Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 October 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 20 October 22 October >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 00:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Fields[edit]

Doug Fields (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence this person or any of his projects are even remotely notable. Completely lacks citations to third-party sources. --EEMIV (talk) 23:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Looked for reliable sources to establish notability. Could not establish he is notable. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 00:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave This one isn't even debatable. Try Googling the guy. He has written more than 50 published books and worked for nearly 20 years as Rick Warren's associate at Saddleback Church, arguably the most famous church in the world. Those alone should meet Wiki criteria, let alone the fact that he is a nationally-recognized speaker. Just because you haven't heard of him doesn't mean he isn't notable. In his field, he is probably the most famous youth ministry expert in the world. For instance, I have never heard of any of the leading experts on quantum mechanics because I don't know anything about that field - that doesn't mean they aren't notable. I've added several sources and the guy has a profile on Amazon.com. Had the user above taken 2 minutes to Google the guy, we wouldn't even be wasting our time on this. Notability is clearly established. I move to have this frivolous and baseless appeal dropped immediately. Flavius Constantine (talk) 04:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Seems to fail the general notability guideline. Both the sources cited in the article and the ghits I found are either websites he is affiliated with or non-RS blogs commenting on his departure from Saddleback. Some of his books are published by religious publishing houses that might be independent of Saddleback, but blurbs on book jacket are not significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. --Orlady (talk) 04:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Largely per flavius, but I found quite a number of his books. A sales rank of 15,000 at Amazon isn't exactly a best seller, but neither is it indicative of self-published status. I added a few books to the article, and cleaned up some citations--SPhilbrickT 00:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Publishing lots of books does not guarantee notability. No other reliable sources supporting WP:BIO claim. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:39, 27 October 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. NW (Talk) 00:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Specialties[edit]

Youth Specialties (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability substantiated by multiple reliable third-party sources. --EEMIV (talk) 23:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete there is a claim of notability, but there are no reliable sources to verify the claim. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 00:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No third-party sources to support notability. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources make it notable CynofGavuf 07:27, 28 October 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. Staxringold talkcontribs 04:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Griffin (youth pastor)[edit]

Josh Griffin (youth pastor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence this person or any of his projects are even remotely notable. Completely lacks citations to third-party sources. --EEMIV (talk) 23:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No evidence he WP:BIO is satisfied by significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources. Notability is not inherited from one's employer. Edison (talk) 23:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails general notability guideline. The only sources cited in the article or found in Google are his morethandodgeball website and other websites associated with the Saddleback Church. Being associated with famous churches and popular websites does not make a person notable for Wikipedia's purposes unless that person has been the subject of substantial coverage by multiple independent sources -- see WP:N.
    Furthermore, I have not found any reliably sourced indication that he is indeed the same Josh Griffin who "is a partner" on that Star Wars fansite, but "but no longer plays an active role in the site."[1] Unless reliable sourcing is found and cited, this "fact" should be stripped from all articles about Mr. Griffin and the website. --Orlady (talk) 04:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave That's purely your prerogative and not a fact. I would say that being an owner of the largest Star Wars website in the world (and multiple sources were given) is notable enough to meet Wiki criteria, not to mention that he works at arguably the most famous church in the world, Rick Warren's Saddleback Church. I added 10 sources that I simply found by Googling the guy. Had the 2 users who posted above simply taken 2 minutes to Google the guy, they could have avoided this entire situation. Clearly, there was absolutely no effort to confirm his notability. Oh yeah, he also has a profile on Amazon.com - http://www.amazon.com/Joshua-Griffin/e/B002RNZXC8/ref=ntt_dp_epwbk_0 Notability has clearly been established. I move to have this frivolous appeal dropped immediately. Flavius Constantine (talk) 04:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination and reasons given by Edison and Orlady. Also, an Amazon profile means nothing - *anyone* who buys something from them can set one up - it's hardly an indication of notability. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about that. Did you even look at his Amazon profile? It sure looks like Amazon set it up. Flavius Constantine (talk) 04:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake - it's not an Amazon profile, it's an "Author Central" page, which according to Amazon is "a free service provided by Amazon where you can share information about yourself and your work" - in other words, a self-published primary source, maintained by the author himself, and therefore, not an acceptable independent third-party source. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No significant secondary source coverage that would show notability. Kevin (talk) 04:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete without prejudice. An argument could be made, and has been made, that he is per se notable as a major leader in a megachurch, akin perhaps to an archdeacon, but I'd like to see more proof in terms of reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 23:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC) By the way, being "owner" of the "largest" website of its type does not convey per se notability either, because such notability is not normally inherited. Again, multiple good sources are needed to verify that. Bearian (talk) 23:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I realize the notability guidelines want a fair number of RS mentions, but I view that as a surrogate for identifying people that some non-trivial number of outsiders might expect to find in an encyclopedia ("outsiders" meaning non family, friends or colleagues). Despite the last of RS, I can imagine that happening in this case. However, I do agree with Bearian that the ownership of a Star Wars website does not confer notability, nor does a self-published author page on Amazon. I don't think it is likely that the Keep voices will prevail, so I offer as a fallback the possibility that the material should be Merged with Saddleback Church.--SPhilbrickT 15:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be OK with me to have a brief discussion of Josh Griffin in Saddleback Church, together with information about other key staff (both current staff and former staff such as Doug Fields). --Orlady (talk) 16:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even I admit that Griffin's notability may be a legitimate discussion, but certainly Doug Fields is notable enough to have his own article. Flavius Constantine (talk) 02:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Founder or leader might be notable, but not every pastor of a megachurch is notable. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:42, 27 October 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. NW (Talk) 00:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monstrophy[edit]

Monstrophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Elaborate but obvious hoax; the topic has zero pertinent Google hits. I recommend deletion and a block of the author, new user 123fsdfd34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).  Sandstein  22:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not convinced it's a hoax - the cited sources back it up - but more pertinent is the fact that Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. The fact the term may exist doesn't entitle it to an article, and nothing in the article asserts (or cites sources for) the notability of the term. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you positive that the cited sources do contain this word? If yes, I'd have expected it to show up in at least one Google Books or Scholar search.  Sandstein  06:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This site certainly uses it and isn't on its face created to support this article. Don't know why Google doesn't collect it. So I say it's not an obvious hoax. A quick sampling of some of the cited hardcopy texts in Google Books doesn't return hits for the word, but obviously Google Books only samples small parts of them. But it doesn't matter - as above, Wikipedia isn't a dictionary and there's no evidence the term is notable. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Sandstein. The bulk of the article is an attempt to prove that the word exists; beyond that, it's a dictdef. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:44, 27 October 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 (CSD G11) by Fastily. NAC. Cliff smith talk 06:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

O.G. Mudbone[edit]

O.G. Mudbone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet the notability requirements of WP:PORNBIO. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 22:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary Backslash, WP:PORNBIO states that if the subject "Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography..." then he / she is qualified to be recognized. He is starting a trend, he is merging comedy with a young energetic African-American lifestyle while having intercourse. The absurdity of his movies also make them astoundingly unique. Though he hasn't been in the business long enough to be recognized with an award, he has definitely made unique contributions to the hard-core pornographic genre. \ Davisman123 / (talk) 22:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any reliable, published sources that can be used to substantiate these claims? Facebook and a forum posting are not considered reliable sources for Wikipedia articles: if you could find news/magazine articles about this porn star or reviews of his work, that will help the keep case significantly. If not, the article should be deleted due to the lack of reliable sources. -- saberwyn 23:54, 21 October 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. Kevin (talk) 22:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George Lee (British politician)[edit]

