham, chief of surgery at the Medical School, to Chicago to convince Compton to accept the chancellorship. Bubb directed cyclotron activities at WU during the war. ... " is not a blog. So notable, and vastly underappreciated, as were many on the Manhattan Project. Made the New York Times for it. Collect (talk) 13:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Probably passes WP:PROF, and an obit in the NYT helps show notability. Fences&Windows 22:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability for scientists is a lower bar than one set by earning an NYT obit for their academic / scientific work.John Z (talk) 11:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject is notable for nuclear work but article needs much expansion. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. While there is a valid argument for deletion, it is clear that it is the majority will of the participants that the article be kept. Articles currently under media scrutiny do not make for good AfD discussions, and there shouldn't be any prejudice against another nomination in a few months, pending more information about the events. In the short term however, the consensus is clear. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 04:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nidal Malik Hasan[edit]

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

Not notable per ONEEVENT - Drew Smith What I've done 00:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drew, please re-read the article in its current form, particularly Hasan's summary of Islamic teachings. Hasan - who of course has asked for an attorney - faces 20 years of appeals and will remain in the news as an exponent of Islamist supremacism for the indefinite future. The "One Event" rule is intended to exclude articles on living subjects whose impact is incidental to the event in the public's mind. For example, many people remember the Kuwait fragging incident, but the perpetrator did not produce PowerPoint presentations on Islamic doctrine.

WikiFlier (talk) 03:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with possible re-creation later, consensus on the talkpage of Fort Hood shooting was to not create a spin-off, to focus all efforts on a single article until it was clear what Hasan's role/motivations/actions were, due to the already-incorrect information ("The shooter killed himself"), for fear of being a gross violation of BLP. I'm not opposed to creating this article in a week or two, but for now, consensus seems to have been that it should not exist - and I stand by that. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 00:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sherurcij's comments should be seen in the context of his pro-jihadist sympathies. His personal page on Wikipedia is devoted to details about Guantanamo prisoners. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sherurcij/Gitmo&oldid=288202515 —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiFlier (talk • contribs) 21:22, 11 November 2009

"Avoid personal attacks against people who disagree with you" "Do not make unsourced negative comments about living people. These may be removed by any editor." AfD Wikietiquette And please sign your posts. Шизомби (talk) 21:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the biographical information being disclosed about Hasan prior to the shooting merits its own article. It is not merely about an indefinite unknowable motive, but what Hasan did and said on the record apart from the shooting, and how others responded to it. Frankly, it is one thing to say that you are not capable of editing an article to comply with WP:BLP, it's quite another to claim that no editor is. patsw (talk) 16:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and Promote Early Close, per WP:ONEEVENT: "If the event is significant, and if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources."--Epeefleche (talk) 00:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or MergeAs stated already, there is/was strong consensus not to create a separate article. Furthermore, Nidal Hasan's lasting notability (i.e. will people forget all about him, or will he continue to be known, like timothy mcveigh) has yet to be established. There is also a strong sense of reduplication between the two articles, as the information in Nidal Malik Hasan is nearly identical to the information in Fort Hood shooting. - Drew Smith What I've done 00:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note--the above is the nom.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While the point about the material being largely the same was true yesterday, since then people have begun to trim the references to NMH in the shootings article, and to add some material to his article only. I don't believe that as they stand (and as they will continue to develop) they are as duplicative as they were.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Information will get detailed enough so that information should really be split out with summary in the main article. For example, should you tag the shooting incident or just the individual as an arab or palestinean american (these tags had been removed from the main article, they work much better for the individual) It's pretty clear the individual's notability is not just a fluke that will vanish once we figure out who really did it. 00:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bachcell (talk • contribs)

Agree that information in the main article that is unnecessarily duplicative should be culled out, and the main article should only be a summary of this article in regard to him.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - All the background information and speculation concerning his motivation and affiliations is growing quickly and already overshadows the rest of the information in Fort Hood shooting. --Evb-wiki (talk) 01:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although this is WP:ONEEVENT there is sufficient world wide coverage of this. My only problem with this article is BLP concerns that he has not been convicted in a court of law. Martin451 (talk) 01:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. This AFD is unnecessary. Consensus was already against a split; the redirect should be restored and re-protected immediately. This is just one more article that has to be monitored for BLP violations now. ~YellowFives 01:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with those who say that the information in the Fort Hood article should be reduced to a mere summary Wherever that information resides, BLP concerns attach to biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is still harder to monitor two pages for BLP violations than one page, and we were doing just fine with one page. There was no reason to create this article. There are good reasons not to. ~YellowFives 15:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also per Bigtimepeace's argument below: "by having a BLP we are, de facto, saying he committed this crime, since simply being accused and then exonerated would absolutely not warrant a Wikipedia article." ~YellowFives 15:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merely having an article about Hasan does not amount to a de facto statement that he committed the crime, anymore than the media reports about Hasan do so. That's simply false. The article very clearly states he is only a suspect, even if he is the only suspect. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 15:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your argument, but I don't agree with it any more here than below. I do not think you have adequately addressed Bigtimepeace's point. Having this article is unnecessary, and the choice does say something. ~YellowFives 18:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In some ways this can be considered seperate events, as within a court of law each murder will be considered seperate. although not every murder is worthy of an event article, there is precedent for living mass murderers having their on article Martin Bryant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.67.121 (talk) 01:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Not notable at all outside of the event. Fort Hood Shootings#Suspect should, can, and does cover this information well. Reywas92 ^Talk 01:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Duplicated information, it is our usual custom not to create article about shooters. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. That doesn't comport with the Hinckley exception I quote above from WP:ONEEVENT. Clearly, this event is significant, and his role in it substantial, and it meets the secondary coverage test.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aloha. Articles about Jack the Ripper, or Timothy McVeigh are completely different. One is a legend, and the other is convicted, dead, and the FBI's early warning signs handbook was written because of him. Nidal Hasan on the other hand has had no direct effect on any govt. policies, is not confirmed to be working with terrorists, and really isn't notable yet outside of the article's scope. - Drew Smith What I've done 02:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes--but those are not the criteria of the guidance. The example given is John Hinckley, Jr. And the criterion is "how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources." He has already met the Hinckley level of coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No he hasn't. Hinckley attempted to assassinate a president. Nidal Hasan allegedly shot and killed relative nobodies. They don't really equate. - Drew Smith What I've done 02:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the guidance test is not "who was the victim or intended victim?" It is level of coverage. His level of coverage exceeds that of the example used in the guidance (that of Hinckley). (as well as that of McVeigh's 379,000 google hits, though that isn't necessarily relevant, except that that is another article about a killer of people who until that moment were NN).--Epeefleche (talk) 02:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep. ONEEVENT argues toward keeping this article, per Epeefleche, so the grounds for deletion just aren't convincing. But I don't like the duplication between this article and the Fort Hood main article. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 01:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Changing to Keep, convinced by discussion.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he's clearly notable as are Charles Carl Roberts, John Allen Muhammad and Charles Whitman. History will remember him and so should wikipedia. Dincher (talk) 01:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly relevant and notable per Seung-hui Cho Ronnotel (talk) 01:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per WP:ONEEVENT. More than enough information and coverage exists (and there will be more as time progresses) to warrant its own article. There is too much coverage and info to combine everything into the Fort Hood shooting article, and the subject is notable enough to be split-off. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:The person may become of interest in the fulllness of time. For the moment, he belongs within the event article. Bielle (talk) 02:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fullness of time appears to be upon us. He already has 26,000 Gnews hits and 629,000 Gweb hits. "John Hinckley" -- the example cited by the guidance -- in contrast has 119,000 Gweb hits.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As opposed to Jack the Ripper at 2,450,000 web hits, or Charles Manson at 1,600,000 web hits. The "fullness of time" is not upon us. - Drew Smith What I've done 02:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not the example used in the guidance. Hinckley is. And Hasam clearly far exceeds Hinckley on Ghits (as well as McVeigh, whom you pointed to earlier).--Epeefleche (talk) 04:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update a day later ... 30,000 Gnews hits, and 833,000 Ghits.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's denying he merits coverage on WP. Can a Wikipedia:Search engine test tell us whether he should be treated within the article on the event or separately? I don't know how it would. I'm also not sure what purpose it serves to compare the number of Ghits to Jack the Ripper, Manson, etc. Hasan is news, thus his Ghits will be pretty high for a while. Шизомби (talk) 05:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update again (this time without quote marks in search, as Drew constructed his searches): 42,000 Gnews hits, 952,000 Ghits. The purpose this serves is to reflect the significance of individual (and therefore the appropriateness of an article on him) per WP:ONEEVENT: "The significance of an ... individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources."--Epeefleche (talk) 07:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable terrorist in the mold of John Allen Muhammad and Timothy McVeigh. --William S. Saturn (talk) 02:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"terrorist" -- We shouldn't apply that label or take it out of the gossip press; determining what exactly Hasan is guilty of is the law's job. Also WP:WAX. --78.34.223.227 (talk) 22:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, per reason given by Super. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The individual's role related to the event is such that a separate article is more than justified, it is appropriate. A lot of the coverage is focusing on Hasan and his role in the shootings, not just the shooting event itself. Per WP:ONEVENT, it has reached the point of a separate article being the appropriate way to go. WTucker (talk) 02:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now due to duplication of content made arbitrarily and against consensus- which, for the record, seems to have been quite clearly against this creation- that's why the redirect was there in the first place. This does not benefit the encyclopaedia considering there is nothing encyclopaedic in this article that could not be easily covered at Fort Hood shooting. In addition, Hasan has no notability outside of these shootings- at present, he lacks "large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role"- WP:ONEEVENT HJMitchell You rang?
Delete, per WP:BLP1E, specifically per the section of the policy invoked by User:Epeefleche in their keep !vote: "If the event is significant, and if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category" [emphasis added]. As a technical matter, since this is an unfolding news story, Hasan is still only a suspect, and he is not (yet) someone whose role within the event "is substantial" since that has not been adequately established, I would argue, for our purposes as an encyclopedia (as opposed to the purposes of a newspaper or TV news program). Furthermore the event in question is not, in fact, "well-documented"—it has just been mentioned millions of times, but the specifics are still rather unclear, including with respect to Hasan. Is it extremely, extremely likely that the events unfolded roughly as has been described and that Hasan had a "substantial role?" Yes, of course, but Wikipedia needs to be even more conservative about reporting on this than the press are, particularly when we are talking about a biography of a living person. I'm not making this argument in the interests of being lawyer-ish or pedantic (and certainly not in the interests of defending Hasan), but because this goes to the heart of our BLP policy, and to the heart of some of the problems with recentism (for example when newsy BLP articles are created immediately before anyone even remotely understands the situation). The article has already been semi-protected for BLP violations, yet even with protection we have the categories "Murder in 2009", "Mass murder, "Murder in Texas, and "Massacres in the United States." Wikipedia is not a court of law and we do not convict people of crime with our category system. (Just one example of something to think about, if Hasan successfully pleads insanity or is found not competent to stand trial, in the eyes of American jurisprudence he will not in fact be guilty of murder, whatever we individually might think about that.) I see no way in which we can avoid BLP harm on this article right now, and I see no convincing argument for not covering the material in the Fort Hood shooting article for the time being. This is not an effort to suppress information, and I think it extremely likely that we will want an article on Hasan eventually. But it is simply too soon (in addition to being unnecessary) to have a bio article right now, and I don't think anyone can demonstrate that secondary sources currently establish that the "....a separate article for the person may be appropriate" aspect of BLP1E applies here, simply because there is little or no clarity surrounding the actual events of this tragedy. Finally, while I think this specific article warrants deletion at this time, I also think we should, by deleting, send a general message that creation of these type of articles so soon after an event like this is not appropriate and not something we should be doing on Wikipedia. The BLP policy is serious and important, and we need to remember that this really is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a "Topics" page in a newspaper or the like. Had the creator of the article simply held off on creation for a couple of weeks or a month (thus listening to the lack of consensus to do so now), it's likely there would have been consensus to have an article, which is why creating it was a mistake that should be remedied via deletion, at least for the time being. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm - I find these "delete so we can recreate later" !votes to be quite interesting. --Evb-wiki (talk) 02:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you find them interesting? Шизомби (talk) 03:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I wouldn't use "interesting" so much as "common sense". The consensus was clear (even if the creator did ride roughshod over it) that he is not worthy of an article. YET. He may well be in a fortnight or a month when we have something concrete to write about him, but not right now- we're not made of paper, not a newspaper and not rushing to meet a deadline so who would it harm to hold off for a while?? HJMitchell You rang? 03:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notwithstanding WP:NOT#PAPER, WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:DEADLINE, or even the apparent emerging consensus of a limited number of editors, the fact is an article was created and exists. If one can foresee the article being created in the future, what is the benefit in deleting it now? --Evb-wiki (talk) 03:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, I'm going to do something notable tomorrow, so I'll just go ahead and create my article now, shall I? HJMitchell You rang? 03:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm ... if as here you've actually already done it, and there are 640,000 Ghits on it (that # keeps on moving up steadily--up 11,000 in a little more than an hour), I'll support you at your AfD!--Epeefleche (talk) 03:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's comforting. However, my point was that "he might be notable tomorrow" or "a single act he committed is notable" is not the same as "HE is notable NOW"- number of hits is irrelevant- he's mentioned in every western newspaper, news agency and current events publication but almost every single one of those is focused on the event, not its perpetrator. HJMitchell You rang? 03:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If one can foresee the article being created in the future, what is the benefit in deleting it now?. First there's the basic issue that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but additionally several have expressed the (for me critical) argument that there's a risk of doing real BLP harm if we keep this article while events are still unfolding (remember, a couple of days ago this guy was supposed to be dead). That risk also is there in the Fort Hood shooting article, but it's rather easier to deal with there since it will never become a dumping ground for every bit of rumor and trivial detail relating to Hasan. The real question to ask is not "why delete if we'll probably want it later," but rather "why not hold off on creating it until we're sure?" There's an ongoing problem of people creating newsy articles before they should, and rather than let that process run rampant it can be appropriate to say "no" to that tendency at AfD. Probably this also could have been discussed at the article talk page though as some have suggested, even after the article was created against consensus (a quick revert of that creation could have saved us all some trouble). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like the discussion from this comment has focused on WP:CRYSTAL, whereas I feel like the heart of the matter is whether an article about Hasan is appropriate (and acceptable by BLP standards) while he is only a suspect, not convicted. You say we need to be more conservative than the press when considering this, but I'm not sure I agree. After all, they are the professionals here, and if they are dedicating so much massive coverage to Hasan, shouldn't we take that into consideration when it comes to an entry for him? Rather, I think the massive amount of press coverage is a good barometer for us to reference when we consider whether Hasan is worthy of an article. A news organization is legally, morally and professionally obliged to consider the fact that Hasan is only accused of a crime, not convicted, when they do their reporting. The fact that Hasan is still the subject of such a massive amount of press coverage despite the fact that he is not yet convicted indicate that the allegations and evidence against Hasan are so strong, he may very well be worthy of a Wikipedia entry despite the fact that a conviction hasn't been handed down yet. (If it somehow turns out Hasan didn't do this, he's ultimately going to be worthy of a Wikipedia article anyway.) All that being said, it still needs to be very clearly stated in this article that every allegation against him is at this point still just that: an allegation. But as I said in my vote, there is such a massive amount of scrutiny on this article, I think it will be very easy to make sure that happens. And at the moment, it seems to be satisfying those standards. After all, it identifies him as "currently the sole suspect", not "the shooter". and it's expressly stated in the first sentence of the article that the motives are unclear... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 05:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep because he's a guy who shot a bunch of people. How on earth could this not be important? - Bagel7^T's 02:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to antagonize or argue with you here, but just FYI an administrator closing this debate will almost certainly discount your !vote/comment as currently worded. "Because he's a guy who shot a bunch of people" is not at all a valid rationale for keeping an article (and it ignores points others are making), and as such you'll have much more of an effect on the outcome if you phrase your keep sentiments at least partially in terms of Wikipedia policies. Just friendly advice even though I'm on the other side of this debate. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anybody's denying the significance of the event. What is debatable is whether Hasan needs his own article independent of the only event he's notable for. William Kreutzer, Jr. is an Army Sgt. convicted of killing one and wounding seventeen; there's an article about him, but not the event. Then there's Camp Liberty killings, where Sgt. John M. Russell was convicted of five murders and one assault; there's no article about him, just the event. Hasan at the moment is only a suspect; the only suspect they're acknowledging, and seemingly a red-handed one, but a suspect just the same. I wonder if there should be a section of BLP addressing how to handle suspects and whether suspects merit their own articles, and if so at what point. Шизомби (talk) 04:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to later recreation. As Bigtimepeace notes, allegations are coming out pretty quickly, but documentation is going to be a little longer in coming. The significance of allegations is also hard to determine at this point; does it really matter what clothes he wore or whether he went to a strip club? There was already a temptation to add everything said about him, which will only become worse in an article specifically about him. Essentially a comprehensive newspaper article is being written, not an encyclopedia article. The article was not o long as to justify spinning out a separate one. If it is to be kept, the Nidal Malik Hasan article has lots of BLP problems, e.g. right in the lede "Hasan vocally opposed U.S. military involvement against Muslims, and spoke in support of suicide bombing and armed resistance to US forces" and "Hasan had come to the attention of United States intelligence authorities, through electronic intercepts, at least six months before the attacks because of Internet postings he made discussing suicide bombings[5] and other threats." These are stated as facts despite the sources supporting them only as allegations. I'd put odds on them being confirmed to be true, but we can't crystal ball that. Шизомби (talk) 03:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good catches. I've tried to address the cited BLP concerns (others should feel free to check whether I've done so adequately). As mentioned earlier, the same concerns would attach whether the statement is made in a BLP or in the Fort Hoot shootings article. I support those who have suggested that the Fort Hood shootings article should be shortened w/regard to Hasan to a summary, with people redirected to this article for the more in-depth treatment.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As to the comment that the Fort Hood shooting article is "not so long as to justify spinning out a separate one", I would point out that it is now 58 kb, and WP:SIZERULE states that once it hits 60 kb it "Probably should be divided".--Epeefleche (talk) 06:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we at this AFD? – Was there any reason this could not have been discussed further at Talk:Fort Hood shooting, where it could have been discussed further whether or not to merge or redirect back in? Why add more fuel to what is already a blazing inferno of this BLP/AFD controversy, not to mention give more ammunition to the deletion/inclusion sides of their stupid war? I'm very disappointed here. MuZemike 03:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I concur, however, there's always the risk that someone will totally ignore the consensus- which is exactly what brought us here in the first place. HJMitchell You rang? 03:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I have a hard time seeing how this wouldn't end up at AfD - it's the only place where a broad enough consensus can be reached for an article of this type. I'm only surprised it took this long. Ronnotel (talk) 03:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)@MuZemike - apart from some IP vandals, I was under the impression that this wasn't such a big controversy. The talk page is generally well behaved, no 3rr violations, not much going on. It's a bit disheartening to hear it labeled "a blazing inferno of this BLP/AFD controversy" and a "stupid war". It's the press that are being dicks, not us.

@Ronnotel - it took this long, because I noticed the article while I was in the middle of a project, and couldn't AFD until I was finished. - Drew Smith What I've done 03:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page for Talk:Fort Hood shooting is 193k, with 160k of text in archives. I don't see how we can have a sensible discussion there when the talk page is swamped. Martin451 (talk) 03:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Controversial redirects need to be hashed out in an AfD. This is obviously a controversial subject, so the decision to go to an AfD was correct.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given the high-profile nature of the event, and since this individual is the only suspect named by the investigation - - I think the time for deletion has passed. - Prezboy1 talk 03:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a point of fact on this, the article was created less than 6 hours ago (before that it was a redirect) so the argument that "the time for deletion has passed" seems a bit out of place. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As premature as the creation of the article itself, I daresay. HJMitchell You rang? 03:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question. If I just hit the "restore this version" button Twinkle gives me on the last version of the page where it was a redirect, how long would it be before I was reverted? HJMitchell You rang? 03:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not very long. A question for you. How long would it be before such an action was queried at your future RfA? :) Best to let the AfD process work itself out I think. Trust the community - it usually gets it right. Ronnotel (talk) 04:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no burning desire to become and admin, mainly because I don't like the RfA process as it is, but that's a different matter. You can rest assured though, as tempting as it is, I'm going to behave and abide by WP:POINT. However, thankyou for bringing up the importance of the community- it proves my point consensus, although easily overridden (as brought us here), is crucial to decision making on WP. HJMitchell You rang? 04:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:BLP1E doesn't apply here - the Fort Hood shootings are a massive event, and his role inside it is central. There will be an article on this subject. If we are concerned about allegations coming faster than verifiability, that's to be discussed at the article itself, not here. Ray^Talk 04:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or obvious merge with Fort Hood shooting - no claim of notability beyond the shootings, clear-cut WP:BIO1E. Qajar (talk) 04:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Single event of an not otherwise newsworthy subject. Remember, no consensus = default to delete. Cla68 (talk) 04:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, WP:AFD clearly states, "If there has been no obvious consensus to change the status of the article, the person closing the AfD will state No consensus, and the article will be kept." Not default to delete. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 05:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Cla68: 1.)No default to delete. 2.) The all story raised an ongoing interest and some fundamental questions by American politicians and American media. Call it "not newsworthy"is peculiar.--Gilisa (talk) 11:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "default to delete" point re AfDs is obviously incorrect, and also clearly all subjects of this kind (e.g. John Hinckley) are "not otherwise newsworthy" until they commit the acts that make them newsworthy.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. I think WP:ONEEVENT is a largely misused and misunderstood guideline, and this is an excellent example of how it should not be used. In any event, WP:ONEEVENT clearly states "the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered". The degree of significant of this event, and this individual's role in it, is massive, and thus I think an article on Hasan and the shooting is appropriate. To say Hasan is not notable beyond the shootings is as ridiculous to me as saying Charles J. Guiteau, Waleed al-Shehri or John Wilkes Booth shouldn't have articles because they aren't widely known beyond their respective events. My bigger concern is the one voiced by Martin451 (talk · contribs): that Hasan has not yet been convicted of anything, and thus there are potential BLP concerns. But given the fact that there is already clearly a large amount of scrutiny and attention being given to this article, I think any BLP violations that come up will be quickly disputed and addressed. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 05:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but just how is it ridiculous? He isn't notable for anything other than the shooting. If it weren't for the shooting, the article would be a blatant A7! HJMitchell You rang? 06:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Wilkes Booth isn't notable for anything other than shooting Abraham Lincoln. If you go try to delete that article, you'd be laughed out of the AFD. WP:ONEEVENT allows for case-by-case evaluation in the event of a significant event, but people tend to glaze over that when it comes to provoking this guidelines. Such was the case here... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 15:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The degree of significant of this event, and this individual's role in it, is massive. I don't think anyone would dispute the first point, rather it's the second point with which some editors objecting to the article are taking issue. In terms of the facts before us (and in terms of common sense), does it look like Hasan had a massive role in this event? Yes, of course, but as Kevin points out below "in this case the individual's involvement has not been tested in the courts." Nor has Hasan even made a comment or statement to this point. While the basic facts of this tragedy may seem (and be) pretty straightforward, they are not at all definitively established, and we arguably set a dangerous precedent when we say "look, the authorities and the press say person x committed crime y" and then promptly create an article about said person. The simple fact is, sometimes they will be wrong. Absolutely no harm is done by keeping Nidal Malik Hasan as a redirect rather than full article for now (readers who type that in would go right to the article on the shooting where they will learn in great detail about Hasan), but by having a BLP we are, de facto, saying he committed this crime, since simply being accused and then exonerated would absolutely not warrant a Wikipedia article. As I said the facts seem fairly clear cut here, but we ought to err on the side of caution while the overall situation is still fuzzy, and as a general point we ought to set a strong precedent for future high profile cases where someone is merely accused (not even indicted) of a crime which relates to "one event." Wikipedia did not exist in the summer of 1996, but I shudder to think how we would have handled the BLP of Richard Jewell during that time given some of the comments here, and wonder if Richard Jewell v. Wikimedia Foundation might have been the end result. I understand this is a different situation from that one, but we're not a news organization out to scoop the competition, we're an encyclopedia that can (and should) hold off on creating any biography of a living person until we're absolutely sure it's something we need in order to offer complete coverage of notable people and events. Maybe we're 99% sure about that now, but we lose nothing if wait until we're 100% sure. The principle of this is rather important I think, and frankly I'm not seeing those supporting retention of the article engaging with it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you make an excellent argument Bigtimepeace, but I've already responded to your comment above on this and while I think it's a good point, I just don't entirely agree. Again, I'm not saying there should be a horde of articles about people accused of crimes before they are convicted, but I also don't think this article will set that precedent. The media coverage is extremely significant, and the media has a professional responsibility to keep in mind that a person is only a suspect until they are convicted. If the media nevertheless affords a suspect the amount of coverage Hasan has received, we can use that as a barometer to at least consider whether an article about them is appropriate. And, if that turns out to be the case (I think it does for Hasan), then we just have to be sure that the article reflects that he is a suspect and has not been convicted yet, which I feel this article does reflect... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 15:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It probably will set a precedent, but even if it doesn't, this article is a problem not just because of precedent but because of its effect right now against Hasan. We wouldn't have an article an accused and then exonerated suspect. ~YellowFives 15:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure we would. If Hasan is exonerated, he will still be notable and worthy of an entry, as a man who was widely believed all around the world to have committed these crimes who turned out to be innocent, and who was shot by a police officer during the event itself... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 14:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The event is the event. The man is the man, which includes information about him and his history which would be inappropriate to include on the Fort Hood shooting page. -114.91.67.222 (talk) 06:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then redirect. Firstly, this individual is clearly only notable for his involvement in the Fort Hood incident. BLP1E states that we should only have an article on the individual if their involvement in the event is significant, however in this case the individual's involvement has not been tested in the courts, and until it has been we cannot compare it with John Hinckley, Jr. or any other example noted above. Kevin (talk) 06:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most certainly satisfies WP:NOTE. Subject's life and biographical information about individual has received a significant amount of coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 06:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to main Fort Hood shooting article; this article is repetitive with the "Suspect" section of the main shooting article, albeit with some details that don't really expand the reader's understanding of Hasan. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 07:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: It would be highly unreasonable to delete an article on a sole terroist whose action was reported world wide and still arousing interest and world media reports for a week or so. His background, personality and etc were discussed by high rank USA officials and there is certainly no single good reason to delete this article. No one suggesting to delete the articles on 11/9 terrorists or to redirect them (e.g., Mohamed Atta), and he's not different.--Gilisa (talk) 10:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Secondary importance for such article will proof itself in the future to come. I'm sure that conspiracy theories will start blossom soon, and an article with good reliability standards will provide at least some answers to them.--Gilisa (talk) 15:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Media interest in and coverage of the suspect, as an individual, is substantial enough to warrant a spinoff article per WP:SS. More material is likely to accumulate, and would overwhelm the main article. Sandstein 11:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bigtimepeace. One of the best AfD arguments I've ever seen. And, Gilisa, WP:BLP1E does not apply to Mohamed Atta, as the "L" in "BLP1E" stands for "living", which is something that Atta has not been doing for the past eight years. Cosmic Latte (talk) 11:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with possible recreation if consensus changes around the Fort Hood pages. This information is (and should) be covered by the FHS article, not a standalone article that treats WP:BLP1E like an essay rather than an important policy. Ironholds (talk) 11:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:ONEEVENT. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 12:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Sandstein above. Sources exist to write a balanced biography; useful to readers; needed to keep the shooting article focused. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree that he is only notable for one event and that event already has its own page. All of this information can easily be added to the main article. No reason to repeat ourselves.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia policy is totally incompetent when it comes to dealing with current events, so as always - defer to common sense - which should say to anybody that purely on size grounds alone, there is already enough detail out there to sustain two distinct articles, which should be editted to properly focus on their subjects, the shooting, and the man. MickMacNee (talk) 15:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Sandstein, Hunter Kahn, and SuperHamster. The subject-matter has reached a level of infamy that unequivocally meets or exceeds the requirements (and spirit) of both WP:BIO1E ("In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered.") and WP:SS ("The length of a given Wikipedia article tends to grow as people add information to it. This cannot go on forever: very long articles would cause problems. So we must move information out of articles periodically. In general, information should not be removed from Wikipedia: that would defeat the purpose of the contributions. So we must create new articles to hold the excised information."). — C M B J 15:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Wikipedia has articles on other killers (Jeffrey Dahmer et al.), so why would this article be deleted? I came to Wikipedia for information about Hasan this morning, and I searched under "Hasan" not under "Fort Hood Shooting." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.180.135.128 (talk) 16:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

random section break[edit]

Keep The article about the event and the article about the alleged perpetrator have different topics. The first article is already so active that many editors are getting edit conflict message multiple times while making good-faith edits. Biographical material is on Hasan is gradually being filled in, spinning off the article removes many of the BLP issues from the main article. Who Hasan is, and his motivations do not bear very heavily on the description of the event and its aftermath. Many of the refs for bio material have no info re the event itself and vice versa. I'm slightly rankled by being obligated to assume good faith on the part of whomever nominated the article for deletion. Keep, and stop wasting the project's resouces on frivolous AfD nominations such as these. I support mild sanctions against the nominator User:Pedant (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
100% positive this nom was made in good faith. We don't sanction good faith actions. Ronnotel (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article was made against consensus. AFD was the logical choice. Don' be a dick - Drew Smith What I've done 21:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just as others should extend WP:AGF to you as nom, so should you do so to the editor who created Nidal Malik Hasan as a separate article. It's quite possible the person who created this article was not aware of the (rather thin) consensus you describe and was simply being bold. In any case, AfD is the proper place for this discussion, not buried in the middle of an article talk page. Ronnotel (talk) 21:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do assume the article was created in good faith. I'm actually quite positive the creator had no idea of the consensus. That still doesn't change the fact that AFD is the best place for the article ATM. - Drew Smith What I've done 21:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We agree that this AfD is proper - however whatever "consensus" there might have been on the talk page is moot at this point. We are getting an order of magnitude more input here and as a consequence, a better sense of consensus. Ronnotel (talk) 21:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no basis whatever for sanctions against the nominator.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, it is clear that the nomination was made in good faith, and that it was/is a proper search for consensus. --Evb-wiki (talk) 22:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article needed to go to AfD. The discussion on the talk page is buried, and many people will not see it. Whether or not the nomination for AfD was good or bad faith, with this type of article someone had to do it. So lets Assume good faith here, and stop asking for sanctions against the nominator. Martin451 (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I support mild sanctions against the nominator User:Pedant (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)"

Then I would support stronger sanctions against Pedant for not assuming good faith in the first place. How do you think know about it?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A great deal of biographical information on Hasan is being disclosed (and will be disclosed) apart from the shooting. The amount of pre-shooting content is certain to overwhelm Fort Hood shooting. Hasan is going to become both the poster child for political correctness that gets innocent people killed, and a "victim" as well. The test of WP:ONEEVENT is clearly passed based on evidence which has been disclosed regarding his terrorist sympathies and hostility to the United States Army. patsw (talk) 16:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep He is notable as an individual, in much the same way we don't merge the article on Lee Harvey Oswald with the John F. Kennedy assassination. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 16:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment Oswald is dead. Hasan is a live person. kgrr ^talk 17:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect WP:BLP1E recommends creating an article on the event rather than the individual. Move the pertinent information to Fort Hood shooting, redirect this article there and delete. kgrr ^talk 17:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E also states that "as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified" and that "if the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate [...] as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role". — C M B J 17:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article doesn't make assumptions and sticks to the facts known at this time. The facts will be edited in as they are discovered. With other killers in Wikipedia, why should this one be deleted just because it's more recent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.195.201.88 (talk) 17:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete This person is only notable for one event. It might warrant an article in the future when enough publications are made about this individual. For now though, delete it. Burningview ✉ 17:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A question in response to your comment: if you're citing WP:ONEEVENT in this case (which I've already voiced my strong disagreement about), why would an article in the future be appropriate simply because there are more publications about him out there? By your logic, he'd still only be known for one event, he'd just be more widely known for that one event, and thus he'd never be worthy of an article. I disagree with that, as well as the fact that WP:ONEEVENT excludes him now... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 17:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He already has a great deal of biographical information which has reported on, both in the media and from official sources prior to the shooting. Some of this information is certainly encyclopedic. Hasan is a already a significant historical figure as McVeigh, Hinckley, or Oswald. The amount of Nadal Malik Hasan information apart from the Fort Hood shooting only going to grow. patsw (talk) 17:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - One event yes...one SIGNIFICANT, WORLD CHANGING event. A great deal of his personal history and his personal saga leading up to the event has no place in the article about the event. Kingturtle (talk) 17:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not delete self-evidently it will either be "Keep", "Merge and redirect" or (very unlikely) just "Redirect." Hence should not have been brought here. Rich Farmbrough, 18:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Keep, or Merge. There's clearly a case to be made for merging with the Fort Hood shooting article, but it seems self-evident that at some point, we would want a separate article on this person. Letting this article remain would be the path of least resistance. --Athansor (talk) 19:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The challenge for the Wikipedia is not the vexed and ultimately arbitrary question of "what is notable", rather it is "what is verifiable". I know that we have an abundence of rules and guidelines which cannot be ignored. However, I would far rather that all of the misplaced effort on notability went into improving accuracy and getting articles properly referenced. As it stands, the notability guidelines (in conjunction with style guidelines such as article length) are being used to suppress verifiable information that some readers will want to know.Greenshed (talk) 20:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. With an apparent consensus against the creation already, and the fact that it's a BLP1E, this seems to be a clear delete. Historical significance isn't established here. It just happened a few days ago and it's not a unique case. The article is redundant of the event article as well, probably considering this is all he's notable for. Lara 20:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep He is very noteworthy. Also there will be much more information coming out in the coming weeks and months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rt4500a (talk • contribs) 21:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep as someone already mentioned, we wouldn't delete john wilkes booth, oswald, or Jeffrey Dahmer. username 1 22:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep Should be a no brainer. The seeming wilful ignorance by US military/law enforcement officials of Hasan's comments and actions is exposing a plethora of fault lines. This will get to be an even bigger story and Hasan is the catalyst.Rockford1963 (talk) 23:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - For above stated reasons. Gage (talk) 23:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. If we choose not to learn about or understand terrorists and learn the signs of their behahior beforehand, we allow other such people to operate freely among us. As for merging with the Ft Hood article, the precedent is against this. Hitler's article is not merged with WWII's, Sirhan Sirhan has not been merged with Bobby Kennedy's article, nor has the article on Osama bin Laden been merged with the 9/11 article. Since the one event rule allows for seperate articles when an individual plays a significant role in a significant event the article should be kept. "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." --74.248.49.174 (talk) 00:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This is Wikipedia, not the website of CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations). "Honest Ibe" Ibrahim Hooper and his Islamist minions will be crawling over this and other articles and come up with 1001 reasons to delete, scrub, rename etc. this article.

Strong Keep - It's mind boggling that there is even a discussion. Oodles of references. There is no doubt that the event and Nidal will continue to garner non-trivial discussion for many years to come. PC gone mad IMHO. Hazir (talk) 13:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Hasan's article is noteworthy. He is the perpetretaor of a national terrorist attack and has thousands of articles in newspapers mentioning him. This should not even be under consideration for deletion.

Boromir123 (talk) 16:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nidal Hasan will remain newsworthy for decades. If he is not "killed" (as prematurely announced by Lieutenant General Cone), he will be on military or civilian death row for decades. His name is also relevant because he authored a highly significant 50 slide PowerPoint overview of Islamic doctrines that will be a crucial piece of evidence in future discussions about Islam.

The article SHOULD STAY under Nidal Hasan's name.