George Lee (British politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article promoting a UK parliamentary candidate who has not yet held office at any level. Mr Lee is not notable per the policy outlined at WP:POLITICIAN, and does not appear to meet the primary criteria outlined at WP:N. There may also be a conflict of interest - I believe that Majones1987 (talk · contribs) joined Wikipedia solely to promote or 'inform people' about Mr Lee. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for lack of notability. Merely being a candidate for office is not a claim of notability and the subject's rank in the Met was not high enough to make him notable as a senior policeman. I share nominator's concern, and the last paragraph of the article in particular is not written in tones appropriate to an encyclopaedia article. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (see my comments below) Peter Chastain (talk) 02:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Keep: Please feel free to correct my misconceptions about UK politics, but it seems to me that an official parliamentary candidate of one of the major parties is by definition notable. I would take this position notwithstanding the requirement that there be independent press coverage, but that requirement is also satisfied: [2], [3],[4], et al. The existence of a COI is not sufficient reason to discard an article. Peter Chastain (talk) 22:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I've been an official parliamentary candidate of a major party and I can assure you I'm not inherently notable. Candidates may be notable because of their notable actions leading to their candidacy but the candidacy itself isn't inherently notable. Candidates may also be notable when their candidacy generates significant discussion in reliable independent sources, but the cited sources in the article don't amount to significant discussion. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I am persuaded by your argument and have changed my vote to Delete. If I understand correctly, the issue is that, unless Mr Lee wins this election, his current notability is temporary. Thanks for the clarification. Peter Chastain (talk) 02:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unless he wins, or unless during the course of his candidacy he does something independently notable. It's certainly possible for candidates to influence debate and public policy by way of merely being a candidate and taking part in the election - and of course, if they do, there'll be significant independent coverage of that which could found an article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:17, 22 October 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 RESULT: 00:22, 22 October 2009 Tcncv (talk | contribs) deleted "Will Mobbs" ‎ (G3: Vandalism (Hoax)) ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 00:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC) 00:22, 22 October 2009 Tcncv (talk | contribs) deleted "Will Mobbs" ‎ (G3: Vandalism (Hoax))[reply]

Will Mobbs[edit]

Will Mobbs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A 20-year-old actor whose career apparently started when he was 2 years old. Or maybe three years before he was born. Total and utter bollocks from start to finish. Google search returns only Bebo, Facebook, etc -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I digress these hurtful and libellous comments. A great actor and lifelong friend who deserves this page once some of the facts have been altered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.7.73.194 (talk) 21:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as blatant hoax. If there were a Golden Globe winning actor who'd gone into porn, someone would have noticed before today. And winning the Globe three years before being born? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - hoax. The role of Duke in Rocky IV was played by Tony Burton, a much, much older man, and he certainly didn't win a Golden Globe for it or subsequently go into porn. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:24, 21 October 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. If you're actually interested in merging, please contact me so I can get the stuff back. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Burton[edit]

The Burton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Possible WP:HOAX. Google searches find no references, [5]. Moustache style guides [6], [7] make no mention of it. This talk page comment by the editor indicates the article is probably a stunt to promote an this advertising campaign. — CactusWriter | needles 21:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added Note: The company's own history of Montague Burton makes no mention of a moustache style called "The Burton". — CactusWriter | needles 07:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — — CactusWriter | needles 21:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — — CactusWriter | needles 21:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I can't find any sources independent of this menswear company that mention this style of mustache. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete I think 'hoax' is the wrong word - it's a 'genuine' campaign, the chap existed, it's a real shop, and they're doing a fund-raiser for charity. Unfortunately, it fails notability. Considering the talkpage comment, I think it can only be viewed as 'blatant advertizing'; the fact that it's for charity is beside the point.  Chzz  ►  21:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment - Hoax is exactly the right word. It's a pretty safe bet that this was made up out of whole cloth by the menswear shop's advertising agency. We should not facilitate the creation of ersatz history in this manner. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Struck the 'speedy' - can't be, as it was CSD'd and declined earlier  Chzz  ►  23:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have now struck the delete too; changing to merge, below  Chzz  ►  23:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but not speedy. It's not blatant advertising. Very noble, but seems to be WP:NEO flavored to me. Regardless, though, of the concensus of why, it shouldn't really stay. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete WP:HOAX and WP:OR or possibly WP:ADVERT. I have heard an expanation of "going for a Burton" and it was not related to moustaches. The association with UN is also fanciful. A chain of shops certainly existed: I recall buying a suit there, the article has a few nuggets of truth, but there is so much fabrication that it should be deleted. Some one can then expand Montague Burton or Burton (clothing) - on the shops of Montague Burton Ltd. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The chain of shops is alive and well; I added this link earlier; that's their website.  Chzz  ►  23:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Montague Burton. The man himself is notable and this would be appropriate for a couple of lines in a "legacy" or "impact" section. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per DustFormsWords; I think that the (admittedly primary) sources are enough for such a mention. (Changed from earlier delete vote)  Chzz  ►  23:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Chzz, I am confused by your comment. What primary source have you found that describes a moustache style called "The Burton?" The only primary source I have found, the company's own history page, doesn't mention it. — CactusWriter | needles 07:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - obvious advertising campaign by an obvious COI role account created for the purpose.--Orange Mike | Talk 00:43, 22 October 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 Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 01:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Prix Racing Online[edit]

Grand Prix Racing Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a really notable MMO website. Certainly not as notable as Hattrick. Has about 13000 active users compared to 1 Million for Hattrick. Comparing it with other MMO sites as well where there has been news and scholarly articles written about them. Writer Listener 20:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 22:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Major concerns regarding edits of talk page regarding this site being a copy of another and being operated by banned users of the first version. All edits with related information were quickly undone. I'm unable to find any resources or anything but most generic information or forum postings on Google. It seems the only reason this article might have survived this long because a speedy delete tag was deleted about a year ago without any given reason; I know they can be objected to by any editor, but preferably with use of {{hangon and under promised good faith they would improve the article... which the removing editor did not do here. Also seems the CSD was put on the talk page by mistake which is another reason it likely survived. I see it also went through an orphan tag but only superficial links were added. There are many issues here in general, as it still lacks any outside references or third party citations or signs of notability even if all of those coincidences and possible mistakes are overlooked. WP:DIRECTORY or WP:WEB as suggested by Joe Chill seem to fit, as this appears to be little more than a listing of a fan-based sports site without external recognition. Datheisen (talk) 11:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note to the closing admin. Can AFD's be started for the other languages wikipedia articles if this is closed--Writer Listener 23:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:HORSE... saying something by itself means nothing on Wikipedia, and perhaps stop by WP:LIKE which specifically singles out statements like this as arguments to avoid in a deletion discussion. If you have an opinion, back it up. Datheisen (talk) 14:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep: It really has about 13000 active users. But total number of users is more than 100 000. If this is not enough than delete it. On the other hand why would you delete any page? I think the more pages listed in wiki the better. Since when do you have this policy about popularity of pages?


Why Delete GPRO???? It deserves its spot on Wikipedia!!!! Wikipedia is here to promote things, and share stuff with people right?

Well leave GPRO here, its not hurting anyone now is it!

And how the hell can you compare GPRO to hat trick? or what eva its called.... hattrick is nothing at all like GPRO... Please do not compare to sites what are totaly difrent!!!

And how can you compare a game created 10 years before GPRO? GPRO is 10 years younger then friggen hattrick, so it has atleast 7 more years to catch up!

What does football managment have to do with Formula 1 managment? its pointless this thread

Peterjr-07 (talk) 09:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC) — Peterjr-07 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]


Joe ChillI can't find significant coverage for this Well thats aload of Bull Crap right there Mr Joe Chit, i mean chill It is has mager advertising on Facebook as well as sevrall other sites It cames up on top of the second page on good when type "Formula 1 managment games" Peterjr-07 (talk) 09:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep: GPRO is the standout online motor racing management game, and with its strong following and community, is a significant contributor to Internet culture. The attemp to delete it is pure malicious intent from a competitor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DarylGee (talk • contribs) 09:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC) — DarylGee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

As said this is a ton of bull crap and should be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harryrigg (talk • contribs) 09:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC) And Hattrick you are probably one of the designers. I could easily come and compare GPRO to Hattrick and get Hattrick deleted. But I wont as I have never been arsed to go on to Hattrick!Harryrigg (talk) 09:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)— Harryrigg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Speedy Keep: GPRO is the best racing management online game. It may not have as much followers as a football game (any football game) but is indeed a great simulation game and has it's own community with people from all over the world which is great. The game has been growing a lot in the past few years and will continue to, thanks to an interested, professional and very competent development team that every time is improving the game with new features and challenges. And it has also a great consideration from user suggestions which shows that this is a community project, rather than a game that a couple of friends play at home. But every game has it's growing speed and it cannot be expected to have hundreds of thousands of users overnight, neither any game had that. Gpro just recently doubled it's number of users and can be expected to continue a healthy growth curve. It surely is the best racing management game and a reference for all racing management enthusiasts, it is truly a worldwide game and not just a local effort, so it should be kept. As a information aggregator, wikipedia should not even consider the deletion of these pages, because in fact pages like these provide public service and help wilipedia become what it is, the largest information source over the internet. fleitao— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.181.53.214 (talk • contribs) — 89.181.53.214 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