WikiFlier (talk) 01:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can't believe we are even having an AfD on this. --Gwern (contribs) 02:09 11 November 2009 (GMT)

You did not supply an argument above (to be fair, many people above failed to do so). Your edit summary says "re you delete voters *insane*? he shoots 40 soldiers for religious reasons, according to many reports, and you think this won't be remembered?" Many editors here would do well to reread Wikipedia:AFD#AfD_Wikietiquette, Wikipedia:AFD#How_to_discuss_an_AfD, and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Ad hominem and straw man are good reads also; is anyone really claiming this event won't be remembered...? Шизомби (talk) 02:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest possible keep. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as explained by many others above. Loves Macs (talk) 02:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ultra-Strong Keep - If Seung-Hui Cho has his own page, there is no reason this person should not, either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Beale (talk • contribs) 05:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Strong Delete. This suspect is innocent until or if proven guilty. True, there are hundreds of WP editors and even a few rogue admins who don't care anything about BLP policies. If this man is convicted of something notable--by a court of law, not by the media or by Wikipedia--then and only then will an article be appropriate for him. Qworty (talk) 06:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even should he be acquitted or not charged with anything, he would be notable for having received massive media coverage as the prime suspect in the case. Conviction of a crime is not a factor in our inclusion criteria for biographies. We do have articles about people other than convicted criminals, you know. Sandstein 06:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mass media coverage does not cancel out the BLP guidelines. The media doesn't run Wikipedia. We have policies and guidelines here, unlike the media. Qworty (talk) 06:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Qworty, your mass deletions just now at this article go against all consensus. The 60 people who commented here have expressed various views, but nothing in the consensus views supports your wholesale deletions of material from RSs. Pls take a cup of tea, and revert yourself, so we avoid edit warring on the page as people otherwise seek to bring it back to reflecting the RSs that have been there previously. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further to Qworty's point, if this guy is not convicted [in a court of law, not the mass media, many of whom seem to have convicted him already] (and there is no guarantee that he will even be charged) he will not have lasting notability. To put BLP1E aside for the moment and working on the assumption that he's eventually acquitted (humour me, here!) then, in a few months, maybe a year, nobody who know who the f**k he is. HJMitchell You rang? 12:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did Richard Jewell slip back into anonymity when he was exonerated? Hardly. Maj. Hasan is notable, now and in the future, regardless of what may happen in the upcoming legal proceedings. Ronnotel (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the BLP concerns are valid. BLP does not prevent us from creating articles about people charged with crimes and not convicted. In the case of Hasan, I expect that soon we will be finding out if he admits pulling the trigger on these people. That is entirely possible long before any verdict. Meanwhile, the microscopic media attention is continuing in virtually every newspaper, magazine and website in the world.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here we go again. Good faith nomination grounded in policy, to be sure, but we see this every time someone wants to test the "notable for one event" idea. As WP:ONEEVENT says, "If the event is significant, and if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate". No matter what one thinks the strict rule is supposed to be, people consult Wikipedia when they want to find out more about a particular subject. People are, and will continue to be, interested in the U.S. Army Major who went berserk and killed lots of people on his base. It's not a matter of whether he "deserves" "his own" article, or whether we should keep this solely as "2009 Fort Hood shooting" out of respect for the victims. It's common sense to have an article about Major Hasan. Mandsford (talk) 13:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. WP:BLP1E is being mis-interpreted fairly consistently by those who are citing it as a reason to delete. I'm not sure if the policy itself is unclear or if it's not being read completely. You need to get all the way to the end of the section before "significant event" is defined (by the event's prominence in the reliable sources). Perhaps the policy needs to be revised to make it clearer. Ronnotel (talk) 13:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unlike some other criminals, this one's background and biography are indeed of substantial interest, covered in reliable sources. Easily justifies a separate article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- there seems to be two major arguments against keeping this article, which I'll address in turn. First, WP:NOTNEWS, which states "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic". For the first part, I think we all agree that this is far from a routine event, as is the coverage. For the second, I'm going to tie it in with the second argument against keeping this article: WP:BLP1E, which says "If the event is significant, and if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources." Again, nobody is arguing about whether the event is significant. Given that this gentleman is the alleged perpetrator (I use alleged, since our legal system says that he is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law), his role is certainly significant. BLP1E gives the example of John Hinkley, which is apt. While WP:CRYSTAL prevents me from predicting the future of his notability, I think that he meets the current standards as having persistant reliable coverage going above and beyond the event in question, that keeping the article is the right course of action. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this goes right to the heart of the matter. You argue that his role is significant, "given that this gentleman is the alleged perpetrator." I think most of those arguing in favor of deletion would completely disagree with that logic, and that's the point at which we are reading policy differently. "Alleged" is the key word here, and for the purposes of American jurisprudence (and Wikipedia, I would argue) Hasan does not have a significant role in the event simply because it is "alleged" that he does (I think few would argue that he would warrant an article were he to be exonerated and then fade into obscurity). Given the basic facts here, the odds are 99.9 out of 100 that his role is exactly as it has been described by the media and military officials, but our BLP policy should lead us to worry about the .1% chance that the allegations are somehow wrong, which is why people are arguing for deletion (by this argument, John Hinckley, Jr. should not have had an article on April Fools Day of 1981 either, though of course he should have one now). I have not seen any comment from anyone in favor of keeping that argues convincingly against this point, and that's why there's still a strong possibility that an administrator could close this AfD as delete. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that, given that he's the one and only suspect, and given the major press coveragge thats currently digging deeper and deeper into his past (i'm currently listening to a story on NPR on his past, although out of BLP concerns, I won't go into specifics), that at this point, much like Richard Jewell, whether or not he's eventually found guilty is no longer relevant. He's received enough attention AS the primary suspect, that he's crossed over the threshold of WP:BLP1E and should be kept. Examples of both Jewell and John Hinkley can be used to demonstrate that, guilty or not, individual notability from a single event can be achieved. On a slightly more flippant note, right wing hysteria regarding this man will probably be enough to push him into notability even if he wasn't before ;).Umbralcorax (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject is notable for only one event and does not warrant a biography. Off2riorob (talk) 15:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No demonstrated notability outside of single event -- cover him inside it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Promote Early Close, without prejudice for relisting/or merge after 60 days. AfDs like this waste too much time, just like Balloon Boy did. Way too many keep votes to close as delete; no consensus is fine as well.--Milowent (talk) 16:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the number of keep or delete "votes" (they're not votes) is supposed to be largely if not entirely irrelevant; it's the value of the arguments that matters. It's possible there could be 1000 keeps and one delete (or vice versa), and the result would be to go with the minority (I don't know how often that actually happens, though). I'm not sure how the AfD is wasting time; one could also say the the creation of the article did the same. Шизомби (talk) 16:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This whole thing could go either way, but he has not received a trial or been convicted of the attacks yet. Serial Murderers, terrorists etc. are indeed notable even if they did just commit one event but this man is just a suspect not the culprit.-Marcusmax(speak) 16:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

random section break 2[edit]

Strong Keep and Promote Early Close, concurring with Epeefleche and Milowent. // Internet Esquire (talk) 18:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is notable and constantly in the news66.76.242.173 (talk) 18:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Fort Hood shooting article for now, merging relevant reliable information. He's a suspect in a current case, and a lightning rod, making his article a BLP nightmare. It should most likely be recreated after a trial, or at least until the media circus cools a little. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 19:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Umbralcorax's policy logic. — goethean ॐ 19:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cirt and Sandstein, both of whom put it well and succinctly.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A psychiatrist driven crazy by US/Bush/Obama foreign policy - what could be more fascinating? Plus all the other keep reasons above. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's all said above. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep every single detail of this persons life will be gone over with a fine tooth comb in the next few years, by reliable sources such as the fbi, nsa, you name it. even if he is an absolute nobody as a result, with only, say, a sudden psychotic break explaining the events, he will be ridiculously notable even for that. His life experiences WILL be used in armed forces mental health training to help discover and stop such events before they start. separate article from the shooting is justified 100%, even at this early stage. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whether convicted or exonerated in the future, clearly notable enough now a carefully written article, per BLP1E and Epeefleche's, Hunter Kahn's, Umbralcorax's arguments above. Size considerations also suggest splitting.John Z (talk) 23:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep there exists in wikipedia uncounted dozens of individuals who have done far less, and have impacted far fewer. given the precedence of earlier mass-shooters, e.g. Seung-Hui Cho, i don't understand why this proposal as gone on as long as it has. --emerson7 00:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute Keep This man is an accused terrorist, and jihadist mass murderer. There is absolutely no reason to delete, except by Islamist sympathizers, or those who wanna keep this under wraps because he is a Palestinian Arab.Tallicfan20 (talk) 00:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although he's only known for one event, this is a significant enough event that we should consider him as being exempt from WP:ONEEVENT. Consider Seung-Hui Cho (admittedly, he's dead, but still would reasonably fit under this criterion), John Hinckley, Jr., or Squeaky Fromme: they're not known for anything except their crimes, but as long as we have articles about living people, there's no good reason not to have articles about them. Nyttend (talk) 03:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to my mind, it's pretty clear it should be merged to Fort Hood shooting. He's known for one event; Most of the material in this bio fits in there; the stuff about his childhood can be lost, as it is utterly unexceptional and has absolutely no incidence on this shooting. As to the Virginia Tech massacre, looking for precedents is a hard habit to break - there is a tendency here on WP not to take other articles as precedents. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. But doesn't the guidance's Hickley exception (which a number of us believe this falls under) ask us to do precisely that?--Epeefleche (talk) 05:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that as a valid comparison. With Hinckley, the passage of time has allowed for a detailed analysis of his involvement and motivations etc, that we do not have in this case. Kevin (talk) 05:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, if you examine the material closely, most of the stuff in his 'career' section isn't all that biographical, but only seems to fits as an ex-post view of his beliefs and the motivation in light of the attack. I've moved the bulk of this to the 'Fort Hill shooting' article. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Aside from national leaders, this guy is about as notable as it gets. What next, an AfD for Mohammed Atta? Kauffner (talk) 06:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator doesn't seem to understand what WP:ONEEVENT is about. --Conti|✉ 11:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's kind of like saying that Chesley Sullenberger shouldn't have an article on Wikipedia until he has saved two airline flights from disaster. Mandsford (talk) 13:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

+ The german discussion just ended with keeping the article de:Nidal Malik Hasan--Kriddl (talk) 16:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Clearly notable for his role in the Fort Hood shootings. Will face at least 13 counts of murder. [43]. Capitalistroadster (talk) 18:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His article was not needed on the shooting article in the first place. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep However it is obvious that this discussion is no longer about deleting this article. As it has grown into its own article the discussion has become whether or not to merge it with its original page - the Fort Hood shooting. Supertouch (talk) 13:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nomination and !vote deletes mis-interpreted one-event guidelines. Hasan meets one-event notability guidelines by a mile. Also the Fort hood shooting artilce covers much more than Mr. Hasan, so Don't merge seems appropriate. --Firefly322 (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and speedy Keep. Editors above arguing WP:ONEEVENT are misunderstanding or misusing that "other consideration" portion of the BLP policy, which itself argues for this article to be included -- to wit: "If the event is significant, and if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category." The Fort Hood shootings are certainly notable, as is (unfortunately) the individual responsible for them. The two should be kept separate-- as should be clear-- because an event article covers a particular period of time, whereas a biographic article contains material from prior to the event, through to the current status of the individual. --HidariMigi (talk) 19:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Other murders have articles and are less notible. He is clearly more notible than them, so in turn he SHOULD have an article. Cra sh Underride 20:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. I'm not convinced WP:BLP1E applies here - while he is only notable for his role in this one event, that event is extremely notable and Hasan has become widely discussed in his own right. This article seems acceptable to me as spin-out article from the main Fort Hood shooting per WP:Summary style. It may be that in future we find all the content here can be satisfactorily covered in one article, but for the time being I don't see any problem with having two. In particular, I don't agree that the existence of this article raises BLP problems by calling Hasan a murderer or similar - he already has been widely described as such by the mainstream media. Robofish (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is no justifiable reason to delete it and this man unfortunately is now a part of history. There are countless other murderers on wikipedia who should be taken off wikipedia first.Donmike10 (talk) 21:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep – mass-murderers are usually considered notable, and this one's psychiatric and military background make him a particularly interesting figure. ╟─Treasury Tag►inspectorate─╢ 22:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep. Notable. Sirius bizness (talk) 22:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is this account's second edit, and it's just a vote. ╟─Treasury Tag►constabulary─╢ 22:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly meets notability criteria. WP:BLP1E says, "If the event is significant, and if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category." APK because, he says, it's true 00:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can an admin please close this? This AFD has been going long enough, and a decision would be nice... - Drew Smith What I've done 00:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I get what you're saying, but if an admin closes this early, thats just begging for someone to take it to DRV. Better to let the full seven days elapse and maybe get it out of our system. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator, a withdrawal from you would allow an admin to easily close it as keep. That would certainly make things easier on everybody, but only if you think it should be kept of course. Otherwise, we'll just need to ride it out. --Firefly322 (talk) 07:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep- I believe it is notable. It is a big topic in a notible event. Parker1297 (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CLOSE EARLY An admin should look over this debate and check this sourceTime Magazine's Photo Gallery on Hasan's troubled journey and come to an early close keep. --Firefly322 (talk) 00:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Im not going to read the whole AfD discussion but comment on the nom's post, this is a notable person and with 13 counts of murder on him. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is notable enough to warrant an article on his own. Similar cases: John Allen Muhammad, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, Seung-Hui Cho, Timothy McVeigh --Tocino 02:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and move toward Early Close Certainly this individual is now notable, albeit in a negative way, based upon the amount of attention he has drawn by his (technically still alleged) actions. Djbaniel (talk) 02:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only reason he is notable is the event of killing others. The event is what is notable, he isn't notable outside of it. 98.26.254.61 (talk) 02:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How many non-notable people who are simply related to an event get their apartments photographed by Time Magazine? See here: "Inside the Apartment of ... Hasan"--Firefly322 (talk) 04:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep & early close. This individual is very notable and there is significant coverage and reliable sources to back it up. warrior 4321 04:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, suggestion for early close. Not all of the necessary information about this individual can be kept in a small space on the Fort Hood shooting page. I agree with the person above me, the person is notable and there is an amount of sources to prove that he is notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RampinUp46 (talk • contribs) 08:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Huge amount of coverage in reliable sources so he clearly passes WP:N. The length and density of citations in the article attest to this fact.--Falcorian ^(talk) 20:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not quite as notable as Benedict Arnold, but (allegedly :)) quite high on the scale of infamous perpetrators of treason. WP:BLP1E is inapplicable to (alleged :)) central involvement in an event of such great importance: "If the event is significant, and if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate." Andrea105 (talk) 00:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep poor nomination statement and there is relevant encyclopaedic information in this article that could be merged into the event article rather than outright deletion. Guest9999 (talk) 01:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MUST KEEP - Users come to this page to find out about Nidal Malik Hasan An army major (commissioned officer!) turning his gun on troups inside the U.S. is a much bigger story than earlier "fragging" incidents, e.g. the incident in Kuwait. The majority of voices arguing for deletion/merger of this article are simply CAIR sockpuppets trying to bury a piece that is hugely damaging to their Islamic supremacist and homophobic agenda. Their protestations are simply exercises in taqiyya, i.e. lying to dumb infidels.

WikiFlier (talk) 03:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't appear particularly concerned about being accused of racism and assuming bad faith. --87.79.56.131 (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or at least merge with Fort Hood Shooting. Mr. jones999 (talk) 06:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and promote early close Notability in loads of RSs. 'Nuff said. Moogwrench (talk) 06:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Update again: 45,000 Gnews hits, and 1,340,000 Ghits. Can we all go home before Charles Manson gets jealous?--Epeefleche (talk) 08:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So? HJ Mitchell gets 2,660,000. HJMitchell You rang? 13:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is too slanted and does not present a clear unbiased viewpoint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightwatchdog (talk • contribs) 12:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. I've checked this bias. See here. There is no such "radical Christian" website. It was something this editor appears to have dreamed up. It was done in an attempt to discredit coverage by Time Magazine's Nov. 23, 2009 lead/lede story "Terrorist?". Since my Trust But Test proposal, there have been no more non-WP:RS WP:SYNTH proposals on the talk page. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The strongest argument I can see for deleting runs like this: in order to keep the article, the argument has to be made that this is an exception to WP:BLP1E. For this to be an exception to WP:BLP1E, Hasan had to have had a “substantial” role in the Fort Hood killings. And when we say that he had a substantial role, we are necessarily jumping to the conclusion that he is guilty. And by doing that we are violating WP:BLP. However, I disagree that we are effectively concluding about Hasan’s guilt. Indeed, if he were innocent, his role is still substantial enough to warrant its own page simply due to the fact that all major media are treating him as guilty and devoting so much time and space to him as a person such that, were he to be exonerated, he would still warrant his own article as a result. -- Irn (talk) 17:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Well sourced article. Notable individual with a substantial role in the Fort Hood murders. Acps110 (talk) 01:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article WILL exist at some point in the future, so why not now. Sumbuddi (talk) 03:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we do not even have to assume that--there are sufficient sources to justify it now. There's a difference between mere news and news that makes history. DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I came here because I was interested in Hasan. The Ft. Hood attack is gruesome, to be sure, but I think the article about Hasan himself will outweigh it eventually (if it hasn't already). Who mentored him, what connections did he have with radical Islamists, why was his psychosis not addressed, what was the role of political correctness, etc.Kbk (talk) 05:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A perpetrator who is linked to a seperate incident does not mean that the article has to be merged. Developments on Hassan may come in and a seperate article will be good. Mr Tan (talk) 05:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per WP:ONEEVENT. Uh...this is a pretty big deal, and he is the cause of this pretty big deal. The guidelines are clear. – Alex43223^{T | C | E} 07:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The most efficient way to give our readers the currently available information is to have an article on the shooting, which would include minimal information about the only suspect so far, and a separate bio article about him with more detail. The WP:CRYSTAL violation is to say that he might be acquitted and would therefore be of less interest. As of right now he's the principal, indeed only, suspect, and the less cautious elements in the media are widely discussing him as "the shooter", not "the alleged shooter". Therefore, many Wikipedia readers would want to know more about Hasan, the individual. We should provide that information without stating that he is the shooter and without cluttering the main article with details about Hasan's life. JamesMLane t c 02:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At the time of the nomination it was a clear delete but since then things changed. No matter what the future brings, even in the unlikely case that he would be found innocent [would be some kind of miracle but hey, I wasn't there so I don't "really" know] that guy is already part of American history. Sure, right now his bio is misused as a coat rack for all kind of views as is the shooting article but this will settle and cease at some point so we can have (as JamesMLane somehow said above) an article about the shooting itself w/o clutter and a bio of Hasan, also w/o clutter of course. It might take some time but time is what we have here "en mass".The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Epeefleche. RS coverage, including analysis pieces that deal in motives, is far beyond BLP1E, and article is far too detailed to merge into an article about the event. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've switched from delete in light of recent developments in the case, the increase in availability of Hasan and vast improvements to the article. I believe the creation of the article was premature, however, his notability is now established. The piece by Time Magazine and the fact Hasan has now been charged both weighed heavily on my decision. We now have something encyclopaedic, not tabloidish, to say about him that didn't exist when the article was nominated. HJMitchell You rang? 17:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos for keeping an open mind as events unfolded, even after you voted.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Premature AFD - close discussion without prejudice to another RFD in a few weeks. Or, if deleted, close without prejudice to re-creation/deletion review if significantly new material arises. I would prefer to close this as keep or no consensus now, and revisit if necessary in a few weeks. Odds are this will be a keep along the lines of Balloon Boy hoax. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't premature at all. Things have only evolved since then.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in its current state, I believe that, aside from the obviously one-event notability of the person, the article is nevertheless warranted for the reason of his notability and to avoid clutter on the shooting page Sceptre ^(talk) 09:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if this was more of a borderline case the lean to deletion would easily be more persuasive. Instead the timing of the incidents - amidst war burnout during the presidency of the one who didn't start the war and preceeding the US holiday of veterans day - ensures that indeed like the tabloidy coverage of all things violent in the US, we will get to know absolutely everything we could ever want to know about this subject. One year from now, looking for a fresh angle ... they will pick over the story again and track down his family members and friends and build a dramatic special on it. This easily flies over GNG and is certainly has piles of sources. -- Banjeboi 15:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Persistent coverage in reliable secondary sources" is the rule of thumb and I would have thought Nidal Hasan passes that test. If the event drops off the radar at some point, which I very much doubt, then this process should be revisited, but at the moment this subject appears to be notable. Rje (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage continues to be persistent, worldwide, affecting many related bio, political, religion and ethics articles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but, with all due respect, this is one of the lamest keep reasons I encountered here or elsewhere in an AFD. No offense meant [I "voted" for keeping this article] but you should try to make an argument based on facts and policies.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In agreement with many of the reasons for deletion offered above.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Calicocat (talk • contribs)

Keep This person is forever notable.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 03:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thuravoor, Angamaly[edit]

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

I am completing this nomination on behalf of an unregistered editor with IP address 60.240.126.92, who posted this on the article talk page: "I am proposing to delete this article per WP:GNG and WP:OR. WP:SOAP seems to be violated as the article appears to be nothing more than an advertisement for Thuravoor. Prod was removed as "all villages are notable" which is a complete untruth." Phil Bridger (talk) 09:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the long standing acceptance that all verified villages are notable. Soapboxing can be fixed by editing. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While WP:OUTCOMES#Places on its own states that "Cities and villages are acceptable, regardless of size, so long as their existence can be verified through a reliable source", options 2 and 3 of Wikipedia:Notability (Geographic locations) state that "Geographic locations are not offered any special consideration for notability" and "an article must have;

  1. a name that is either confirmed by the government of the place or by a reliable secondary source,
  2. a cited population estimate or range, such as a census report, and
  3. coordinates that can be confirmed to point unambiguously to the place."

respectively. --60.240.126.92 (talk) 10:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (Geographic locations) is just one person's proposal which has not been accepted as a guideline. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, agree with Phil Bridger. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "all villages are notable" is a complete truth on wikipedia, unless its a hoax.--Milowent (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 16:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verifiable village, fits in with the gazetteer function of our five pillars and per long standing practice and consensus. -SpacemanSpiff 16:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Taking the unpopular opinion here, but notability is not inherited and having an article on every single sourced place turns wikipedia into a directory. Fails WP:NOT and WP:N until we have discussion not verification of the village in reliable, third-party sources. I realise my view is against current consensus but hopefully that will change in the future. Them From Space 18:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Nobody is suggesting that the notability of this village is based on some other topic's notability, so what relevance does the statement that "notability is not inherited" have to this discussion? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When one says "all places are notable" than one is asserting inherited notability. I'm against blanket notability assertions and believe each topic has to prove itself notable by our GNG. Without that proof we shouldn't have an article about the subject. The two most distressing areas where this is done is with populated places and high schools, and like I said above I hope they will be more closely scrutinized in the future. Them From Space 19:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This argument fails to follow the general principle of following the spirit, rather than the letter, of guidelines. The concept of notability was introduced to Wikipedia to counteract the writing of articles about subjects such as garage bands and the minutiae of science fiction fandom, not to prevent the creation of articles about subjects that encyclopedias have always covered. How on earth can you say that this would be a better encyclopedia without an article about Thuravoor? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because just as with other topics, we aren't a datadump of every known fact on the planet, we only seek to document the most significant things from an historical basis. We accomplish this in a simple way, by not writing about material that hasn't been written about before in reliable, third-party sources. Listing all verifiable towns is outside of the scope of an encyclopedia and doesn't do proper justice to the towns and villages that are notable and have made a name for themselves in published sources. Being included in Wikipedia should mean something, no subject should get a free pass into an encyclopedia. Them From Space 21:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That statement implies that an entry in Wikipedia exists for the benefit of the article subject, and is some sort of reward. Articles exist for the benefit of our readers. How are our readers better served by the deletion of this article than by its retention? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:USEFUL, as many subjects beyond our scope would be useful and usefulness isn't a criteria for a subject's inclusion. I think I've made my point clear here; I interpret the notability guidelines more strictly than you and would prefer to see all articles here have a merit for inclusion outside of its use to readers, while you are willing to bend them for certain minor subjects. I'm not sure that we'll be able to find a middle ground, but as I said before I'm aware that consensus is against me for the time being. That being said, I would fully support a type of WikiAtlas where we could merge all the stubs about nonnotable towns. This would preserve Wikipedia's integrity while allowing useful material to be freely accessible. Them From Space 22:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point, The First Pillar of Wikipedia indicates that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." In instances such as this, being an almanac and/or gazetteer would seem to override not being a directory. --Paularblaster (talk) 00:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We've established that this village exists now (I added its coordinates), and verifiable villages are considered to be notable as stated above. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 06:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 03:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jean René Baroux[edit]

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

~~Hoax.~~ Article appeared on French Wikipedia on the 7th and is ~~also tagged as a hoax there~~ tagged for verifiability. No trace of this chap in an online search. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Both articles created by same chap. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

~~No hits anywhere for the book listed in the article.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~NB - Twinkle flubbed, so I have had to list this by hand, hence discrepancy in dates. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Nom struck as per below - happy to say I was wrong in this instance. Would an uninvolved editor like to WP:SNOW close.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See [44] concerning Baroux and AQPCS. and [45] also linking Baroux and AQPCS - and RS by WP standards. French admittedly, but sufficient to establish reality and notability. As for the book -- abebooks (owned by Amazon) shows 4 for sale. "No hits" on a book should include looking on a bookselling list. Collect (talk) 14:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a more "official" reference to the Book based in the National Library of Canada filed there in 1982:

* La Méditation Intime (The Intimate Meditation) by Jean Baroux (1982): National Library of Canada  [46]

--James debar (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The external links (sources) which have just been added should provide sufficient evidence to credit and support this page. It should be retained on Wikipedia. --James debar (talk) 20:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of hoax struck, Library and Archives Canada definitely have a book by this guy [47] If no one else is interested enough to comment on this AfD, I guess we keep the article and James Debar gets to tell us more about the chap. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO: "the person has received a notable award or honor." Surely the Croix de guerre would qualify? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. LOL's arguments against a redirect are compelling. If NoseNuggets wishes to add to the LeBron James article what seems to me a piece of trivia, s/he should propose it on the article talk page. JohnCD (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Akron Hammer[edit]

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

Seems to be made up very recently. Google search comes up with this significant hit and not much else. PROD was contested. Favonian (talk) 09:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to LeBron James, Delete there is no need for a separate page for every nickname someone has. J04n(talk page) 19:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

changed !vote per point made by LOL J04n(talk page) 02:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, as stated above. Could have got away with redirecting without the AfD, I think. Maybe a very slight partial merge to say a sentence or two about the name. Or not, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 21:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I did think of that possibility; my only concern being that this nickname has been made up for the occasion and even including it as a redirect would be "canonizing" it. But what the heck, let the author have his 10 minutes of fame. Favonian (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not a notable nickname. A SportsNation host called him that and a bunch of internet users have since been trying to "make it official" via blogs, forum posts, petitions, Wikipedia edits, etc. There aren't any reliable sources to support it, and Wikipedia is not a means of promotion or crystal ball. —LOL ^T/_C 23:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per LOL - unnotable nickname made up on a day—Chris!_c/t 23:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above; redirects are cheap, and if this term is seeing use on ESPN and in the media, it becomes a plausible search term. Unlikely in the extreme, though, that this term gains its own notability independent of the subject. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 17:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this term isn't seeing use on ESPN and in the media; afaik it's only been used by the host of a talk show that airs on a channel owned by ESPN, so there aren't any reliable third-party sources for this. —LOL ^T/_C 01:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re-direct to Lebron James.--Yankees10 21:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded, but merge the information into the LeBron James article with the following information:

"James was given the nickname of "The Akron Hammer" by ESPN SportsNation co-host Michele Beadle, but the moniker has failed to catch on." NoseNuggets (talk) 4:03 PM US EST Nov 13 2009

Comment: Are there any reliable third-party sources to support that piece of trivia? —LOL ^T/_C 21:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The addition of any of the information to LeBron James should be discussed at Talk:LeBron James. J04n(talk page) 23:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. LOL's point is well taken. There is no content worth merging here, and the suggestion made above by NoseNuggets should not be followed up on: WP is not a repository for trivial information. (If someone gives him that nickname, and if it doesn't catch on, then it's trivial.) Drmies (talk) 03:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Nielson[edit]

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

Asserted notability just isn't that notable. Lots of attorneys and prosecutors everywhere who work in various fields and handle many cases. DMacks (talk) 08:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete There is nothing to suggest that the subject is notable. BearShare998 (talk) 13:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Instantbird[edit]

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

Delete. This software application is not notable in any way. An extensive Google News archive search may direct you to some discussion forums and download sites which are not indicators of notability, nor are they acceptable as a reliable source. JBsupreme (talk) 08:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 20:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If sources haven't been provided by the author then this article is broken and needs to go until the article meets our minimum inclusion criteria. Miami33139 (talk) 17:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Morris[edit]

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

fails WP:ATHLETE by a long shot. Ironholds (talk) 07:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Previously deleted article about the starting quarterback at Marshall University who last played in the 2007 season. Not notable under Wikipedia's standards, although if he gets a spot in the pros (NFL, CFL, etc.) he would get a bye and not have to demonstrate significant independent coverage. We are not Marshall. Mandsford (talk) 13:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, never played in pros, fails WP:ATHLETE. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ATHLETE. Joe Chill (talk) 23:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ATHLETE.--Staberinde (talk) 20:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not yet pro. -- Vartanza (talk) 05:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clairgnosis[edit]

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

Neologism with no reliable sources about the term rather than just using the term. This might be a candidate for Wiktionary rather than Wikipedia. Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 07:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny, I tried fixing this article earlier by stubbing it down and I even provided a (crappy) reference, but the author undid my edits and added back a bunch of fluff. I don't care enough about the topic to fix it anymore, and in its current form I say delete and check Wikitionary for an entry. Pdcook (talk) 15:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, self-promotional neologism, cited only to article author's own work. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't you speedily delete it again for the same reason? Pdcook (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding the reference of misticm to the clairgnosis article. I did not intentionally unedit as I am new to the use of tools on wikipedia. I have looked on line-the term in used often on websites of intuitive and energy teachers. However, it is most often used in improper context. I am open to presenting any reference necessary. I did have a link to a book but was asked to remove it. I tried to refer to a published manuscript-not for the purpose of selling the book but for purpose of adding reliable information about the term. The new age community is often in development and quickly changes or creates new terms. The term clairgnosis have been in use for about ten years since the Reiki movement became popolar. http://www.elizabethmorgan.net/glossary.htm http://www.lightsourcegroup.com/Metaphysics%20101%20A%20-%20F.htm http://www.elizabethmorgan.net/glossary.htm http://www.insightclairvoyance.net/Classes.html There are thousands more sites that use this term. They are not connected to me or each other. This seems to be fair reason to add the term. I do know I am unfamiliar with the tools and am probably not setting up the page as should be. I am open to learning more.

Shall I list here pages on the web that use this term?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Shealyhealy (talk • contribs) 22:19, November 11, 2009 (UTC)

Please add references in compliance with Wikipedia:Reliable sources on the article page. Also, as you have admitted you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia, please review Wikipedia:Five pillars and do any test editing in the sandbox or in a subpage in your Wikipedia:User page. Thanks, Pdcook (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Regarding author Shealyhealy's statement that 'thousands more sites use this term', Google can only find 59 of them (330 including duplicates), and none seem to be secondary sources. WP:NEO says that "Neologisms that are in wide use-but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources—are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." That's why I brought this discussion to AfD, since neologisms don't qualify for speedy deletion as I understand it. I can also support CSD for self-promotion, but the article has been speedily deleted twice for that reason and keeps reappearing without changes. Thanks, Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 01:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A term such as clairgnosis found 59 times in the web carries weight that the term exists. I am willing to make any changes necessary to the article to make it appropriate to Wikipedia. I am new here and certainly have created work for those who are working for the integrity of Wikepedia. The term however is a new age term in use. There is a movement within the YMCA of the USA to promote a disciplin/practice (similar to Yoga) that is said to increase the state of clairgnosis. The US YMCA have taken well deserved credit for the "invention" of several mainstream sports. Would the YMCA be a reliable source for the word? Wouldn't Wikipedia want to be involved with presenting a term that will be mainstream through YMCA practices? Did you know bowling was once a new term and first used at the YMCA? There are many new terms and fitness practices now taught through the YMCA that are not in Wikipedia. I don't want to be the advocate for all of them. But, do you see this as a discussion point for Widipedia? How can we keep the term? I am simply trying to quicken the visibility of the term as now there seem to be lots of mis-use in the newage/fitness community. It may sound like fluff to those who are not interested or schooled in this area. But, to the community that practices alternative means of wellness-this issue is not fluff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.69.216 (talk) 17:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The purpose of Wikipedia is not to "quicken the visibility" of anything. If you wish to promote this term, then you are in the wrong place. Please review WP:5 Pillars.Pdcook (talk) 03:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google Advanced Search

WebHide optionsShow options... Results 71 - 80 of about 364 for clairgnosis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.69.216 (talk) 17:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biofield energy healing from the inside- ►umich.edu [PDF] SL Warber, D Cornelio, J Straughn, G Kile - Journal of Alternative & Complementary Medicine, 2004 - liebertonline.com ... WARBER ET AL. 1110 Page 5. clairgnosis (clear thinking), clairvoyance, a knowingness or a sixth sense, or an intuitive experience. ... Cited by 5 - Related articles - All 3 versions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.69.216 (talk) 19:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as neologism and self-promotion. WP:NEO sets a high bar for articles about neologisms: "Articles on protologisms are usually deleted as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term." In this case I note that the article is by Shealyhealy (talk · contribs), an SPA, and that the references are a book by Sherry Healy and the website shealyinternational.com. JohnCD (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 16:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Walker County Humane Society[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG . seems unknown outside Walker County. could find hardly anything on it [48]. LibStar (talk) 07:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. News stories like this one make it clear that Walker County Humane Society is distrusted by many people. This search (which is not restricted to reliable sources) brings up several petitions and blog pages complaining about the society. -- Eastmain (talk) 07:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Of local interest only. Abductive (reasoning) 08:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Abductive, local interest != encyclopedic. JBsupreme (talk) 10:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS The title is a great disguise for something that would have been nominated immediately had it been called "2009 Alabama dog euthanizing incident". The news story cited is actually what the article is all about. The dog pound in Jasper, Alabama is not, in and of itself, notable. Mandsford (talk) 13:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As not notable per se. A single event does not make it notable any more than it would make an individual notable. Collect (talk) 14:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not just a single event, but a pattern of inadequacy which has generated notable and verifiable distrust. -- Eastmain (talk) 16:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 18:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If this were a happy, adequately-funded, well-run shelter, it might well be of local interest only. But I think its problems and the controversies make it of interest to a wider audience. -- Eastmain (talk) 18:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should try to make the ASPCA, or the HSUS, or the state attorney general, or the county's state attorney, or other offices aware of the problems that you see with your local humane society. Wikipedia isn't a vehicle for getting nationwide attention. Something has to have attracted nationwide, and continued attention, in order to be keep its own separate article. Mandsford (talk) 22:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 23:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had tagged this article for speedy deletion, because of the no sources for this article subject. warrior 4321 05:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fruit Town Brims[edit]

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

Delete. Fruit Town Brims are not a notable group/organization/club/gang whatever you want to name it. JBsupreme (talk) 06:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See also Fruit Town Piru by the same author and its AfD discussion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The clincher is the list of "known members". It's a branch of the Bloods in Compton with so few members that it can list all 13 of them. Worth a mention in Bloods, but not its own article. Mandsford (talk) 13:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You are as bad as the author! Which Compton for goodness sake? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. Compton, California, is a predominantly African-American suburb of Los Angeles, and the article describes something I wasn't aware of, which is that it's nicknamed "fruit town" because the main streets were named things like Apple, Peach, Orange, etc. I guess there are probably quite a few Comptons in the English-speaking world; it also used to be the name of an encyclopedia. Mandsford (talk) 00:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient evidence of notabilty. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 16:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CID-SRM 1.0[edit]

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

Declined speedy deletion nomination. Makes no claim of notability whatsoever, and doubt it will ever clear notability. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination; a typical article announcing the availability of a piece of non-consumer tech - a standalone device capable of monitoring the weather parameters temperature, humidity and flooding of a server room and producing warnings to the users - without any showing whatsoever of minimal importance. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this. Joe Chill (talk) 20:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 16:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Late Show with Jason McCrossan[edit]