Comparing a Football game with a racing online game is silly to me.Maybe we don't have so many managers as "Hattrik" does but at least we have a great community.I can easily say one of the best for Online Games.We all know Football is a game loved by everyone but so is Gpro for some. And is this thread harming anyone??NO Gpro is the best game ever online for me.Save Gpro (Samoeni Albanalopolis) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.123.71.243 (talk) 11:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no reliable sources. Speedy keeps are being solicited off-site here --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Busted. Joe Chill (talk) 12:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Odd how they picked on you in particular, and not the nominator. Marasmusine (talk) 00:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems like a lot of people love to attack me. Joe Chill (talk) 00:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The fastest way to actually get an article deleted is to spend your time attacking the nominator and/or other !voters. This AfD is not a vote - it will be the strength of your arguments that determines whether it gets deleted. "You are a disgrace" is not an argument. "You are a competitor" is not an argument. "You are a worthless piece of trash" is not an argument. If you want the article kept, make it meet notability guidelines, and none of you are doing so. Wikipedia is not intended to be a location to promote anything, it's an information source about notable things. Editors who are being solicited and attacking others are playing into the hands of those who have !voted for deletion. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have semi-protected this debate due to strong evidence of off-site canvassing. ~ mazca talk 12:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to inform you that this article has existed for more than two years so it is not suitable to delete it. Alonso McLaren (talk) 13:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

huh? --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely nothing in any of the types of deletion that states the age of an article keeps it immune from deletion. If anything, it's a call to people trying to show oversight to step it up a little so that 2 years later someone else doesn't have to fix what we miss now! Datheisen (talk) 14:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The number of active users, the quality of the game, and what languages it is available in are irrelevant to this discussion. If no reliable publications have ever printed any information about GPRO, then there is nothing about this game that can be included in this encyclopedia. Marasmusine (talk) 14:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- This is a very good online game and being on wikipedia informs other online game players of it's strengths and uses. It i suseful to have on here so people can also use it as guidelines on how to play. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackbraz (talk • contribs) 16:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTGUIDE. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 20:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being an admin of GPRO, I want to apologize for our very addicted and therefore very dedicated users :) The admins are aware that there is a big lack of articles about GPRO as well as missing awards. The only real and independent article I could find and I cant link to it cos of the anti-spam filter of wikipedia - but I think that is still far to less, right? We will be working in winning an award sooner or later. Therefore we saved the current wiki-article and when we finally got an award or something else, I hope its no problem to put the article up again :) Hmmpft (talk) 20:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - there is no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The number of users, and quality of the game are irrelevant. -- Whpq (talk) 21:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable sources establishing WP:WEB notability. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: - The article states that the site has 100,000 users. This alone (if it could be referenced by an independent, reliable source) could go a long way to establishing notability. Can any of the major contributors to the article produce a qualified source to confirm this information is true? Snottywong (talk) 21:11, 28 October 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. NW (Talk) 00:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

El Poder de la Paella[edit]

El Poder de la Paella (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails notability, I can find no sources whatsoever that discuss this book. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Apparent hoax. Anyway, I did try a web search which provided absolutely nothing on this book or its author (who was linked to another author in the article with no obvious reason) or the online newsletter which supposedly included a review. Antipastor (talk) 09:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Based on a web search, this is either a hoax or is completely devoid of notability. I did find the linguistic proposition that diet affects people's ability to produce certain phonemes amusing though. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  20:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable at best. Edward321 (talk) 21:32, 24 October 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. Staxringold talkcontribs 04:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David St. Romain[edit]

David St. Romain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable musician, poorly written, created by a sock of an indef-blocked user. Placed third on Nashville Star but I can't find any secondary sources, only false positives. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed. This is a longstanding Twinkle bug. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Nashville Star or delete. Doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC. This is another case of people mistaking "competing on reality TV" for "being a notable musician". (Luckily we don't also get much confusion of "competing on a quiz show" and "being a notable scientist".) - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delet A Google search produces mainly social network sites, promotional sites, etc, not independent coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge. Any relevant information should probably go into Nashville Star. Seems to lack enough independent, reliable sources to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Cocytus [»talk«] 03:31, 28 October 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 Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 01:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FXCM[edit]

FXCM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY WP:SPAM. Was speedied prod deleted one as spam. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 19:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not sure about the spam, but it feels a little promotional. Just sounds like some stock broker company. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - I'm not a finance guy but I find plenty of potentially relevant google hits, and I don't have the expertise to determine their significance. The article isn't obviously spam (certainly you wouldn't expect spam to talk about entanglement in bankruptcy proceedings) and it makes an assertion of notability. It's poorly sourced but that's not necessarily an AfD issue. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Notability is certainly an issue. There are occasionally quotes in major sources, that I have added to keep a balanced perspective in the article, e.g. The New York Times quoted Marc Prosser, Chief Marketing Officer at FXCM saying "Don't just call it investing - this is speculation, and people should only be putting up risk capital they can afford to lose."[1], and in the Wall Street Journal "Even people running the trading shops warn clients against trying to time the market. 'If 15% of day traders are profitable,' says Drew Niv, chief executive of FXCM, 'I'd be surprised.' " [2]
  1. ^ Egan, Jack (2005-06-19). "Check the Currency Risk. Then Multiply by 100". The New York Times. Retrieved 2007-10-30.
  2. ^ Karmin, Craig; MICHAEL R. SESIT (2005-07-26). "Currency Markets Draw Speculation, Fraud". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2007-10-31.
But these always get deleted, which makes the spam issue even more prominent. Smallbones (talk) 13:32, 22 October 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. Attention is drawn to WP:COI: people associated with this band, financially or otherwise, should recuse from making substantial edits to this article. They may revert clear cases of vandalism and engage in discussion on the article's talk page. But equally, an alleged conflict of interest on the part of the article creator is not material, in that a COI is not grounds for deletion. Since there is a consensus that the question of notability has been refuted by the competition win and theme song, no basis on which to delete the article remains. This NAC was brought to you by—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Living syndication[edit]