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

Non notable radio show. Only been on the air 1 month. Can find no third party coverage. Drdisque (talk) 02:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not yet notable, perhaps later. JBsupreme (talk) 08:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable local radio program. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g7, author blanked the article. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Every No. 1 song: 1958-2008[edit]

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

There is no reason for the existence of this article; all of the information is already contained within multiple articles. See List of number-one hits (United States) - 1940 to the present already has their own pages. - eo (talk) 02:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant article, unlikely search term. Almost every chart already has its own list of #1 singles. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree this info should go on the anniversary page where it belongs, just thought that page was getting a little long. To bad there are no sub pages for articles. Oh well back to the anniversary celebration we go :) — Matey Ahoy 02:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Err, actually it should not go there either. The point is that you're creating a huge duplication of information that isn't needed. That page already has duplicate info that I pointed out on its Talk Page. - eo (talk) 03:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no duplicate information, if you look closely every chart is different — Matey Ahoy 08:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the creator blanked the page. db-self? Anna Lincoln 08:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article's creator might not have been aware of the existing lists, but the idea of listing every no. 1 song 1958-2008 has been done already. Mandsford (talk) 13:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn Someone sourced the article when I wasn't looking. Where were all those sources when I googled? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maggie Bandur[edit]

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

No reliable sources found. Article consists of two sentences and a very short list, only source cited is IMDb. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is based in reliable sources found rather quickly. It is credited in a number of wikipedia articles, therefore I concluded she is reasonably visible (see credits), so I made a quick stub. But I will not cry over it, if nobody wants to waste their time to make a better article. - Altenmann >t 02:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What reliable sources? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What facts do you question? If you question imdb as source, I may waste more of my time and dig closer ones, like I've just added, jst for fun of bickering, but really??? Like I said, I will not cry over it and not waste any more time here: no my domain. - Altenmann >t 02:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The whole article. IMDb is not a reliable source, and beyond that I can't find anything that verifies the content, from her writers' credits to Jeopardy! win. Even so, I fail to see how she meets the notability guidelines if there are no reliable, third-party sources written primarily about her. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bah, that's an easy one. You are picking something from your hat, I can do the same: Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals say: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work". I dare say that Malcolm in the Middle is rather well known among american teenagers, who work hard on wikipedia, both contributing and vandalizing. - Altenmann >t 02:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simply working for a notable work isn't a 100% free pass for notability; that says she "may" be notable for her work on a major show, not "is automatically notable." She still has to meet the general notability guideline; and given the lack of sources, she clearly doesn't. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She has to meet nothing but the specifically tailored guideline, and even not necessarily so: it is a guideline, not a policy. She is an immediate creator (writer) of notable works of art. That she is herself is not notable, defies any common sense. - Altenmann >t 02:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Jeopardy says that she was a contestant on Jeopardy. See this. -- Eastmain (talk) 02:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You really think that's gonna cut it? J! Archive is a fansite. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fan or not, it is a serious enterprize. Any reasons to consider it non-reliable? - Altenmann >t 03:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I love the J-Archive. I consider it the highest pinnacle of the Internet and, frankly, of western civilization", - Ken Jennings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Altenmann (talk • contribs) 03:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's a fansite put together by fans? Fansites are only allowed if someone who is individually notable contributed to them. If KenJen indeed contributed true content to the archive, then maybe. But still, is simply being a J! contestant enough to make the cut? Is being a writer enough if no one paid her any mind? You're dodging the issue of notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a no-bullshit fact-only archive, without fantasies, speculations, essays and vandals. You call it "fansite" with derogatory smirk, I call it community volunteering. I have no objection if you contest it at the WP:RS noticeboard, wherever it is. - Altenmann >t 03:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an IMDb-credited TV writer. TenPoundHammer's here because she was on Jeopardy! once, and TenPoundHammer has made it his mission to pare any Jeopardy!-related content from the encyclopedia. His edit record is becoming more and more littered with this nonsense. [49] Robert K S (talk) 04:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

False accusation much? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep certainly seems to meet notability standards based on the sources in the article. Umbralcorax (talk) 04:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 04:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bootboxing[edit]

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

Not notable, WP:MADEUP-type content. Prezbo (talk) 02:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:MADEUP. Joe Chill (talk) 02:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:MADEUP. Joe Chill (talk) 02:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:MADEUP. Jason Quinn (talk) 03:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete: WP:NOTMADEUP. Damien Pashby (talk) 04:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.126.14 (talk) [reply]
Delete per everyone except the anon. JBsupreme (talk) 07:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's not made up - there are plenty of YouTube and Vimeo hits supporting it as a term actually in use among a community of people and will probably be notable at some point in the future - but there are no reliable independent sources in the article and none that I was able to find in my searches. Without independent reliable sources it fails WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Might be notable some day. My first thought was that this was a variation of kickboxing, but in this case, "boot" refers to what Americans refer to as the "trunk" of a car, and apparently, there's a YouTube video of people opening and closing of the doors and [translation for the British-impaired in brackets] "bonnet [front hood], boot [trunk hood], horn [horn] etc, it may also involve indicators [lights], petrol caps [gas cap] or tapping [drumming] on the surface [outside] of the car [car]". Mandsford (talk) 13:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete: User:romes (01:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romes5 (talk • contribs) [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Turku Science Fiction Society[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. nothing in gnews. doesn't have Finnish article so can't check that. simply being the oldest science fiction society doesn't guarantee notability. LibStar (talk) 23:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. —LibStar (talk) 00:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and well established (founded in 1970s) organization that publishes a semiprozine called Spin and has been the main organiser of Finncon twice in 1999 and in 2003. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a valid reason. please provide evidence of significant coverage, so that it satisfies WP:ORG. being "well established since 1970s" does not grant automatic notability. LibStar (talk) 07:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable and verifiable. Requires some research, and knowledge of Finnish language, though. I added one English independent ref. And being the oldest does grant notability, as does the fastest, the tallest, etc. - Altenmann >t 21:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. References don't have to be in English Ged UK 09:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EcoSCART[edit]

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

I am not sure what this device is and the author is unwilling or unable to explain it and provide a decent English-language reference Pdcook (talk) 21:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the device exists in the news in other languages besides English (such as here and here). They need translation of course, but I don't think the article quite merits deletion. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional references; I only wish I could read them! Pdcook (talk) 01:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I just added an external link that allows to see details about the registration of the brandname and logo. References are only in French or Italian because the product is not available in the UK. I also wrote the article in the French Wikipedia, but I find usefull to keep the article in the English Wikipedia, because both French and Italian Googles ignore the articles in non-english pages. The manufacturer claims he has a patent about this technology, but it is not published yet, if only it is delivered... Technotracker (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google news finds two sources in French, but they don't seem to argue strongly for notability for this product. Looks like somebody down in marketing decided to put a "green" spin on some kind of audio-visual control gadget. Many readers will be unfamiliar with SCART connectors. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, as the topic has not been shown to be notable. Skomorokh, barbarian 00:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Windows4all[edit]

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

nn website. novelty use, but not actually useful (because there are in fact, useful web desktops). got a couple press hits, but this is not an important product for wikipedia to document. largely written by single purpose account, so is almost certain to be somewhat spammy. has been tagged as an ad. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 01:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no knowledge of this stuff, but isnt cloud computing hailed as the next big paradigm shift, then "the cloud" need operating systems like this one to work. Have alternatives to deletion been considered, would a List of virtual operating systems for cloud computing be a useful resource? Power.corrupts (talk) 10:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, please. This isn't cloud computing or a serious attempt to develop anything. This is a novelty. There are serious and legitimate online desktop systems. This is a bad joke. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Delete, non-notable web content. Anything described as a "paradigm shift" is almost certain to end up as an inane buzzword; even if there's substance to "cloud computing" I doubt that a web based Windows emulator would ever be anything but a bandwidth eating novelty. Only 3 Google News hits; one is Vietnamese, another is Spanish, and the last looks like Tamil, so I am in no position to judge their reliability or depth. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment appears to copy content from Web Desktop. I'd say merge to that article except IIRC anything listed in the table there is supposed to be blue-linked, so that would be the same as a delete. A quick glance at the references is not showing much that would denote notability, but I suspect it is on a par with the other blue linked articles from there so i feel odd singling it out. Artw (talk) 19:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- the chart on Web Desktop is a mixed bag. some of those easily meet our critera, and several do not. i promise to go clean that up - in the meantime judge this subject on its individual merit, not on whether WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 20:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are several Web Desktop applications in wikipedia. Do you want to delete entire section or only selected one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.73.30.174 (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 16:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Irina Baleva[edit]

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

Living person who doesn't seem to be notable neither by WP:BIO nor by WP:CREATIVE. Large part of article's text, that for some reason has been placed in "References" section, seems to be copy-paste from person's personal website [50]. Staberinde (talk) 20:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. --Martintg (talk) 22:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability to this point to meet notability guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Ty 05:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of meeting notability requirements. Ty 05:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this artist. Joe Chill (talk) 23:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete - clearly NN, unreferenced BLP. Bearian (talk) 04:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above...Modernist (talk) 19:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

London Underground 2016 Stock[edit]

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

Contravenes WP:NOTCRYSTAL and WP:OR. The source provided does mention plans for new trains in 2016-2017, but everything else in this article - including the name - is extrapolated original research and pure guesswork. DAJF (talk) 00:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

Delete without prejudice to recreation at the appropriate time, which would not be until a contract has been issued for the construction of said stock. Mjroots (talk) 05:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the nomination. I prod-ed the 2021 stock article, but it was deprod-ed. The source now given in that article doesn't mention any such thing as "2021 stock", let alone any of the speculation about it which is in the article. Problems appear similar on the 2016 stock article. Strategically, I believe that LU knows that their oldest trains cannot run forever, but we should not be speculating on what they intend to replace the old material with before LU makes any moves. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because they are articles that state that the Underground will be receiving some new rolling stock in 2016 and 2021. Abductive (reasoning) 08:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JmIrc[edit]

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

Delete. This software application is not notable in any way. An extensive Google News archive search will leads you to some discussion forums which are not indicators of notability nor are they acceptable as a reliable source. [51] JBsupreme (talk) 20:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All that I can find for significant coverage is this. Joe Chill (talk) 22:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
unimportant even with solid referencing, this is not a significant subject matter. Why should someone be reading about irc on their phone from an encyclopedia? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- To be fair, and I'm the nominator who thinks this should be deleted, I've read lots of Wikipedia articles from my mobile smartphone. This particular subject however is severely lacking in both the reliable sources and notability depts. JBsupreme (talk) 00:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I've read wikipedia on my phone. re-parse my english. This is an "irc on the phone" midlet, which - this midlet - is not an important topic for all the reasons you just said. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
    - Hah. Fair enough then. JBsupreme (talk) 06:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as I've said on all these IRC client debates, in order to demonstrate notability the article must (a) have independent, reliable sources giving it significant attention, and (b) demonstrate that it is in some way more notable than run of the mill IRC software (see WP:MILL). Significant quality of (a) may satisfy (b). - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without significant reliable source coverage, it can't be notable. Nyttend (talk) 03:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Winston[edit]

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

Not notable. Possible COI too. The multi talented writer/director/actor/producer to the film Shattered Allegiance has also done a little male modelling [52] but doesn’t seem to meet notability guide lines. [53]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Aspro (talk) 18:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC) Aspro (talk) 18:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete, this reaks of COI and seems like a self promotion. notability may not be created via Wikipedia. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 00:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a G$ (recreation of deleted content?) ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice. While concerns with article tone could be met with WP:CLEANUP through the normal course of editing, and are not a reason for deletion... I am more concerned about the sourcing toward notability. TheSop.org provides a nice article, but I do not know how reliable it might be. The article in the INLA magazine might be okay, but I get a dead link. If better sources toward the GNG come forward, I will revise to a keep. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: please now note. The only supporting claim to notability was involvement on a sort film, which has now been “deleted” as it failed to meet any WP:FILM or WP:N criteria Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Film#Shattered_Allegiance. --Aspro (talk) 09:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 03:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Babysitter and the Man Upstairs[edit]

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

(also The Licked Hand) There is no indication of these stories' notability, nor are there any substantinve references. Equally, very little substantively establishes the content/titles. ╟─Treasury Tag►First Secretary of State─╢ 14:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you consider the reference in The Licked Hand to be substantive? And did you check out the five books sources that are cited by the Snopes article linked from The Babysitter and the Man Upstairs, and which I pointed out when I contested the prod? Phil Bridger (talk) 15:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that individual urban legends (even those documented on such an esteemed source as Snopes) are automatically notable. And the threshold of verifiability is not that Snopes lists some possibly adequate sources; it is that the Wikipedia page lists them. If you wish to work on improving either page, that is of course permitted. ╟─Treasury Tag►most serene─╢ 15:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has claimed that urban legends are automatically notable, and I'm not claiming that a Snopes article by itself confers notability, but the sources on which the Snopes coverage is based would appear to. The threshold is that the sources exist, not that they are cited. I would point out that it's also permitted for you to improve the article, particularly as you are the one who is unhappy with its current state. You didn't respond to my question about the reference in The Licked Hand. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That one "reference" seems to be fundamentally identical to Snopes, in that it is a book solely documenting some urban legends – a fairly frivolous book, by the look of the cover, and (since I can't afford the £10 to buy a copy) doesn't appear to represent a relaible source, to me. ╟─Treasury Tag►assemblyman─╢ 15:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, books by Jan Harold Brunvand (such as The Choking Doberman) are among the most reliable sources on urban legends. Brunvand pioneered the academic study of urban legends as folklore. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite get the logic here. Of course urban legends will be discussed in books about urban legends, rather than in books about quantum mechanics or tropical fish. And, as Metropolitan90 has pointed out, this book is written by one of the world's leading academic authorities (if not the leading authority) on urban legends. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "a fairly frivolous book, by the look of the cover" - you're having us on, right? And "(since I can't afford the £10 to buy a copy) doesn't appear to represent a reliable source" - it's a novel and entertaining suggestion that we should judge the reliability of sources by how much we would fancy shelling out to own them. I guess that rules out the First Folio, among many others ... --Paularblaster (talk) 03:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its a notable urban legend. Books collecting urban legends feature it. Opinions about these types of books are not relevant. And it is listed at Snopes, quite a notable website. Plus the story is notable enough to be covered in other media, the movie Scream, etc. Dream Focus 18:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Licked Hand is a totally different unrelated story. The two AFD should not have been combined. Keep it also, since it was notable enough to be featured in other media. Dream Focus 18:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated to what?! They are both urban legends, both (IMO) non-notable, why list them separately? ╟─Treasury Tag►prorogation─╢ 18:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are unrelated to each other. That's like listing two unrelated television shows because they are both on television and science fiction, or listing two unrelated romance novels from different writers because you think all romance novels are the same. Dream Focus 18:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are not unrelated to each other. The rationale for deletion is the same, they cover almost identical material (stupid made-up pseudo-scary fiction). ╟─Treasury Tag►senator─╢ 19:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) The point is that the notability of these two urban legends is unrelated, unless you think that no urban legend can possibly be notable. In general multiple articles should only be nominated jointly if they stand or fall together, for example if they rely on exactly the same sources or they are players for the same football team whose claim to notability is only that they have played for that team. Having said that, I don't really see the harm in discussing these two together, as there are only two and it's unlikely that anyone would have a different opinion about one than the other. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both; unnotable typical scary story scenarios. I wouldn't even really them urban legends. A single mention of the stories in a single book and repeated on Snopes (or visa versa) does not make them notable. Neither has actually received significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Only a minor mention in a long list of known ones and the one mention on an urban legend site. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(after second edit conflict) Actually Snopes gives five book sources for The Babysitter and the Man Upstairs, so it has not only been discussed by a single source. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked the references themselves to see what the book's say? Are they actually discussions, or just reprints or a one-line mention? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just in case my position isn't clear from my comments above. I know that AfD is not supposed to be a vote, but, just recently, many AfDs seem to have been closed based on vote-counting rather than arguments so I'd better get that word in in bold. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources exist. Urban legends are ascertainably a distinct field of academic study and of amateur interest, so our POV as to how frivolous this interest is matters not at all. --Paularblaster (talk) 03:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable urban myth/legend. Per above. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 23:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added a substantive reference to the article which demonstrates the topic's notability. AFD is not an article improvement service - the nominator should please search for sources and attend to the matter himself per our deletion process before wasting the time of numerous editors. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked out The Licked Hand and had no difficulty finding another good source for that too. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~The Licked Hand (I haven't yet had a chance to review the other)~~ both. I've added another published source to The Licked Hand. It's not the weightiest tome in the world, but I think it's good enough. Searching for the alternate title, "The Doggy Lick", also turns up this, which appears to be a heavyweight academic reference, tracing the legend's roots to the 16th century CE. I haven't yet added it to the article because I haven't seen a copy, and don't want to cite it on the strength of a Google Books snippet view. But to me it suggests that this subject is encyclopedic and notable. Gonzonoir (talk) 16:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I've now added two academic sources to The Babysitter and the Man Upstairs, which I believe satisfies notability requirements as well. Gonzonoir (talk) 16:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ReBirth (series)[edit]

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

I see no point of having this article. There's no official "ReBirth" series per se. Just three Wiiware games produced by Konami that just happens to have the word "ReBirth" on their titles. It would be like creating a list of every Nintendo-made game that has the word "Super", "64", "Deluxe", or "Advance" on their titles. Jonny2x4 (talk) 14:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Jonny2x4 (talk) 14:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge with the Konami article. I'm not sure I agree with the nom that the games aren't related, they were all worked on by the same developer and all have the same theme (e.g. shoot people), but these games aren't notable enough to have an article like this. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I cannot find anything verifiable about the series itself (as opposed to the games in the series) to build an article from. Unfortunately, the only thing I see here as referential to the series is the navbox itself. Bringing in sources from games would cause redundancy, content copyright concerns, and original research. MuZemike 00:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing that isn't already pointed out in M2 (game developer). Marasmusine (talk) 11:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liviei Cernensky[edit]