Living syndication (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet notability guidelines - appears to have been written by the bands frontman - so possible conflict of interest noq (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I'm the one that added the article because I feel strongly that the band is notable and they are the topic of discussion on many sites and are well known. There are magazines with them, they get airplay on the radio, and they tour with all the other notable artists. I saw an ad on Chordie which had a Wikipedia portion saying that there's no page for Living Syndication yet, which I found odd so I took it upon myself to add it here. I didn't have rights to the media and wanted to make sure that the webmaster for LS would provide those for me (I tried downloading High Res pics from sites but was unsuccessful). In any case, this is not a COI as I do not work for the band at all, nor am I affiliated with them in any way other than the fact that their CD is my changer. I found articles on Wikipedia which reference Living Syndication, which lead me to the conclusion that they should be included on Wikipedia since they are of note. Like many of you, I'm a music fan and I'm technically inclined so the natural thing for me to do when I don't find information on a band that I know is eligible and worthy is to discuss it and/or post it. I've stated references from and including: Their website (for bio info), Newspapers such as the Boston Globe, the Noise (another music magazine) and a book that's being written about Bands (that includes them alongside bands like Aerosmith and Tool). I feel that those are strong enough references. This is my first article and I'm more than willing to learn to make proper edits to be a part of the community, but I'm asking you to show me some leniency in the writing process and just let me know what I can do better to keep my first article. Thank you for your consideration and helpfulness. Pervezt (talk) 20:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep sorry LSF but I got to say that this has potential, it has sources and it has a deticated editor to maintain it.--Coldplay Expert 21:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepAlthough the origin of this article is in question, the band Living Syndication is a highly legitimate band with a remarkable fan base nationwide (USA.) I am not affiliated with the group, although I am highly aware of their presence in my hometown. The listed sources and citations are correct. Perhaps the article could be cleaned up or re-edited by a third-party who is not affiliated with the band? I believe the article to be beneficial along with the hundreds of other Massachusetts area bands listed in Wikipedia for historical purposes. Please consider this before further action is taken. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pumpkinsong (talk • contribs) 22:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In spite of your statement, you haven't explained how it meets WP:BAND or WP:N. Please do this, and I will change my mind depending on the answer. Just stating that they're legit doesn't mean they're notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The one review seems to be from a NN blog about indy music - though I could be wrong about the NN. Doesn't seem to meet WP:BAND. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have changed the references, to reflect the proper sources. I've also added more notable sources. Could you please reconsider. Thank you.
Chanve !vote to weak keep. The sources given are right about at that line. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Point taken, however, according to your WP:Band section, an ensemble or musician must meet ONE of the criteria points. Number 9 states "Has won or placed in a major music competition." Well, as pointed out, the band competed and WON a national contest sponsored by at&t. A proper citation was given (#5) and this should be taken into consideration. at&t is a major and well known company, and it goes without saying that their contest would draw a notable amount of voters. If this band was declared winner in that said contest, I would argue that they are notable based upon these facts. Please reconsider and thank you once again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pumpkinsong (talk • contribs) 23:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No need to say keep twice. Although I do note that your edit history indicates a connection with one of the references in the article. Do you have a source that the national competition was a "major music competition"? Oh and by the way, please sign your comments on discussion pages by adding ~~~~ at the end noq (talk) 23:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - struck second keep !vote from Pumpkinsong. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not sure if I can find those exact words that the National AT&T Competition was a "major music competition", but I think the fact that it was a National Contest with 1,800 bands and covered by PR Newswire. The band was selected by Atlantic Records and it was out of 1,800 bands. Here's another link I found PR Newswire Release. From everything I've read, this was not a regional contest but a national one, and I am fairly confident that this can be translated to a major music competition. Thanks for your consideration, please let me know if there's something specific other than exact verbiage that I can provide. I've only Googled contest and it's up everywhere, so I know this was a big deal. To respond to Dennisthe2, the review was only one that I looked up online, it's from a magazine called "The Noise" and I've ammended the link to point to the publication's article. Could you please reconsider your vote as a result? Thank you again. Pervezt (talk) 05:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So since the discussion resorts around notability WP:BAND , I looked at what other articles are out there for Living Syndication and also what would satisfy the requirements.

Here they are according to the points they address:

1) They have articles in MULTIPLE non-trivial published works which I have also added to the page (The Lowell Sun, Times of India, Boston Globe, The Noise).

9) Number 9 states that they should have won or placed in a major music competition. A National Competition put on by AT&T where they won against all the other 1,800 contestants should satisfy this requirement as well.

10) Number 10 on the WP:BAND list states that they would have to have a theme song on a network TV show. They had the theme song for the NBC show, CORR (Championship Off Road Racing). I have even included the Youtube video of the theme song. All three of these satisfy the requirements for being a notable band. I have made edits to the Wiki entry to reflect these additions. I would appreciate a re-consideration of your votes considering the criteria has been met. Thank you for your consideration. Pervezt (talk) 06:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Reviewing changes made, I spotted a press release through AT&T - and eliminated that, as it's a press release. The link on rockdirt.com was just a note of somebody from Godsmack going to see them - not notable, it means somebody's gone to see them. The link on Topix says nothing. There was also an album review on The Noise lumped in - and I'm not sure that fits into WP:BAND or WP:ALBUMS, and never have been, so I'll reserve judgement for a second opinion. The only thing I saw that even comes up on it was an intervew with Pervez on DNA India, but again, I'm not sure how that fits into WP:ALBUMS - that would be more for Mr. Pervez, in any event, as it is he that is the subject of the interview, hedging on Living Syndication. I don't think that it's LS' time on Wikipedia yet, so my !vote still stands unless somebody other than a fan (sorry, Pervezt, you have an interest - I really need a disinterested party who will claim something other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:ILIKEIT to convince me) can change my mind. For what it's worth, I have no doubt they're good, though I haven't listened to it - yet for the purpose of AFD, we are required to be objective. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Dennis, the RockDirt article is a snippet from the Boston Herald (a large newspaper), the Toppix link points to a store about them in the Lowell Sun (another large newspaper it's in archives and so I needed a special link for it, which I'll gladly get if that satisfies you). The DNA India article is about the band, and was when the singer was travelling in India promoting the album. The other really valid point here is that they were the theme song for a show on NBC. That's one of the criteria for being notable. I appreciate your objectivity, but in the spirit of factuality they've satisfied the pre-requisite according to the WP:BAND list. Not to mention the major music competition that they won with AT&T. The list says that they must complete at least one of the 10 articles within there, and they've got at least 3 locked, which is why I'm confident that they are notable. For the record, they are incredibly good, and they have a lot of fans that would love to know more about them and their history. People like myself. I cannot be unbiased as I'm the author, but I don't feel that this fact should bar my rational in that regard, please consider what I've listed. They're facts. Two of these alone, to me, definitely could not be disputed and that is that they had a theme song on a major TV network (NBC) and they won a major music competition with Record Labels (Atlantic) and one of the largest phone companies. Don't those qualify the band for notability (good Scrabble word)? Why are we discounting those two facts? Sorry, I'm not trying to be arguementative, I just really thought this was completely solid and according to the list. Pervezt (talk) 19:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've changed my !vote because of the recent changes to the article. Now, I may have missed something here, but having won that competition, doesn't that make them notable. If Atlantic Records was involved, it was nationwide, and had 1,800 bands, I think it's safe to say it's a majot music competition. I believe they also satisfy criteria 10. The sourcing could be better, but doesn't seem to be available at present. After all, our policy is WP:VERIFIABLE, not WP:VERIFIED, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 12:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I would argue that the band meets WP:BAND on point 9 (major competition) and 10 (theme song). There seems to be a good amount of sources out there, and I'm not sure the WP:COI concerns are valid if the editor in question doesn't have any affiliation with the band, as he has stated. Cocytus [»talk«] 03:09, 28 October 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. Staxringold talkcontribs 04:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ju-Ju Clayton[edit]

Ju-Ju Clayton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clayton is the backup quarterback for Virginia Tech and the only source found is entitled, "Is Virginia Tech Quarterback Ju-Ju Clayton almost famous? Not yet". Fails WP:ATH and WP:GNG. Giants27(c|s) 18:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC) *Keep As Creater of the article. Only sources found? What about the other three, there is also this and numerous other Articles with his name on them.--SKATER Speak. 18:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)**Yes his name is in that one, however how is that notable? Clayton tries to make first pass a good one, sounds like someone who hasn't accomplished anything in their college career. While the other sources on the article, are VT bios and game notes, which are not third-party sources.--Giants27(c|s) 18:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I have a very low threshold is for college football player notability, but this one seems to scream out, "I'm not notable -- at least not yet." The guy is a backup quarterback, and the one mainstream third-party media article that is cited about him is titled: "Is Virginia Tech quarterback Ju-Ju Clayton almost famous? Not yet." So even the source cited says he's not yet even almost famous. He may be notable once he establishes himself as a college player, and should that happen, the article can be re-created without prejudice. But he doesn't appear to have established notability yet. Cbl62 (talk) 22:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Actually after thinking about it for a while and going on an hour search for sources, I have to agree he's not notable yet...Hell give it a year or two when he's the starter.