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

Does not appear to have sufficient notability Polargeo (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't appear to be notable. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk) 15:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article on Romanian Wiki is titled Livia Cernensky. However, Google Search result for Livia Cernensky doesn't help us. Almost all sources refer back to Wikipedia. --Vejvančický (talk) 15:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk) 07:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of multiple independent sources establishing notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 22:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scanners Discotheque[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. nothing in gnews and google search mainly reveals directory and mirror listings. little chance of article improvement given that it's now closed and it's own website is dead. LibStar (talk) 06:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unimportant disco club. --Vejvančický (talk) 09:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. I do believe this article is notable, but as it it now it has been lacking good sources for 2 years and is badly written. Dentren | ^Talk 11:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this nightclub. Joe Chill (talk) 01:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cutting Moments[edit]

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

I cannot deny it exists and that it's likely "interesting", but no effort is made at notability or any sort of secondary resource. News and search results uneventful; no professional reviews. Nothing seems to fill in to WP:MOVIE however I think of it. The producer has other films apparently, but has not established notability (thus so legacy notability) ♪ daTheisen (talk) 05:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. An (intentionally) truly horrible film that has received some coverage in reliable sources, e.g. New York Times, and a film guide (most of the review not viewable on Google Books). Whether that is enough though is doubtful.--Michig (talk) 19:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - insufficient coverage.--Michig (talk) 07:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stricken, see comment below I still have to stick with delete for now, sorry. Odd situation, isn't it? I can't really go with that 1600pg bulk movie guide with what can't be more than a 3-line summary and credits, and well. The NYT article, *sigh*, no. The mention of this is just 1 line within a summary for the feature-length movie comprised of disturbing short films like this one. That larger independent film doesn't have a Wikipedia entry either so we can't even merge/redirect. Still no sources but database websites and no parent to merge it to, so I still can only see a delete. Credit is due to this film though, regardless of deletion outcome... if there were ever a tilt factor in notability this would score pretty high. Then again, if it truly had large shock appeal one would think there'd be at least some sources... ♪ daTheisen (talk) 06:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still having awful luck. To help solve this, I decided to invent a new section of WP:MOVIE that would be redirected from "WP:CULT". If there's evidence of some kind of underground or "cult" following and/or the rarity of a film makes it a valuable commodity, then we can just pretend it's notable. I say that's applicable in this case since copies on sale online are about 80 gazillion dollars for a VHS. A number of search hits are file...moving sites, which you wouldn't expect to see for a 29min indie super-horror film from 1997. 3rd mostly common result are lists of "scariest movies" or link to those, etc. I'm about neutral now pending opinion of my completely invented rationale. ~~Closing admin: If there is little or no other discussion consider my opinion to be neutral--withdraw by nominator for lack of discernible guidelines pointing in either direction.~~ ♪ daTheisen (talk) 01:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], and [59]. Joe Chill (talk) 01:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not all to be taken at face value. 1 is a wrong URL I think, 3 and 6 aren't actually about this film. I've got to say those sources aren't exactly top-notch (no alexa ratings in the top 100,000?), I'll agree that this is the best case presented yet. I'm still rather mad at imdb for linking articles to "reviews" at big movie sites that are actually just info bits. They're supposed to make this easy! ...I'm probably going to remain indifferent on this, and more general review sites like that private sites feeds my unusual cult snowballing concept. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 04:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Definitely of some note within the horror genre, at least. Included on Rue Morgue (magazine)'s list of 100 Alternative Horror films[60]. Also, this short film was later included as part of an anthology film Family Portraits: A Trilogy of America [61], which may have additional notability. The correct Film Threat link appears to be [62]; FT has been around a long time, but the links on that site seem to change somewhat frequently. [63] has a number of blurbs about the film from horror celebrities, notes festival appearances and so on. See also interviews with the director at Filmmaker (magazine) (indicating some notability outside of horror in the independent genre generally)[64] and a mention in AMC (TV channel)'s blogs' interview [65] regarding the director's remake Sisters (2006 film) of Brian DePalma's Sisters (film) (one might suppose he got the job on the basis of Family Portraits, but that would require further investigation). 169.226.85.157 (talk) 17:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (Merge). We have enough to establish that Douglas Buck is notable (see also [66], [67], [68]), but still little that gives significant coverage to this particular film. Perhaps creating an article on Buck and then merging there would be a reasonable outcome? Or maybe expanding to an article on the Family Portaits trilogy ([69], [70])? I'd be happy to give this a go should this be acceptable.--Michig (talk) 17:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could support either of those proposals. Шизомби (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inexplicable, Weak Keep: I give up. This thing has slowly grown on me like an odd fungus in the past 10 days; but even that pales in comparison to the pain levels felt in this short film. A few more light sources is what I was hoping for, and peopel found! hawesome. ...I haven't watched this yet since it'd be a POV matter still, but if this actually ends I think I will :) --Thank you to the kind editor who reminded me about this! I still can't give any actual guideline or policy to use for 'keep' since I long ago tried at all, so this is basically a total WP:IAR. I'd even forgotten how much I wanted to write up an essary for the WP:CULT concept, since I'm sure something extremely odd like this has happened before. A bit closer to consensus now, at least. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support User:Michig: Go ahead, and I was actually wondering that for awhile at start saying "well if the collection had an article showing notability...", so go for it you feel inclined. I'm sure the pieces would work with notability by legacy because it's this segment that's particularly "notable" part of the bigger piece so is this does close keep the WP:WEIGHT would be hard to best. I appreciate you offering to add more. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have started an article on Douglas Buck.--Michig (talk) 18:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 23:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely. While the article is in need of cleanup and proper sourcing,such can be done through regular editing... and is not a reason for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 22:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Circle of Life: An Environmental Fable[edit]

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

Completely unnotable "film" shown only at the Epcot center in Walt Disney World. Completely fails WP:NF and WP:N. No significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Only found one mention on a single Disney park-guide website[71] which is not a third-party item. Prod removed by User:Eeekster with note of "emove prod, seems notable enough to me. Take it to AFD if you think it needs deleting" -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Falls within the scope of several Wikiprojects and is notable because it is included in a Disney theme park. Nearly every Disney theme park attraction has its own article.--BassBone (talk) 05:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the attraction, it is a film that is part of an attraction. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is also not a valid keep reason, and what does it being in the scope of any Wikiproject have to do with it? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is an attraction within The Land pavilion at Epcot. The Land is not an attraction itself, simply a grouping of same. As well, mouseplanet.com is completely third-party; they have no formal affiliation with the Walt Disney Company. Powers ^T 14:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A fansite is not third-party. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is, under any reasonable definition. The Walt Disney Company is the first party; the Wikimedia Foundation is the second party. Any organization not owned or controlled by either of those two entities is thus a third party. A legitimate objection to fan sites is that they may not be reliable, but you cannot reasonably claim that they are not independent. Powers ^T 19:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to MousePlanet, The Unofficial Guide to Walt Disney World 2010 covers this short film on pages 570 and 571 (see Google Books result). Also pages 196 and 197 of Fodor's Walt Disney World with Kids (see Google Books result). I could go on, but that's two reliable, published sources independent of the Walt Disney Company. Powers ^T 14:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per LtPowers. Joe Chill (talk) 02:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per well-reasoned rationale of User:LtPowers. With respects to the nominator, that the film might be shown only at the Epcot center in Walt Disney World, by no means makes it non-notable... indeed, its being seen by millions from around the world over a 14-year-span kinda says the exact opposite... giving it a world-reknown notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Single venue has nothing to do with notability -- The Mousetrap has still never been published in the UK, and only shows at one theater - yet I trust it is "notable." Collect (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of actual significant coverage of it is as well. Listings in tourist directories are not coverage. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you mean "not significant coverage"? Powers ^T 19:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep; nomination withdrawn, sole other editor favouring deletion did so on the basis of the nomination. AfD is not the venue to deal with problematic editing behaviour, and WP:BEFORE is a prerequisite to a listing here. Skomorokh, barbarian 00:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guillermo Torres[edit]

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

Author has not provided references that confirm the subject's notability and has instead removed my request without discussion Pdcook (talk) 03:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons above; also the author has not explained his actions or responded.--fetch comms 04:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - no sources (reliable, significant, or otherwise) in the article and a good faith Google search was unable to find any references relating to a music-producing Guillermo Torres. (Plenty for software developers of that name, though.) As a result he fails WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Eastmain's sourcing of him winning a Suncoast Regional Emmy. Winning this notable award satisfies WP:ANYBIO criterion 1. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. ASCAP is the organization that collects royalties on behalf of songwriters and music publishers. Since the article claims he won an ASCAP award, I tried to confirm that on the ASCAP website. I couldn't find evidence of awards, but I found listings for songs he wrote that were performed by two of the bands listed in the article as well as music for two of the television shows mentioned in the article. I also found a blog page for a concert by performers from a talent competition in Puerto Rico "under the musical direction of Guillermo Torres" at http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=79683820&blogId=422915679 The article itself is problematic, but we have enough evidence to list him as a songwriter. He (or someone by the same name) is listed at 1996 Suncoast Regional Emmy Awards Recipients It would be much easier if there was a profile of him in a newspaper or magazine that makes its articles available online free, but there is enough evidence for me to suspect that he may be notable. -- Eastmain (talk) 06:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suncoast Regional Emmy appears to be a notable award (see Emmy and Suncoast Chapter), so on the presumption that there aren't too many Guillermo Torres working in television production in the United States I'm prepared to assume it's the same guy. He's therefore fulfilled WP:ANYBIO criterion 1 (won a notable award) and the article should be kept. Vote changed accordingly. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Thanks for digging up these references, although all of them seem to lead to the same place. Nonetheless I think he can be considered notable now. Pdcook (talk) 13:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 22:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Mankuta[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jonathan Mankuta

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

Self-written vanity article by someone completely unnotable. samrolken (talk) 02:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 10:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable per WP:ENT, no significant coverage online from reliable sources per WP:RS, original article had a very WP:AUTOBIO or WP:COI promo vibe, but following cleanup notability hasn't been established. MuffledThud (talk) 10:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have no opinion as yet about notability, but I must point out that this nomination violates both WP:AGF and, more seriously, WP:BLP by accusing Mr Mankuta, without presenting any evidence, of writing a vanity article about himself. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could only find 3 articles in gnews [72]. LibStar (talk) 16:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Due to non-notability, no significant coverage in any reliable sources. samrolken (talk) 18:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate !vote stricken: the nomination already calls for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Delete for unnotability, but certainly not per the incivil nomination. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per consensus. Skomorokh, barbarian 00:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National Basketball Games Of Wales[edit]

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

No details of dates or events,some matches missing scores,some scores replaced by broken links Lemon martini (talk) 23:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bite...it's only my second AFD nomination :) Lemon martini (talk) 23:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 23:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 23:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems to be notable enough for an article. -- ISLANDERS27 05:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, I'm not sure that an unsourced list of indeterminate completeness, with no defined inclusion criteria (all games? competitive games? games as part of a tournament? games in certain years) is needed. The lack of any context to any of the results also makes looking for sources very difficult. I'd suggest a merger with Wales national basketball team, but that article doesn't exist nor does it appear to under any logical title I can think of. This lack of a main article also hinders my gaining of an indication of the significance of basketball within Wales. Thryduulf (talk) 23:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Thryduulf. It's pointless to have this uncontextualized list if there's no article on the team that played them.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Megan Rochell. Skomorokh, barbarian 00:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You, Me and the Radio[edit]

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

Delete. Prodded but apparently had been deleted through that process previously, thus ineligible to be prodded again. It would have made it through otherwise. This album was never released and doesn't appear it will be. There are no sources which are required by WP:NALBUMS for an unreleased album. At this point, the singles released are independent of the album itself. -- Wolfer68 (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 23:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Three years beyond the originally proposed release date, the artist is no longer with the label, not even a rumor about a potential release date. This is no Chinese Democracy, does not meet WP:NALBUMS. The information for the singles is already at the artist's page, so no need to merge. J04n(talk page) 23:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm confused--how do we know its not been released, and how does that accord with the Billboard article on it?--Epeefleche (talk) 00:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as if you found a source that shows there was a planned release for this album. That may support a redirect then. --Wolfer68 (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any evidence from a RS that it was not released.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the album still does not pass notability requirements per WP:NALBUMS, you provide further support for a redirect. --Wolfer68 (talk) 09:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since all 3 of the singles from this apparently unreleased album entered Bilboard genre charts, I would say it passes notability. Amazon currently lists its release date as 1 Dec 2010. As J04n said, it's no Chinese Democracy; but hopefully it's no Never Say Never (Alias album) either. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 20:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Contains Mild Peril comments.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a source that says the album was shelved.[73] I don't know if Last FM is a reliable source, however. Since the singles never made it on an album, one cannot assume they would be on this album when or if it is released. --Wolfer68 (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, per Wolfer comments above (thanks for finding and sharing that, Wolfer!). More info could change my vote (again).--Epeefleche (talk) 21:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge whatever verifiable into the author's article. - Altenmann >t 21:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It looks like all we have to go by is that amazon.com is saying that it will be released 1 December 2010, there have been more reliable sources (Billboard) giving other release dates that were not realized. The article is still little more than a track list, and I don't know where the track list came from. I see no rationale to keep this page. J04n(talk page) 04:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, per concerns regarding the encyclopaedicity of the article. Skomorokh, barbarian 00:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steroid usage amongst Dominican Athletes[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete this is this article's second nomination. I have no idea how it could have possibly survived the first. It is essentially an essay made up of some quotes from newspaper articles. Perhaps the most relevant policy is WP:INDISCRIMINATE in particular #4 news reports section. Jersey Devil (talk) 21:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment after reviewing this further I have to conclude that this was a really bad decision by the closing admin of the previous afd as the opinions of single-purpose accounts and one account which was later indefinitely blocked for vandalism were taken into account.--Jersey Devil (talk) 21:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Things have changed a bit since then; AfD has been steadily growing less forgiving of good-faith but misguided attempts to write articles -- or less tolerant of rubbish, depending how deletionist you are -- as time has gone on. I think the closure in 2008 was lenient even by the standards of the time, but not extremely so. I think the article's doomed this time, as it should be.
In addition to Jersey Devil's remarks, with which I totally agree, I want to add that this is a novel synthesis of material that advances a point of view. Kill it with fire.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to appropriate article on steroids in athletics or Dominican sports. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possible rewrite and merge. Per everyone else. It is not encyclopedic at all, it reads like a news article. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 08:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep needs to be rewritten. this article has potential to be far better. there has been no efforts made though since it was orphaned. CashRules (talk) 07:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete violates WP:SYNTH, and what's left isn't worth merging. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, per the verifiability concerns. Skomorokh, barbarian 00:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Wells-Pestell[edit]

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

I couldn't verify any of the biographical details bar a couple of news reports about the dismissal from the ambulance service, and even if I could, I don't think an ex-special forces soldier with a Queen's Commendation for Bravery (which is actually a civilan medal) would pass as a notable person by default. There are otherwise definite wp:soapbox qualities about this whole article. MickMacNee (talk) 21:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is cute but written poorly, not wikified, no source3s, etc etc. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 00:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it I found this gentleman to be very interesting not just his military service ( which there is a lot more than has been listed )but also his heritage and what he is doing now. The QCB is not just a civil decoration but is open to the Military as well. I think the fact alone that he appears to be taking on a alleged somewhat corrupt organisation as the London Ambulance Service and being the Grandson of a former Labour Health Minister and peer would by its own make him a notable person, would it not??? ( no soap box ) I think he has alot more to say and do and there is a much bigger picture that will become apparent soon but i am conscious about WP rules and regs!!--Sebastian king (talk) 02:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can seek advice at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page if you want to learn more about our rules and how to show notability, but there's nothing new in your post that I hadn't already considered I'm afraid, so its still a delete from me. MickMacNee (talk) 15:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's an interesting article. But the subject's notability appear to come from a single incident [74] so the article appears to me to violate our BLP-1E guideline. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree that this is a BLP1E case. JohnCD (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cherree mallette[edit]

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

Notability (even the listed website isn't valid) Buddy23Lee (talk) 00:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy this one. No other harm is apparent, and would be COI possibility in mainspace. Collect (talk) 14:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable artist, no sources, too promotional to userfy. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 22:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Waking the Witch (novel)[edit]

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

Not published until Aug 2010 - too early for significant coverage in independent sources. Fails WP:CRYSTAL Astronaut (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this book. My searches show that WP:CRYSTAL isn't an issue. Joe Chill (talk) 21:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not notable yet, come back in July 2010 --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in agreement that it has not been released and reviewed, though it's development is been written of. Sensible thing will be to set a redirect to Women of the Otherworld until it DOES get released and can establish notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 22:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CorpNet[edit]

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

Not yet notable on-line business service; asserts at best some importance via association with the founders of MyCorporation.com to which most reliable refs refer, but as it is a different company and the previous one has been bought by Intuit, merging there isn't really an option, either.Tikiwont (talk) 20:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; yet another startup using Wikipedia for free publicity. The "references" supplied are mislabelled to mislead: the "Business Week" reference actually links to a referral page to a PRNet story. Evidence of a sophisticated spammer gaming the system, IMO. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: caught using irrelevant references. Note that 2 out of 3 references are for MyCorporation.com. Alexius08 (talk) 03:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability. Nyttend (talk) 03:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sand Machine[edit]

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

Non-notable band with no significant coverage in reliable sources. A search reveals lots of mentions in Mp3, blogs, and social networking sites, but little else (except for industrial equipment). Astronaut (talk) 20:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 18:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 11:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Do not meet WP:BAND, can find no WP:RS, even a search of boston.com reveals only trivial mentions and they are a Boston band. Their albums are released by themselves (i.e. no label). Sorry J04n(talk page) 11:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BAND. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

E STRICT[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a PHP manual —C.P. (talk) 20:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], and [81]. Joe Chill (talk) 22:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your references are just PHP manuals, so it doesn't address the point of this AfD. (Or perhaps you just made a lapsus and wanted to write "Delete" instead of "Keep"?) —C.P. (talk) 13:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is no guideline that says that it isn't allowed. Saying if they show notability or not can only be based on someone's opinion. Joe Chill (talk) 20:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - These are just books on PHP, and it is normal that "E_STRICT" are found in them. It is not clear that it could be immediatly deduced that E_STRICT is notable and/or should have an article in Wikipedia: otherwise every common function and constant of the PHP language would be notable and/or could have an article in Wikipedia. —C.P. (talk) 22:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Notability and WP:NOT. (To Joe Chill's objections above: notability requires mention in works independent of the subject. Mentions of a PHP variable in books about PHP are not independent of the subject. It might be notable if E_STRICT were mentioned in books about other programming languages, for instance as a concept that was widely copied by name or inspired the design of other programming languages.) Change all links to this article from other articles to http://www.php.net/manual/en/errorfunc.configuration.php#ini.error-reporting (a PHP-specific site which covers E_STRICT in more detail). Winged Cat (talk) 23:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Saying that books whose primary subject is PHP can't be used to establish notability for an aspect of the language, is like saying that you can't use a bird handbook to establish notability of a bird. decltype (talk) 09:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although the article seems to be well intentioned. To me it seems like "E STRICT" is pretty much the same thing as a word, in a programing language rather than English. I am certainly no expert on such things but I think the spirit of "WP is not a dictionary" applies here. Northwestgnome (talk) 17:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NWgnome: individual commands in programming languages don't really seem to pass NOT:DIC. Multiple independent dictionaries give plenty of coverage to individual words, but we don't consider most words notable by themselves, and likewise we shouldn't treat PHP manuals as making this word notable by themselves. If sources that didn't generally deal with PHP commands were to discuss this topic, it would be different — just like we have articles about words when the words themselves are the subject of coverage — but without that, this shouldn't be treated as worthy of an article. Nyttend (talk) 03:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete DicDef. Miami33139 (talk) 17:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the "dic-def" argument is plausible; also, I think this detailed exposition of a particular programming command comes under Wikipedia is not an instruction manual or textbook. JohnCD (talk) 18:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Association for Gays[edit]

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

Notability is not established through any reliable sources. The sole newspaper article provided at the bottom of the page has a passing 1 line mention of the organization. Other than forum or mailing list posts, there is no media coverage of the organization. Ragib (talk) 19:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has only 28 Google hits, 44 if you decouple Bangladesh from "Association for Gays". None are reliable sources. Abductive (reasoning) 08:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep as withdrawn by nominator. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-integer representation[edit]

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

(Retracted) ~~Article has no sources and appears to be WP:original research, only one such system (golden ratio base) appears to have been studied by WP:reliable sources and it already has its own article.~~ — sligocki (talk) 00:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This would seem to be an AfD that requires expert assistance. I'm unaware of the best procedure for getting the attention of the mathematics editors but if someone passing through knows it could they jump up and down and wave their hands on the relevant pages? - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds good. I posted a notice to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. I think that would be the right place. Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 00:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A significant portion of §4.1 in Donald Knuth's The Art of Computer Programming is devoted to non-integer bases. This easily establishes their notability. Le Docteur (talk) 01:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also this American Scientist article discusses base e somewhat. Le Docteur (talk) 02:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Studied more seriously in Parry, W. (1960), "On the β-expansions of real numbers", Acta Mathematica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 11: 401–416, ISSN 0001-5954, MR 0142719. Le Docteur (talk) 02:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More recent article, with literature review: Glendinning, Paul; Sidorov, Nikita (2001), "Unique representations of real numbers in non-integer bases", Mathematical Research Letters, 8 (4): 535–543, ISSN 1073-2780, MR 1851269 Le Docteur (talk) 02:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Various example bases (with emphasis on the golden ratio, though) are considered in Frougny, Christiane (1992), "How to write integers in non-integer base", LATIN '92, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 583/1992, Springer Berlin / Heidelberg, pp. 154–164, doi:10.1007/BFb0023811, ISBN 978-3-540-55284-0, ISSN 0302-9743. Le Docteur (talk) 12:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have added the above references to the article, and expanded the article to include some content from these references. There is still a lot of work to be done, though. Le Docteur (talk) 14:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Le Docteur. I believe it's best to merge the article into Non-standard positional numeral systems, but since the topic is clearly notable that's not something that needs to be decided by this AfD. Hans Adler 06:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The references provided by Le Docteur convince me the subject is sufficiently notable to have an article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning toward keep, myself. I've only read about phinary and Knuth's quarter-imaginary base, but I imagine that with the references above we can dig out more. Also, it might help prevent the creep of many permastubs on their own non-integer bases -- they can just get a section here. CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "e" is likely the best-known example, as Le Docteur points out. Collect (talk) 14:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I was also of this impression, but I am having difficulty digging up references to the effect. I know that expansions in the base e have some special "ergodic" properties that make them particularly significant, but I can't find any references that state this clearly. Any help would be appreciated. Le Docteur (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I always thought of this as a cute recreational math topic. I'm actually surprised to learn that there are several applications (the only one I ever heard of was in information theory; supposedly base e is the "most efficient" in some sense that wasn't explained); Le Docteur's efforts above demonstrate, I think, that the subject is notable even among professional researchers. Ozob (talk) 16:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I retract my nomination. This has clearly been studied. Thanks for all the work referencing and improving the article. Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 18:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The notability of the topic has been challenged, and not asserted here convincingly. Skomorokh, barbarian 00:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barron Hilton II[edit]

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

This article has already been nominated and speedily deleted before; see here. Barron is not notable in his own right. His two older sisters are frequently covered in news articles and media, but him and Conrad are still young and haven't done much. Also, keep in mind that Conrad's article was deleted last week. ★Dasani★ 19:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The previous AfD (June 2006) on this article can be found here. This New York Post article is coverage that he has received in his own right. -- Eastmain (talk) 00:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable celeb. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP:Notable Celeb - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - press coverage allows us to keep pages but doesn't mean that we must. This guy has done nothing, achieved nothing and doesn't even have significant notoriety. The coverage is trivial about trivial events. We need to apply common-sense as well as notability guidelines. TerriersFan (talk) 14:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point, but Paris... - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with TF, common sense is necessary. All the coverage appears to boil to down to two things: 1. He's Paris Hilton's younger brother 2. He's been involved with law enforcement a couple of times, once as a victim, once as the offending party. This is not the stuff of encyclopedic notability, rather, the former basis runs afoul of WP:NOTINHERITED while the latter violates WP:BIO1E. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slauter Xstroyes[edit]

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

According to the article, this band put out only 500 copies of their first album. It and their second album were on the Monster Records label, which has no article. There are no Google news or Scholar hits. Google books has a couple of mentions in Songwriter's Market, but those are in entries for the label. The only other Google Book hit is a mention during an interview with a guy who used to be a bouncer. Their Allmusic entry confirms no charting songs, but doesn't agree about the label, saying Orchard instead (this may be a re-release). I don't think this group passes WP:MUSIC, but with the Orchard label confusion, and since the article says they are working on a third album, I could be convinced otherwise if better evidence is presented. Abductive (reasoning) 18:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 20:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete"; I can't find significant coverage for this band. If this is deleted, their albums should be deleted also. Joe Chill (talk) 18:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shattered Allegiance[edit]

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

Not Notable. Possible COI see Paul Winston. How many awards does a student film have to have to make it notable? As I understood it, it is hard not to get a best ‘something’ award at these festivals. The have almost as many cats as films to award. Example: [82] To see some of it, this film has a clip on myspace [83] More sites [84] (links to video don’t seem to work very well) and [85] Aspro (talk) 18:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete, nice try at a movie. judging from clip seems filmed well, but the acting seems to fall a bit amateurish. sure, try filming, make a career, do good. but do not use Wiki to advertise as a shortcut. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 00:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability. This film did NOT win the 2009 Best American Short Film at Swansea; that recognition went to a film called "The Alley" by a totally different director. (link) I realise that claim is backed by some of the sources linked in the article but I don't know how to reconcile that with the evidence of the Festival's own website other than to assume they've confused "nominated" with "won", a hoax is being perpretrated or the other sources aren't reliable/independent. The film has been featured (without winning anything) at a number of non-notable film festivals but without the Swansea win it's not notable per any criterion of WP:FILM or WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with DFW - this did not win Best Short Film at Swansea. I would trust the official Swansea site over the source in the article. I've removed the claim. Does not meet WP:FILM. Jujutacular ^T · C 18:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 18:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. Perhaps even send to WP:INCUBATE while more is forthcoming. Though it did not win Best American Short Film at Swansea, it was at least nominated [86]. The multiple award nominations are suggestive of this film perhaps proving worthy of inclusion at a later date. Not enough yet... but perhaps the article might be welcomed back in a few months. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John allevato[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATHLETE; sports activity is at the collegiate level, not professional. A More Perfect Onion (talk) 17:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete walk-on player at West Virginia who rarely even played. While contrary to WP:ATHLETE, I believe that college football and basketball players that are significant pro prospects and see significant playing time for major programs are indeed notable, this player does not even meet my expanded criteria. -Drdisque (talk) 02:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Notability. I don't see how general participation in a college sport makes one encyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buddy23Lee (talk • contribs) 00:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 18:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 18:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - playing sport for a university does not confer notability. TerriersFan (talk) 22:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is a clear consensus to keep this article, although a difference of opinion on whether to merge the content of another article to it or to merge it with something else. This is an editorial decision though that can and should be discussed on the relevant talk pages and does not influence the AFD's outcome. As such, closing this AFD as "keep" does not mean consensus is against merging anything anywhere. Regards So Why 14:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forbidden relationships in Judaism[edit]

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

Recent duplicate, and possible risk of WP:POVFORK of subject matter of Arayot article. Newman Luke (talk) 17:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In addition to it duplicating the Arayot article, I'd like to point out that it expresses a very one-sided interpretation of the bible. See eg. its claim that 'homosexual relations' are forbidden; Conservative Judaism recently determined that its actually only anal sex that's forbade (see Homosexuality and Conservative Judaism - particularly this section), and academics and liberal Jews have long seen this, or something even less restrictive, as the correct interpretation. Newman Luke (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a problem for an article when such topics can be sub-divided into sections such as "Orthodox view"; "Conservative view" etc, otherwise obviously since Reform and Conservatism differ with Orthodoxy on almost everything it's still no reason to entirely delete articles that represent the normative views of the ways Judaism was and still is practiced at least by the Orthodox community. This is not about "child marriage" which is opposed by all streams of Judaism, but when it comes to views on homsexulaity the Orthodox view reflects the views of Judaism througought the millenia. At no point did normative Judaism ever tolerate homosexuality, on the contaray the Bible cites examples denouncing it including specific verses, regardless of innovations introuduced by Conservatism five years ago. IZAK (talk) 04:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not my point in mentioning it. My point in mentioning it is that it shows that the article as written expresses a one-sided viewpoint - to show that the article is a POV-pushing fork. Newman Luke (talk) 10:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - As for "the bible cites examples denouncing it", I'm afraid you're quite wrong; it is precisely because the bible is ambiguous about it that there's such debate over the matter. Perhaps you mean "the Talmud cites...." ? Newman Luke (talk) 10:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Newman: The Torah is not "ambiguous" about the immorality and sinfulness of homsexuality and never was. Judaism for the close to four millenia of its existence has never accepted nor sanctioned homosexulaity and has always condemned it even when people in the Torah may have done it. But that is not the point here. What is troubling is that yet again you perform summersaults akin to violating WP:LAWYERING of false and deceptive "pilpul" repeatedly, while you seem to think that Wikipedia is some sort of "seminary" or "law school" to debate what the Torah does or does not mean. There is no doubt that the Torah forbids homosexulaity, based on clear-cut verses Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. Whatver the Talmud says or does not say anywhere does not undermine or permit what the Torah says is a sin. The fact that Reform and Conservative rabbis may now accept and allow homsexuality is simply because they deny the divinity (that is the Divine Origin) and authority of the Torah itself (that Orthodoxy does still accepts in all its varieties). The Reform and Conservative views about anything have absolutely nothing to do with the dicussions in the Talmud but more to do with whatever the modern trends of secular and gentile society may be. This is the kind of confusion you are creating by launching into needless theological debates when all that's needed is stating the facts clearly without twisting them to your or anyone's pre-conceived WP:POV. IZAK (talk) 06:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - The Torah is ambiguous about the moral state of homsexuality and always has been. It does not mention homosexuality. Men falling in love with men is never described in any way. Don't confuse homosexual acts with homosexual people. Neither should you confuse homosexual acts with sexual acts between two men. They are not the same thing; there are plenty of heterosexual men who have been involved in some sort of sexual act with another man. The torah comments on a sexual act, and - if you really want to include sodom and gomorrah in this - implied sexual acts (which are never actually specified). Now I don't know of a single Jewish bible translation that actually renders these references as homosexuals rather than referring to sexual acts - not even those of the most extremely right wing Orthodox Jews. Mechon Mamre, for example, translate it "lie with mankind, as with womankind" [87], that's an act not a love preference; in fact it includes heterosexual men who do this, such as in prison, due to the inavailability of women. Last time I checked, heterosexual men were not homosexuals; therefore the Torah is ambiguous about homosexuality.

As for the conservative views. If you actually read the wikipedia article I've repeatedly pointed out, you'll see that the views in question they express about this matter are based on their understanding of the Torah, and not on their attitude to its authority. And as for Orthodox Jews, you should consider the fact that Steven Greenberg (rabbi), is an Orthodox Rabbi, and yet he is also gay, and argues that the Torah may be legitimately interpreted in a way that does not condemn homosexuality; similarly there are several other gay Orthodox Jews who do not view themselves as condemned by the Torah. You are not the only Orthodox Jew (if indeed you are an Orthodox Jew at all), so don't presume to be able to speak for all of them. It is you who is attempting to twist things. Where are your sources? My edits are sourced. Where are your sources for your counterargument?

Newman Luke (talk) 23:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not really a good way to deal with the topic. Needs more discussion. Just quoting the Bible does not really establish that something is forbidden in Judaism. Redddogg (talk) 17:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- False assertion. Classical Judaism is a Biblically-based religion, but it's important to know what is practically practiced and what is not and the subject matter in this article is still practiced. Otherwise what else is it, not a gefilta fish-eating club. IZAK (talk) 04:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - False claim of false assertion. Classical Judaism is an Oral Law based religion; does not the Talmud say that if the Oral Law conflicts with the Bible it is Oral Law which is to be obeyed?. Many things are biblically based, but the point about the word based is that it means derived from, not an exact copy, no further information needed. This article is just the Bible, but the title claims its about Judaism, so where's the Jewish connection? Newman Luke (talk) 10:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Newman, you are falling into that old trap of yours and turning Wikipedia articles and discussions into debates about Jewish theology that belong in yeshivas and seminaries. There are no hard and fast rules that state "does not the Talmud say that if the Oral Law conflicts with the Bible it is Oral Law which is to be obeyed?" and neither are your untiring efforts of flogging the horse to death helpful when you start violating WP:LAWYERing by saying inscrutable things like "Many things are biblically based, but the point about the word based is that it means derived from, not an exact copy, no further information needed." When the Bible says "I am the Lord your God" it means what is says and says what it means even though there may be a million and one theological discussions about the nature of God and how He communicates with humans. But why get into these type of discussions on Wikipedia? It is acceptable for a Wikipedia article to start with Biblical source material and then build from there, so your nitpicking makes one wonder why you are conucting these kind of edit wars? IZAK (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Izak, you are the one who claimed that Redddogg made a false assertion, so don't lecture me about turning things into debates.

When the Bible says "I am the Lord your God" it is an English translation. That isn't necessarily an accurate translation of what the bible actually says. In fact, it would be more accurate to translate that particular sentence as I am Yahweh your god. That's quite a difference. Claiming it means what it says, when you're not even using an entirely accurate translation is really quite flawed. And when it says your God who is it addressing as you - Moses and the 72-70 elders, or all the Israelites there, or all Israelites ever, or everyone? And what does it mean by saying your God - that could easily be henotheism, rather than monotheism.

Exegesis is a huge subject for good reason. I am Mandy your Avon lady doesn't mean that she always is, forever, every waking moment, nor that there are no other Avon ladies. So what you actually have in your biblical quote is there could be any number of deities, but the particular one that's been assigned to you, you person or maybe people or perhaps nation or possibly their descendants as well or perhaps even everyone, at least for the moment, for some duration or other, could be the next week or so, or maybe a few years, or perhaps forever, is the one called Yahweh, which is me. And its precisely because of this ambiguity and the problems involved with translation that primary sources should not be used as the main basis of an article. See WP:PRIMARY.

Newman Luke (talk) 23:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It strikes me that there could be an entire category of articles about the Book of Leviticus, and that this would be better suited as a page about the rules specified therein. The name of the article is the largest of the problems that it has, although the topic might be covered in a less POV way. I agree with others that one can't really make generalizations about the beliefs of any faith. The content would work better in a different package. Mandsford (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redddogg and Mandsford both make good points here. I would tend to think that the way to reconcile those two views would be to rename to Forbidden relationships in the Bible, Forbidden relationships in the Abrahamic religions, or Forbidden relationships in Leviticus, since it would address both concerns. However, I want to pose one other key question: which reliable sources discuss this, and what name do they give to the subject?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many Biblical commentaries and analyses of Jewish law have been written [88], so the Old Testament/Torah doesn't have to be the only source. Although "Hebrew marriage law" is one description, the "prohibitions of Leviticus" seems to be more specific. Again, I hope that the focus shifts, since it's not a good idea to generalize about Judaism or any other faith. Very few Christians, for instance, ever worry about the unambiguous statement by Jesus (in the Sermon on the Mount) that any sexual relationship, with a person who has been divorced, is adultery... even if the partners are married. Mandsford (talk) 15:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If kept, I wonder what the relationship should be between this article and such articles as Mishk'vei ishah, Leviticus 18, and The Bible and homosexuality. Possibly the first two articles could be merged into it... I should think there would need to be pointers to Biblical law in Christianity and equivalent articles in other relevant religions as well.