By the way Giants...This Nomination wouldn't have anything to do with the Giants getting killed the Saints would it ;), nah jk...--SKATER Speak. 23:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:P--Giants27(c|s) 23:37, 21 October 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. Icewedge (talk) 01:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aqua's 2010 album[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Aqua's 2010 album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. WP:HAMMER. Few details, sources are from fan sites and recording hasn't even started Wolfer68 (talk) 18:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The recording may not have started yet, but that is because the band announced that they will start recording it in 2010 and they will release it in the same year, so maybe we should just leave the article like this. BulsaraAndDeacon (talk) 03:53, 23 October 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 Bold redirect Nothing to see here; not sure if it even needs to be deleted despite being made by a sock of a banned user. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bank fee[edit]

Bank fee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete per WP:G5. page has been created on 3 April 2008 by Mr. Ambassador, a sockpuppet of Sarsaparilla, although Sarsaparilla is banned since 25 March 2008. page has no substantial edits by other users. Cordyceps2009 (talk) 22:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete andRedirect to Fee#Banking - Bank fees do exist. However, since it was created by a banned user, the page should be deleted and redirected to the noted section. miranda 06:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's no need for banned user paranoia, no need for administrator tools, and really no need for this AFD discussion in the first place. The obvious redirect target is bank charge, which could have been just done, had the nominating account not been a single-purpose account for playing some silly game of nominating for deletion everything ever created, supported, or even touched by Sarsaparilla and Abd. Uncle G (talk) 11:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep over 2000 gnews hits, very notable article on a controversial topic UltraMagnusspeak 13:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is controversial about a bank fee? Are you even on the right AfD? miranda 23:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
you obviously don't live in the UK, here the have been major group lawsuits over what are seen as extortionate bank fees --UltraMagnusspeak 10:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. miranda 03:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5. I believe the nominator is correct in the rationale. However, the article should be deleted for reasons beyond its creator- not least of which that the material is better covered elsewhere. Possibly redirect to bank charge or fee#banking. HJMitchell You rang? 22:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:CSD#G5 may not apply here. It's limited to "Pages created by banned users in violation of their ban having no substantial edits by others. ". This article has had eight edits since it was last touched by the creator in April of this year. Reasonable minds could differ on whether any of these edits were "substantive." I favor a light touch on Speedy Deletes, so I'd err on not applying G5 to this one. TJRC (talk) 18:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 17:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to bank charge; or alternatively fee#banking, as suggested by User:HJ Mitchell. TJRC (talk) 18:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, then allow anybody who wants to to create the redirect. No mercy for the creations of banned users. If the creations of banned users are allowed, this is a disincentive to other users with behavior problems to behave themselves. Abductive (reasoning) 18:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to bank charge. Extensive discussion in US media in recent past sharpens need for article expansion. The suggested section of the fee article is highly opinionated and unsourced (although I pretty much agree with the opinions involved). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Bank charge: I must say this whole deletion debate really disturbs me, as I think it was made for the wrong reasons. However the subject is already covered under another article so I can't very well vote Keep in good concious. Deathawk (talk) 19:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirecting to Bank charge seems reasonable. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 19:40, 21 October 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 Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 01:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Todoyu[edit]

Todoyu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable software Strongyards (talk) 05:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as not notable. There are hundreds of this sort of program, "alpha state", etc., no WP:V sources, it's just soap-boxing. • Anakin (talk) 05:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There exist several different programs in the field of project management. -Many of those are listed in wikipedia (about 107 if i did not miscount) as well (Comparison_of_project_management_software), so why should this be different in this case / which aspect of notability is missing? Arkaydo (talk) 12:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In answer to the question from the creator of the article "which aspect of notability is missing?", what is missing is evidence of third party coverage. I have looked at dozens of Google hits for todoyu. I have seen numerous download sites, some sites that promote or market this software (e.g. The Open Source Marketing Agency), this Wikipedia article, etc, but no sign of any independent coverage. JamesBWatson (talk)

* Delete per nom. UltraMagnusspeak 15:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The software is mentioned in various, serious context. For example:

>You might point out that most of these mentions are in german. But this doesn't meens that they are unimportant. >"Alpha-State": you're right. Nevertheless updates are published weekly on SourceForge.net. A sign that it's pursued seriously. silentsteps (talk) 20:20 MET, 14 October 2009

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 17:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - article does not assert notability. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per the evidence that silentsteps has presented --UltraMagnusspeak 11:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - sources create a presumption of notability per WP:N. As WP:MILL points out, the standard for notability must logically be higher than merely the existence of independent sources, or every suburban restaurant with two reviews would qualify for a page. The defining line must be that the article makes a claim of notability, which the sources then support, and that's not the case here. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Minor trade awards and trade-press coverage fail to show that this software has any historical or technical importance of the kind needed to make it a proper subject for an encyclopedia article. This article is pure sales brochure, containing hardly any information that might show real significance; only a features list and self-praising puffery: It is geared to the needs of SME's, tailored to project-related work and suitable for agencies, consultants, architects or lawyers. Likewise, it is suitable for use in project teams of mid-sized corporations. Other "keep" arguments are essentially me-too, other stuff exists; Wikipedia is not a free web host for sales brochures for every maker of "project management" software. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm with Ihcoyc/Smerdis; there really isn't significant coverage in reliable sources demonstrated here, and I could not find any such coverage when I searched. I have read the German-language sources and I can confirm they're not the kind of coverage that would justify a Wikipedia article.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:56, 28 October 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 to delete. Whpq's point is cogent, though it may not have been fully understood. Per WP:BEFORE, alternatives to deletion should be exhausted before an article is brought here; and since the nominator explicitly stated they would not object to a merge, AfD may not have been the best place for this discussion. NAC—S Marshall Talk/Cont 01:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]

List of non-English generic and genericized trademarks[edit]

List of non-English generic and genericized trademarks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am nominating this to save myself from going into an edit warring, there are several reasons why. As I have stated here that because none of those entries are sourced, I will had made a warning that unless all these are sourced, I will merge that list to the general list for WP:VERIFY reason, which is the first reason of this AfD as none of these was sources. I have attempted to point this out on that talk section linked but nobody bothered to make an objection within some said weeks therefore it means I am entitled to merge it. But some user came and recreated it with sources, which brings me to the second reason why for this nom, a large majority of their entries made very little differences to its English counterpart, apart from the language, which brings me to the third reason that Wikipedia is not a translation guide.

On the other hand, I will not object this to merge to the general list as most of these have reliable sources. Donnie Park (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This seems to be the type of collection of information that does not meet WP's standards for an article. Sorry I can't come up with the exact wording for the policy that would apply.Borock (talk) 17:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although the nomination is made in good faith, the timing couldn't have been worse. The history indicates that in the past month, someone has finally been making an effort to add sources and citations, after years of this being nothing more than a bulletin board of OR. A month ago, there were no cites at all [8]. Normally, I might say "why now?", but I don't think that the nominator would have been aware that someone was busily upgrading this. My feeling is that if an article is in the process of being verified, that's what we want to encourage. Lord knows that we have plenty of articles that are kept because they "could be" (but never are) rescued. Someone's giving this one CPR, it hasn't flatlined yet. Mandsford (talk) 19:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sourced entries could always find a home on that general list. Donnie Park (talk) 19:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am finding difficulty in finding an encyclopedic purpose for such a list. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 19:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially, a genericized trademark becomes part of the vocabulary of a language like any other word, after being coined initially for business usage. As with portmanteau or acronym, there are some linguistic creations that are more readily explained by reference to examples rather than trying to go strictly by a definition. List of generic and genericized trademarks is a good example of a list that started rough, but evolved into something more encyclopedic over the course of time. Mandsford (talk) 20:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the other list and transwiki to wiktionary as an appendix, or something that can be broken out into individual entries, since genericized trademarks are words. 76.66.194.183 (talk) 04:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, lets face it, this nomination is not a Dispute resolution, also what is the point of keeping this list as all it does is nothing but a partially unsourced collection of generic trademarks in other languages, which can be transferred to the main list. Donnie Park (talk) 02:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A merge does not require any article deletion, and in fact requires an article to be kept to maintain contribution history. -- Whpq (talk) 03:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fact, I tried to merge this but it ended up being reverted to its unsourced state a number of times, even if these entries have sources to it, it makes no difference to its general counterpart. If your decision was to keep, what have that list got that is worth keeping, nowt, why, Wikipedia is not a translation guide. Donnie Park (talk) 12:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So if you are having a dispute with a merge with other editors, then it should be taken through dispute resolution. -- Whpq (talk) 13:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you trying to say that list worth saving whether it make absolutely no difference to the generic list or not, I'm sorry but keep is not the decision there. Donnie Park (talk) 19:31, 28 October 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 Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 01:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Superoperator[edit]

Superoperator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note: I am good-faith submitting this for the IP below. Please see Talk:Superoperator, there is consensus for doubt about this page. Otherwise I have no opinion (and no knowledge). tedder (talk) 17:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now three years old but the page still exists. Yes, this term is used in quantum information literature, but it is used in several different meanings. E.g. I think it is also used in the description of dissipative systems. There it denotes general linear mappings between operators. Imho, not having this page in wp is still better than misleading information. 85.127.20.219 (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Argh. Added deletion note, but cannot create the necessary discussion pages. What a shame. If anybody drops by, could he/she please add this (even if you're not convinced)? 85.127.20.219 (talk) 21:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - my reading of the discussion on the article's talk page was a consensus for keep, with no strong arguments for delete other than a suggestion that the term might not be as widely used as the article suggests (which is a cleanup/fact issue, not an AfD issue). - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Superoperator is a common concept in quantum mechanics, particularly quantum information theory. 100,000+ hits on google, 5000+ hits on google scholar. Ϙ (talk) 02:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - (First, thanks to Tedder for helping me.) Already the second entry in google refers to the Liouville operator, which, interestingly, in wp is not called a superoperator. This might be due to the fact, that imho superoperator is ill defined (there is nothing `super' on a superoperator). Even worse I could imagine that superoperator is used in literature on supersymmetry. My reasoning for deletion is based on the following two points
      • Comment - A superoperator is an operator acting on a space of operators. The first sentence of the current article is correct and unambiguous. The prefix super- means above;over;beyond, not great or wonderful, so the name seems appropriate. (Not that that matters as far as WP is concerned.) Ϙ (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply - Yes. But it is just an operator. It is neither above, over, nor beyond anything (though it is a wonderful tool). I now think it would be nice to have an superoperator entry in WP, but make it a redirect to Operator, since it is just a special name for certain kinds of operators and it can be explained in one sentence. 85.127.39.141 (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • the term is used mainly in research articles --- does anyone know a textbook where a clear definition of `superoperator' occurs?
      • Comment - Quantum Computation and Quantum Information by Neilson and Chuang. But the first sentence of the current article is already a clear, textbook definition. Ϙ (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply: That can be considered as a convincing source as far as QI is concerned. However, I guess there it is defined as being a CP map. 85.127.39.141 (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • the current entry is misleading and the changes I have made are only acceptable as an intermediate step before complete deletion. I don't have enough knowledge in order to write even an acceptable stub. In this instance I think no entry is better than a misleading one (but maybe this opinion violates some wired wp guidline). 85.127.39.254 (talk) 07:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This should not be deleted but it should not remain as an article without references and without an expert to make sure it is correct. There is a dictionary def here which seems fairly close to the current state of the article. It does appear in other parts of wikipedia such as SIC-POVM#Superoperator, Internet Relay Chat services#Access levels (As Super-Operator), Quantum tomography#Quantum dynamical maps, Quantum programming#QFC and QPL. As it seems to have more than one meaning it could potentially be made into a disambig page. Polargeo (talk) 07:31, 27 October 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 majority of the keep arguments are by assertion or dont relate to a policy while the delete side are referring to NPOV, V and RS plus citing issues with inclusion criteria and maintainability. Overall the delete side has the policy based arguments on its side Spartaz Humbug! 02:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of criminal organizations[edit]