What's clear to me at the moment is that the article we're considering has the potential to be a major improvement over our existing coverage of this topic. Keep.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is notable, sourced information that therefore meets Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusions. Besides being covered in an entire section of the Bible itself, there are many books found on Google Books that discuss this topic. The Arayot article is not the same thing; the articles are related and can be linked to one another, but provide different factual information. Xyz7890 (talk) 15:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sure the Bible, in the original Hebrew or any other language, does not use the word "relationship" in this way. (i.e. I have a relationship with my sister, but I don't have sex with her. I have relationships with my gay friends (I'm not gay) the same. It's not the relationships that are forbidden.)Redddogg (talk) 14:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a separate issue to be addressed besides the deletion. I believe the article will ultimately be kept, given the number of sources that are available, and we should then discuss a better name for it. Still, in the Bible, "relations" implies sexual; obviously, pious Jewish people do not refrain from having non-sexual relationships with their blood relatives. Perhaps, we should call this Forbidden sexual relations in Judaism or something similar. Xyz7890 (talk) 23:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you (Xyz7890) are the creator of this article. Would you therefore be kind enough to explain - as a comment - why

(a) You don't think Arayot covers the same thing. This is the most important thing for you to explain, if you could be so kind.

Arayot seems to be related, but it seems to be a main article broken into small paragraphs on each category of Arayot. This article is more about the relationships described in the Torah, mostly in Leviticus.

But this article is called ".... in Judaism" not ".... in the Torah, mostly in Leviticus". So why do you think that an article under your title doesn't duplicate the topic of Arayot?

(b) Why you wrote that Leviticus 18:22 refers to homosexuality (as if it was homosexuality in general), and not to a specific form of homosexual sex. Despite the official view of, for example, Conservative Judaism, more Liberal strains of Judaism (between them constituting the majority of Jews), and most academics, who regard it as referring to homosexual anal sex, and not passing comment, on other acts like mutual masturbation, nor on non-sexual homosexual relationships.

The heading of this section is called "homosexuality." If there is any controversy over this being the heading here, this is an issue that should be discussed on the article's talk page, not through proposing the page for deletion and using the AfD route to hold these discussions.

I raised this issue on the grounds that it suggests the article exists to express a specific point of view, in contrast to the neutral approach of Arayot. In other words, that the attitude taken to mishk'vei ishah - that it refers to homosexuality in general - suggests that this article is a POV Fork. So I would like to know why you took that viewpoint, rather than writing neutrally, to establish whether or not this article exists for POV pushing purposes. So, why did you write that interpretation - which is only present in a few fundamentalist Christian bible versions - rather than the view of most of Judaism, and academia, and most bible versions, including english translations used in Judaism?

(c) Why you quote directly from the bible, instead of referring to secondary sources, or major Jewish literature, such as the Talmud, which has halakhic authority? (I find it very inexplicable that you do this, since your userboxes claim that you are an Orthodox Jew)

I practice as an Orthodox Jew, and I have an interest in Judaism and Jewish practice. But I have not actually studied Talmud. I read a lot, and I use Google Books to find sources normally, but it is a lot of work, and I don't try to find them all at once.

I still also find it odd that someone claiming to practice as an Orthodox Jew would not know what the term used by Orthodox Jews for forbidden sexual relationships was, given how important it must be to know what they are.

As for using "Google Books to find sources". Have you read the guidelines on reliable sources? or those on saying where you actually found it. The only source you give is a book by 'Ronald Eisenberg'. Who is that? All I can find is some medical doctor and a lawyer. This is NOT a proper source for a subject as major as this. You should be able to find proper academic writing from proper widely respected academics. Major encyclopedias. And major important rabbinic authorities like Maimonides and Joseph Karo, and their modern day equivalents. Some medical doctor, or minor lawyer, writing a book for popular consumption, simply doesn't cut it. Newman Luke (talk) 15:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Newman Luke (talk) 21:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That title would be a big improvement, IMO anyway. Redddogg (talk) 16:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment reading the comments above, I'd like to point out that this article is not at AfD because of a dispute about notability. It is at AfD because it is alleged that it is a duplicate, and apparent WP:POVFORK of the subject matter of Arayot article. Newman Luke (talk) 21:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's more of a matter of two people who were working independently of each other on similar topics. Major improvements were made to the article Arayot beginning on October 18, with reference to various Judaic texts; and this article was started on October 25, primarily focused upon prohibitions in the Book of Leviticus. Since neither article appears to draw inspiration from the other, I think it's simply a coincidence that two of Wikipedia's thousands of editors would take an interest in Judaism during the same month. I see no merit at all in allegations of duplication, let alone the making of a "POV fork". Mandsford (talk) 18:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - this article needs discussion and revision, not deleting. A lot of this should be discussed on the article's talk page. Xyz7890 (talk) 00:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Xyz-- your previous "keep" vote still counts as part of the discussion, they've just relisted it to get additional opinions. Mandsford (talk) 02:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A straight forward case of an unnecessary duplicate IMHO. Hazir (talk) 13:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the proper action to take in a case of article duplication is to merge, not delete. See Wikipedia:Merging#Rationale for more information on this. Xyz7890 (talk) 17:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to comment: only when there is something worth merging. Apart from the blatent pov-pushing bits - mainly the fringe interpretation of mishk'vei ishah - there is very little in here other than a paraphrase of the bible. And while the bible is notable, paraphrasing it isn't encyclopedic, and its not as if Arayot doesn't already include mention of what the bible says.Newman Luke (talk) 15:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge Arayot into here. This article is notable as Newman Luke (nominator) mentioned, and has content which would not belong in the Arayot article, like forbidden relationships for Kohanim. The definition of "homosexual relations" can be left blank with a link to the main article (already there) which does discuss the different views of what constitutes homosexual relations, or, the article itself could make short mention of it. I may support a merge with the Arayot article, but only if the article is renamed to the current article name (and Aroyot as a redirect) or something similar, since Arayot does not encompass all "forbidden relationships". Shlomke (talk) 23:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- UM Shlomke, looks like Newman is the one nominating this article for deletion, or what? IZAK (talk) 04:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, he is, and he has also stated that it is not on the grounds of notability, but because of (the perceived) duplication of another article, Arayot. I'm not sure what you mean. Shlomke (talk) 05:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Shlomke, the articles have different approaches and even content matter. They are close but no cigar. IZAK (talk) 06:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Arayot is a subsection of forbidden relations in Judaism. Hence there should be one article, and that would be the one currently being discussed for deletion. Shlomke (talk) 16:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - A comparison of this article with Arayot suggests that it does indeed represent different content, dealing with specific commandments taken directly from Leviticus and Deuteronomy, whereas Arayot examines the issue in the cultural/religious context with an emphasis on marriage rather than sexual relations (despite what the lead paragraph indicates). Since notability is not an issue it therefore seems that this is discrete and meaningful content justifying an article. (Not sure this is the best name for the article, though.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Arayot is an abbreviation of gilui arayot, which basically means have sex with. Everything in an article about forbidden relationships therefore belongs under Arayot. It cannot be any other way. It would be like having Physical contact between the sexes in Judaism and Negiah, as two distinct articles. Newman Luke (talk) 14:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comment: Arayot includes only some of the forbidden sexual relations in Judaism. Maimonides in his Mishne Torah, the book of Noshim, Hilchot Ishut chapter 1 Halacha 5 writes (Translating form Hebrew, but this is available in English as well): "All Sexual relations that the Torah forbid, and of which the transgressor is punished with Kareth - and these are the ones mentioned in Leviticus in the Parasha of Acharei Mos - they are called Arayot" ... "for example a mother, sister and a daughter." Halacha 6: "There are other women who are forbidden from the tradition"... "and they are called Shniot (lit. seconds, e.i. they are second to Arayot) and these include 20 women, 1) His mothers mother 2) His mothers fathers mother 3) His fathers mother 4) His fathers fathers mother"..... Halacha 7: "All sexual relationships that the Torah forbid and of which the transgressor is not punished with Kareth - they are called Isurie Lav'in and Isurie Kedusha and they include 9: A widow for a Kohen Gadol, a divorcee, prostitute and Chalala to either a Kohen Gadol or regular Kohen, a Mamzer"... "his divorced wife after she married and got divorced from another man"... Halacha 8: "And there are some that are prohibited because of a Positive commandment (Asei) and are not included in the Isurie Lav'in: An Egyptian, an Edomite and a woman who is not a virgin to a Kohen Gadol."
Thus Arayot do not include all forbidden relations, so it would be a big mistake to put all possible forbidden relations in the article of Arayot. Rather the Arayot should be a subsection of a broader article dealing with all forbidden sexual relationships in Judaism. I must note that the current Arayot article includes many of these relationships which do not in fact belong there. As to the translation of Gilui Arayot, my understanding is this would be loosely translated as "revealing nakedness" Shlomke (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

uncover nakedness is the more usual translation used in English Bibles. Although modern bibles sometimes use have sex with, because that's what it actually means.

So Maimonides lists,

People constituting incest according to the Bible
The rabbinic/scribal seconds, who also constitute incest. His version of this list is distinct from that of the Talmud, Joseph Karo, etc. (though its worth noting that none of these agree completly with each other either, the Talmud itself leaving the argument unsettled)
People forbade from the "congregation" - Mamzers
Special rules for priests

But that's whats in Arayot. Or am I misreading you?Newman Luke (talk) 23:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not all included in Arayot. Maimonides is giving four categories of forbidden relationships:

1) Arayot (if the punishment is Kareth)
2) Shniot (passed down by tradition)
3) Isurie Lav'in, Lav (lit. "don't") meaning Negative commandment (from the Torah itself, but without the punishment of Kareth)
4) Those forbidden by the Torah because of a Positive Commandment (Asei).

Only the first category is considered Arayot. I don't think the term Arayot is used directly in the Torah. Can you point me to a specific verse? Perhaps you mean Gilui Erva ~~which is not the same as Arayot~~. Shlomke (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - topic does seem to be a POV fork, and would be better if discussed in the Arayot article (and if that needs to be renamed, that would be fine with me as well). Blueboar (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge To Arayot - PoVFork. Hipocrite (talk) 16:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this accurate and factual article that is based on the best primary source, the Bible itself in full keeping with WP:CITE and WP:VERIFY. Classical Bible-based Judaism=Torah Judaism which is what all of Orthodox Judaism strictly observes as a PRACTICAL matter to this day especially in the subject matter of this article. It needs to have more "meat" added and more sections to reflect the views of other streams of Judaism. IZAK (talk) 04:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. based on...primary source - see WP:PRIMARY. As for Classical Judaism and Orthodox Judaism, where is the reliable source confirming that 100% of Orthodox Judaism, including that in non-Western non-English speaking countries, or confirming that Classical Judaism has absolutely nothing at all to add to the bible about this. As for Torah Judaism, here is a quote from that article - The phrase Torah Judaism implies a belief and practice of Judaism that is based on the Torah (meaning the inclusion of the entire Torah, Tanakh, Talmud, and all the rabbinic authorities that followed) . Given your username, I assume you have some familiarity with the Talmud (though I apologise if I am wrong about this), so you must realise how much the Talmud comments on the Bible. Presumably you also know a little about the Targums, and how they are paraphrases not mere translations. So there is clearly likely to be more than just the bible, in classical Judaism, about this. This article has a title with in Judaism at the end of it. Where is the in Judaism bit? Newman Luke (talk) 10:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Newman, you are making the Talmud into another "Pentateuch" which it is not meant to be and even worse you are violating making this into a WP:BATTLEGROUND for "arbitrating" so-called discussions and doubtful disputes of "Talmud versus Torah" that you set up as a straw men in hypothetical and theoretical stand-offs between the Talmud and the Torah. Both the Torah and the Talmud are the core of Judaism, but it is an art and skill to know how they mesh and are practiced. Of course the Talmud is the Oral Torah, but the Talmud does not come to "dispose of" the written Torah in the manner and style you are so cavalierly doing. From the way you cite Talmud I wonder in which yeshiva or from which reliable Talmudic scholars your learned Talmud if at all? Obviously the way Reform and Conservative people, or Christians and secular scholars, conceive of and approach the Talmud is NOT the way it is studied and conveyed by knowledgeable Judaic scholars in the mainstream Orthodox yeshivas that still convey and continue in the methodology and outlook of the Talmud's creators and expositors, and I assure you their approach has absolutely no resemblance to the way you go about talking and presenting the Talmud. IZAK (talk) 06:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - "even worse you are violating making this into a WP:BATTLEGROUND". You seem to have missed out some words between "violating" and "making".

As for Talmud vs. Torah. You seem to have failed to recollect that the Talmud contains declarations that the bible says (in the Talmud's interpretation of it) that such and such is the case, but that the rabbis are going to say something else anyway. For example, the Talmud explicitly declares that the bible in a particular location of Deuteronomy only forbids marriage to Canaanites, but then says that it (the Talmud - ie. the rabbis in it) is going to ban marriage to other nations/religious groups as well. There are very clear cases where the Talmud says that the bible says one thing but you should do another instead. Marriage of deaf-mutes, for example, being banned in the bible (according to the Talmud's understanding of it), but permitted (via sign-language) by the Talmud.

And you can't just take the Talmudic view as the only conclusion - you have to distinguish it quite sharply from the Torah, because not everyone who accepts the Torah accepts the Talmud. The Karaites, and Samaritans, for example. And that's before you've even considered non-Jews, like the Christians, etc., or considered academic approaches to the subjects.

In regard to you saying "from the way you cite Torah". I think you should go and read the Jewish Encyclopedia. Its pretty much the same there too. In fact, in many cases, its exactly the same. And as for knowledgeable Judaic scholars in the mainstream Orthodox, what does that matter to how the Torah should usually be cited in wikipedia articles? Remember, the vast majority of people who study the Torah are not Jews, most religious people who accept the Torah's authority are not Jews, most Jews who accept the Torah are not Orthodox Jews, and most Orthodox Jews who accept the Torah are not you.

And as for the approach of Yeshivas, compared to me. I think you would do well to remember this is an encyclopedia, not a yeshiva, of any denominational allegiance. Newman Luke (talk) 23:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your above comments, I do believe it is worth discussing somewhere other than here. This should move to the article's talk page. Most likely, at this point, this article will be kept, either as a pure keep, a merge of Arayot to this one, or a no-consensus. So I have marked the article {{pov}}, and hopefully, we can work these things out on the article's talk page, so as not to clutter this discussion with comments other than those on deciding whether to keep or delete. Xyz7890 (talk) 01:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. More importantly, accuracy and "factual" nature is irrelevant to this AfD. This AfD is not really about accuracy, or about "fact". Its about the fact that this article appears to be a duplicate of an already pre-existing article, and possibly even constitutes a POV-FORK. Newman Luke (talk) 10:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I agree with Shlomke: Merge Arayot article into Forbidden relationships in Judaism. The former is included in the latter, but the latter is not included in the former. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 05:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse merge, that is Arayot into Forbidden relationships in Judaism. They have more or less the same subject matter, as stated ion hte nomination, and are not detailed enough to warrant separate articles. Just that the merge would have to be done by somebody knowledgable and a serious editor. If none can be found, approach me. Debresser (talk) 11:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into here, as Arayot deals only with one particular subtype that can easily be dealt with in the right context. But we need also to discuss the sheniot/chayavei lavim, Amoni/Moavi/Edomi/Mitzri, bo'el Aramis, chalutza le-Kohen etc. JFW | T@lk 22:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Arayot to here - broader, more comprehensive topic; and more accessible subject-name for English-only speakers. Jheald (talk) 23:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Merge Arayot into this article. Avi (talk) 08:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While this discussion has been wide ranging, AfD really is not intended to settle what is in essence a question of how best to structure and cover a notable topic. Deletion of this topic as a fork is not required; reconciliation/merger of the articles should occur, but can be considered by interested editors without an artificial deadline. WP:POVFORK wisely distinguishes articles that explicitly are about a POV from the normal prohibition; no reason to deviate from that here. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not really a well-targeted article. It mixes up various issues. Information is probably better presented elsewhere. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MuZemike 03:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JIRCii[edit]

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

Delete. This software application is not notable in any way. An extensive Google News archive search may lead you to some discussion forums which are not indicators of notability nor are they acceptable as a reliable source. JBsupreme (talk) 00:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 01:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BURDEN, if sources are shown during this AfD ask me to review this opinion. Miami33139 (talk) 04:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 16:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 16:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find significant coverage of the software. Jujutacular ^T · C 16:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability has not been established through third party, reliable sources Theserialcomma (talk) 21:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The discussion found that the sources, while spare, are sufficient. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 20:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln/Net[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Lincoln/Net

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

University project with no notable third party coverage. Creator said he would provide evidence of such coverage but as of yet has failed to do so. Google search reveals no 3rd party sources even mentioning it. Drdisque (talk) 17:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is an article in what appears to be a scholarly journal about the project, as listed under "References" in the article. -- Eastmain (talk) 18:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read the "article" it's just basically a puff piece about the project written by the University that hosts it. -Drdisque (talk) 18:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Puff pieces don't have footnotes. It's a legitimate scholarly reference. -- Eastmain (talk) 19:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See this newspaper article and http://www.pjstar.com/features/x1886925837/The-Peoria-speech , which uses an image from Lincoln/Net. -- Eastmain (talk) 19:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per User: Eastmain. It would make more sense, however, if there was an article about the parent, the Abraham Lincoln Historical Digitization Project.--Pink Bull 18:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ladislau Babocsic[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet notability criteria for academics WP:Notability (academics) or any other notability criteria including WP:Creative. Polargeo (talk) 16:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. —Polargeo (talk) 16:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Possible hoax. Google search for "Ladislau Babocsic" provides only Wiki-related links, but there is a Slovak painter and photographer with a very similar name - "Ladislav Babuščák". --Vejvančický (talk) 17:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't see how the nominator's rationale for deletion has anything to do with the subject. The article doesn't claim that he's any kind of academic, but a painter. WP:CREATIVE is the right guideline. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I have added it now. I was nominating a whole load of these people and many of them were academic/artists. Polargeo (talk) 08:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk) 07:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this person doesn't appear to be meeting any of the notability guidelines that might apply. JBsupreme (talk) 10:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MuZemike 03:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Curse of Blanchard Hill (film)[edit]

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

Completely non-notable film. No reliable sources cited, nothing on Google News at all, nothing important on Google Web. J Milburn (talk) 00:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 01:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Gongshow ^Talk 09:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable independent low-budget film. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no assertion of notability. Ironholds (talk) 22:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice until such time as the film receives coverage in reliable sources. I made the article prettier before coming here to opine... but was unable to determine anything other than it exists. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2009-09-24/japan-sony-psp-manga-distribution-service-detailed

[2] ttp://mainichi.jp/enta/mantan/manga/news/20090926mog00m200017000c.html

[1]

[2]