List of criminal organizations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Much like the List of religious organizations, this is an incomplete and unmaintainable list. I'm not even sure this would be better served by categories as the interpretation of what constitutes a "criminal organization" is debatable. JBsupreme (talk) 16:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep- Trim it, source it, limit it to notable criminal organizations. Nothing wrong with this list that can't be solved with editing. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...and how exactly do you propose that should be done? Exactly. Please note that we have companies like "Enron" mentioned here in this list. This is simply far too general to be useful or serve a purpose. JBsupreme (talk) 17:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't listed a single problem with the article that can't be solved by editing. Just saying "I don't see how it can be done" isn't the same as "It can't be done". Umbralcorax (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...and you have failed to explain how you propose such an inherently POV and ambiguous list should possibly survive on Wikipedia. Editing won't fix the problems here. JBsupreme (talk) 07:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Incomplete or not, this is an ambiguous and non-encyclopedic list which makes it impossible to maintain. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 19:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is what it is, a list of drug cartels, organized crime families, biker gangs, etc. that have articles on Wikipedia. As a navigation aid, it's rather good. In this case, in fact, it has the type of organization that would make it a good addition to the outline of knowledge. In the absence of a similar list that users could refer to in trying to locate groups whose members seem to be on the front side of the handcuffs, this would be a primary reference. Though a list or a category may have problems, "unmaintainable" isn't one of them-- conviction of a crime tends to be rather permanent. Mandsford (talk) 20:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Actually the list can be easily defined as we have with Organized Crime . In that if a company is found to be defined as a grouping of highly centralized enterprise run by criminals for the purpose of engaging in illegal activity, most commonly for the purpose of generating a monetary profit, they can be listed in the category. A great example would be the firm Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC involved with the largest Ponzi scheme ever uncovered by law enforcement. As long as the organization is verified through reliable – 3rd party sources and referenced, there should be no problem here. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 20:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I'm not sure analogy to the organized crime article is good; it's the difference between "organisations that have espoused racist viewpoints" and "organisations of racists", if you appreciate the distinction. One is talking about views officially put forward with the authorisation of the organisation and the other is imparting a characteristic to all members of that organisation. Given that very few organisations publicly declare themselves to have criminal objectives or are found guilty (as an organisation) of crimes, the one version of the list has no content and the other is inherently NPOV. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - per nomination. Also it's inherently defamatory, given that organisations (as opposed to individuals) are very rarely convicted of anything; at the very least it would require a citation on the list page for each and every entry establishing its "criminalness" as found by a court of law. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No list is unmaintainable if people are willing to work on it. . If the sources are good enough, it's not defamatory. The sourcing for this at the moment refers to the linked article, and probably at least one really reliable key source should be added to the list as well for each of them. There have been problems with articles on gangs being added to Wikipedia without good sources, but most of them have I think been deleted and the rest should be if unsourceable. I also think the names of cities where a gang has not yet been added in the category needs to be removed until they are. FWIW, this is a much stronger list at present than List of religious organizations. DGG ( talk ) 01:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it's inherently difficult to maintain because the sources aren't on the list page. Hop Sing Tong for instance, has no claim on its page that the group is a criminal organisation, and Tongs (per their page) aren't inherently criminal organisations. The only way to check that is going into the individual article, its sources, and its underlying definitions, and meanwhile a potentially defamatory listing is standing on the list page. The problem is highlighted by this suggestion - put the word "suspected" in the title (List of suspected criminal organisations) - which then shows how little value (and how legally problematic) the list actually is. We shouldn't be erring on the side of keep when defamation law is an issue. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I really can't see how defamation law is an issue. Are we seriously implying that any of these groups are going to come after Wikipedia? Many of the lesser known groups simply should be removed due to sourcing, but all of these groups are known at least to local populations to be criminal in nature, else they wouldn't of wound up on the list. I understand that the wiki community is always and rightfully very careful not to cross any legal boundaries, I fail to see how this is a real concern here. Beach drifter (talk) 03:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - When a person makes a claim about a person or group of people, and that claim can be taken as casting an imputation on that person or group, a legal claim of defamation may arise. It's not enough to say (or for any indidivual editor to say) "I judge the likelihood of this group or person bringing action as very low". Either the claim has merit - in which case you will be able to find independent reliable sources who make that claim, which you can then cite - or the claim does not have merit, in which case it has no place on Wikipedia. The term "criminal organisation" is problematic because it implies that members of the organisation are themselves criminals, which it's almost impossible to make out (and cite) with respect to each individual member. We'd be better off with the separate lists "List of Tongs", "List of Triads", "List of Mafia families" etc, because (in most places) being in a Tong, Triad, or family with connections to the Mafia is not, in and of itself, illegal or defamatory. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If we are going to be technical about it, I feel that there are several reasons that simple inclusion on a list with the word "criminal" in the title could not be considered defamatory. One, the "criminal" claim would have to be proved false. Two, it must be proved that inclusion on the list was due to malicious intent, and three, that the wikipedia community was making public private facts about the group. Again, proper sourcing would alleviate all of these issues. I can only refer to my earlier point, which is to delete unreferenced material, which I think is a great policy wiki-wide. I still argue that defamation is not an issue here for the above reasons, the legal definition of the term shows that it is much more than simply attributing negative connotations to a group, whether justly or not. Beach drifter (talk) 05:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - check WP:BURDEN. If an editor wants to put someone on a list of "criminals", the onus is on them to provide sources establishing it. For contentious or extraordinary claims a high stand of verifiability is required; generally the accepted standard for allegations of criminal activity is a finding of guilt in a court of law. Very few laws allow for the prosecution of organisations at a criminal level, hence the difficulty with the phrase "criminal organisation", as there would be very few cases where each and every member of an organisation has independently been found guilty of a crime associated with membership. (There are, by the way, no references in the list, so normally I'd just go ahead and boldly delete every entry on it, but that's not in accordance with the policy or spirit of AfD.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This list has value. I agree strongly it is problematic, but it is not non-encyclopedic, and I would definitely disagree that it is defamatory, when a group is widely know to the public to be criminal in nature, we needn't worry about convictions, not that groups of these types even can be convicted. It has navigation value, as stated above. It is not unworthy of wikipedia simply because no one has put time into fixing the sourcing issues, also as stated above. Per wikipedia policy, if something isn't sourced, remove it. Following that would definitely address some of the issues with this list. Beach drifter (talk) 03:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Defined inclusion crieteria for the list. There is no deadline to fix it. Lugnuts (talk) 06:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - inherently POV. "Criminal" in what jurisdiction? --Scott Mac (Doc) 08:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep,reorganise them in the order of notability or other criteria.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 11:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DustFormsWords and Doc. Inherently POV and overly broad. Maintainable if people are willing to work on it (which apparently they aren't) or not, this list is a mess. Most entries aren't cited, many of them probably couldn't be. Criminal families according to who? The FBI or the local newspapers? This isn't one of those things that if a few sources claim it, we get to run with it. And as DustFormsWords pointed out, some of the articles linked in this list aren't sourced. If anything, this list should be split up into more specific lists, and all entries then sourced. Lara 12:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No amount of editing can alter the fact that this list is inherently non-neutral. The definition of "criminal organization" is much too broad and subjective for this list to ever be useful. Kevin (talk) 23:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agreed there is a lot of BS entries and it could use improvement. Not so much though that it deserves to be deleted. There ought to be a list on Wikipedia of all the various mafias and other similiar groups. Most articles can be sourced in some way (I would know, I went around sourcing a bunch of Yakuza articles a while ago). Nicknackrussian (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Well done and organized list. No POV if "criminal" is going to be taken as recognized officially as such by the host country(ies). As UmbralCorax said, no problem here that can't be solved by editing. --Cyclopia - talk 13:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Most of it can be easily sourced Callmarcus (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as inherently POV. Different things are regarded as criminal by different countries. Hamas is considered a terrorist group in the United States, but is a legitimate political party in Palestine. Per Kevin; "The definition of "criminal organization" is much too broad and subjective for this list to ever be useful." At best, this article should be split into "List of organizations that the United States government regards as criminal", etc. (with a better title, obviously). NW (Talk) 22:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for defining strict and NPOV criteria for inclusion and, if necessary, rename the list. But all these problems can be solved by editing, without deletion. --Cyclopia - talk 00:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hamas is involved in illegal cigarette smuggling and other rackets in addition to being a political/terrorist group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.27.35 (talk) 00:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - How is this a less unallowably POV article than "List of criminal skin colours" or "List of criminal religions"? It consists of imputing the conduct of organisation members - even large numbers of members, and even high ranking members - onto the organisation as a whole and all its members. The only way of making it legitimate is to make it organisations defined as criminal by legislation (for some countries do have such legislation), and then sorting it by nation and and by legislative enactment. I'd point out there's very, very few such enactments worldwide and an exceptionally short list of organisations so nominated. - DustFormsWords (talk) 12:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I think we are talking of two different things. One thing is an organization with many criminal members, another is an organization which uses possibly criminal means for non-criminal purposes (like a "terrorist" group), and still another is an organization which is created for the purpose of crime, like Mafia. I'd say that we should restrict the list to the latter. This doesn't require the organization to be defined criminal by legislation -it is enough to be widely recognized in sources as such and only such. But again, even if this is useful discussion, that's no reason to delete the list, only to trim it and make it better. --Cyclopiatalk 12:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's worthing noting that members of the Mafia don't refer to themselves as Mafia; that's a term created by the government and the media with the inherent meaning of "criminal". Saying that the Mafia is a criminal organisation is like saying that drug rings are a criminal organisation - it's true by definition but no particular person identifies themselves as being part of such an organisation. It's problematic when you get into naming specific organisations - like Tongs, for example - that claim to be non-criminal. It's a disputed fact that they're a criminal organisation, and it's not possible to cite sources to back it up because of the very few laws that criminally prosecute organisations rather than individuals - you simply can't get the necesary standard of evidence (ie finding by a court of law). - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get it. It's fairly obvious that Mafia members are perfectly aware of being Mafia members (even if they can call their organization with different terms, like cosa nostra),so I don't think I get your point. Anyway to me it is relatively straightforward: if different RS call nonbiasedly such an organization criminal, and the organization has no other clear purpose than that of crime, that's it. --Cyclopiatalk 00:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as an example, do you have a source for "Mafia members are perfectly aware of being Mafia members"? The issue here is you're confusing popular wisdom - "everyone knows", "perfectly obvious", "clearly criminal" - with facts that are verifiable by independent reliable sources, which is the only thing that Wikipedia is interested in. If you look through the list we're talking about, every organisation on it except the Mafia either makes no claim of being a criminal organisation, or contains the words "alleged" or "suspected" - and this isn't a list of "alleged criminal organisations" or "suspected criminal organisations. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not confusing and I'm not talking of popular wisdom. As for the sources about the mafia, well, it's enough to read any transcript from any Mafia turncoat, like Tommaso Buscetta for example; see for another example this book which describes for example that there is, indeed, an affiliation ritual for the Mafia. Second, I don't understand why you insist in the fact that the organization must acknowledge itself as such -what counts is that reliable and not blatantly biased sources define it as such. I would endorse a rename to "List of alleged criminal organizations" for sure. Third, it is anyway not true that such organization are only "alleged" or "suspected". The Medellín Cartel, for example, just looking into the first links in the list, is pretty much proven to be such. Again: the list has problems that can resolved by editing, consensus on criteria and, if necessary, renaming. None of these things are deletion. Deletion policy says: If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. --Cyclopiatalk 01:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Pretty much proven" does not equal "proven". You're making a fallacy of composition; the fact that a large number of members of, say, the Medellin Cartel committed criminal acts does not make it a criminal organisation; it makes it an organisation many members of which were criminals. (That article is problematic in itself in that most of the assassinations ascribed to the Cartel are supported by sources that don't make any claim of who was responsible, merely that an assassination occurred.) The real danger here is confusing viewpoints that are eminently reasonable at a common sense level (eg, on any reasonable reading the Cartel clearly was established for criminal purposes) with viewpoints that can be backed up by reliable secondary sources - and a check of the sources in the Cartel article shows that none claim the organisation was established for criminal purposes, despite how apparently obvious that may seem. The somewhat naive reading that the Cartel was formed for defence against (illegal) guerilla kidnappers is actually better supported by the sources. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a synthesis on my part, nor a fallacy of composition. Just check Google Books for "medellin+cartel+"criminal organization"" for an example of several sources clearly declaring the organization as such. --Cyclopiatalk 01:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
... which illustrates the problem. Those sources uniformly say "considered by many to be" and "possibly" and "alleged to be", which is fine for a wording that can go in the Cartel article but not sufficient for it to appear on a list of criminal organisations. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By further analogy, if you found a right-wing newspaper who described homosexuality as evil, a history text that described Adolf Hitler as evil, and a prime-time news story that described Islam as evil, it still wouldn't enable you to start a list called "List of things that are evil" and put homesexuality, Hitler and Islam on it. For certain subjects, it's simply not possible to establish objective truth no matter how many sources you have. In articles that's okay because the depth of an article allows for many viewpoints to be presented. In lists it's not okay because there's no room for that debate on the list page - it's binary. The appearance of an article on the list says, "This article belongs on the list", and there's no room for the line that says, "But these other sources say it doesn't." - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Read the sources well. The "considered to be" wording is consistently referred to the cartel possibly being the "most powerful" or "largest" criminal organization, not to the fact that it was a criminal organization.
Your analogy is also a straw man. "Evil" cannot be objectively defined. "Criminal organization" instead can be: it is an organization consensually considered as existing for the purpose of crime (where "crime"=against the law of the jurisdictions where the organization is predominantly operating). You have a point in saying that, if the organization status as criminal is disputed (as can be for many cases), it doesn't belong to the list, or it has at least to be clearly declared that is alleged as such by a certain faction. But this doesn't mean that there are a lot of well-sourced and consensual organizations that can be described as such. --Cyclopiatalk 12:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can't we solve all the above concerns by sticking one of our "weasel words" tags at the top of the article so the public knows what it's getting? --CliffC (talk) 12:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Purists could ask the title to include 'alledged' or 'presumed' but the article does cover a broad brush of well known and well sourced 'criminal' organizations--Jemesouviens32 (talk) 13:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, adding "alleged" or "presumed" does not give us a free pass to create controversial WP:BLP offensive titles to articles (or lists) in this encyclopedia. JBsupreme (talk) 23:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • BLP? What has to do BLP with that? While you explain that, please remember that the WP:BLP policy includes WP:WELLKNOWN. --Cyclopiatalk 23:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Cyclopia, I'm not sure how to say this politely... but half of the arguments you've been making in recent deletion debates have been... wrong as far as interpreting relevant policy and/or guidelines go. I have no further response to make to you, sorry. JBsupreme (talk) 01:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The feeling is absolutely reciprocal. --Cyclopiatalk 02:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. When Wikipedia can't have a list of criminal organizations for apparent BLP concerns, we know that editors focussing on BLP concerns are going too far. I fail to see the BLP concern of listing well-known criminal organizations together. Nearly all are blue links, so it should be well within our capabilities to directly source this list rather than relying on sources in the linked articles as we do now. I'd not oppose splitting the article, but that's something that can be decided away from AfD. If incomplete is a criterion for deletion we need to nuke the whole site from orbit. 'Unmaintainable' is subjective and defeatist - it's been said of the whole of Wikipedia, but we struggle on nonetheless. Fences&Windows 04:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DustFormsWords and Doc. Not encylopedic at all. Pmlineditor ∞ 18:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was going to close this, but decided it might be best to let another admin do it instead. Looking through the debate, it seems many users feel this article fails our neutrality policy; obviously, this concern is too significant to ignore. However, it seems that many of those in favor of keeping this page do, in fact, ignore that argument. A few fail to provide any sort of substantial rationale for their thinking—naturally these votes were given less weight during my evaluation of the discussion. That aside, it seems to me that the general feeling amongst the 'keep' voters is that the list can be well-sourced. Whilst this is a valid opinion, a well-sourced page can still be POV. As such, it seems that the neutrality concerns have not been refuted. This is a rather close call, but if consensus, even if by a small margin, suggests that a piece of content doesn't adhere and very important policies, it's too significant to ignore. All things considered, I feel that deletion is the most appropriate outcome in this situation. Just my $0.02. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I can see that there are some articles listed which can be seen as P.O.V. (for example the Hell's Angels or Tongs, they are not necessarily criminal as such despite the presence of many criminals can make it seem as such), there is almost no doubt that say the Mafia IS a criminal organization by anyones definition, being identified as such by law enforcement [9], news sources[10] and pretty much everyone else[11]. In addition legislative sources may be used to specifically designate a criminal group, for example anti-gang injunctions, Japanese 'boryokudan' laws, American RICO laws, the Italian crime of 'Mafia association', etc. Most prison or street gangs (Bloods, Crips) take crime to be part of their identity so by their OWN definition are criminal, even without using news or law enforcement sources! I fail to see how this article will violate neutrality policy if some editing and sourcing or possibly even article splitting is done. Nicknackrussian (talk) 19:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Surely if consensus cannot be arrived at then it should be closed as no consensus? I'm surprised that a closer would be convinced by the delete arguments as they assert that this list is "non-encylopedic" or "inherently non-neutral" without convincingly explaining why. To address the neutrality argument I find the idea that Wikipedia is incapable of listing criminal organizations to be scarcely believable. Individual entries may be disputed, but this does not damn the whole concept of categorisation involved here. The vast majority of organizations listed here will not be credibly disputed to be criminal by reliable sources. That's what we take our lead from. If you're worried about organizations in some oppressive regime being labelled as criminal, last time I checked the propaganda of oppressive regimes isn't considered to be a reliable source. There was no effort made before deletion to source, define, or split the article, and we should try that before binning the content. Fences&Windows 22:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Information that is valuable as a source itself, such as having all criminal organizations listed in one place,
  2. it allows for easy navigation, for easy reading, and
  3. it allows for easy development of new articles by red links, which can be maintained with a bit of work. I think it can be shown that this list works for all three purposes. To prevent such a list from becoming a troll magnet, someone has to volunteer to watch it. I have 300 pages on my watch list, and my head has not fallen off. Yet. Bearian (talk) 01:00, 29 October 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. Spartaz Humbug! 02:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shared[edit]

Shared (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see the notability here. Being hard to read doesn't hep either. Myspace doesn't count as a reliable source, so it fails there too. Wizardman 16:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Common name doesn't help in searching for notability, but the only thing I found was linked in the article already. That article alone doesn't establish enough notablity, delete RandomTime 17:58, 21 October 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. Those advocating keeping the article didn't make it clear why it should be kept. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wave strategy[edit]

Wave strategy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about a neologism coined in a book that was published last year. There is no evidence that this term exists outside of this book or the Munich Business School. The book itself has been spammed recently on Wikipedia, which drew attention to this article. The article was deleted recently via proposed deletion, but was restored after a request from an anonymous IP at deletion review who claimed, "Futher studies at the Munich Business School have showed that this strategy gets actually used by 15 per cent of Small and Medium sized businesses as a market entry strategy." Delete this article, and the related article Sprinkler strategy as attempts to market a non-notable book.

I am also nominating the following related article as stated above:

Sprinkler strategy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- Atama頭 15:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Atama, yes I have heard of that study as well. However the Wave Strategy is quite important. Since I would guess that it is even more than 15% that actually use this strategy when they go abroad. They often simply don't know the name. I am teaching international business at the FOM University in Hamburg, Germany and I was mainly working on this article to improve some internationalisation strategies on Wikipedia. I have students working on different papers and most of them should include the wave strategy at some point. Well, this is my oppinion. I am not very well in programming on Wikipedia, thus my articles might need some cleanup and I am sorry for that. But I am only making contributions where I really think that they should be included on Wikipedia. I would hate to see this article beeing deleted. — comment added by Raid008 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh and I jsut saw that the book "Market Entry Strategies" by C. Lymbersky is on the spam list. I am afraid that is my fault as well. I am was probably a bit to entusiastig about putting references on some articles. Due to my work i am used to referencing every statement that i make. I will deliete a couple of these references and put others in stead. It is not my intention to promote any certain book, even though i think this particular one is very good, but I will put others instead thus it should not be misunderstood in the future. Could you remove that book from the spam list. the same with the article "sprincler strategy" this is really very whidly used timeing strategy in international business together with the waterfall strategy Thanks Atama. Cheers, Raid008 — comment added by Raid008 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - "...important..." - WP can't assess importance. It can only assess what is or is not covered in generally wp:reliable sources. Here, we have a subject that appear interesting but not wp:notable. The press and broader academic community appears disinterested. When either becomes interested in the subject, perhaps it will be appropriate for WP. But not yet. If there is broader coverage of this concept, now would be a good time to present it. :) - Sinneed 05:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both articles Bookshops have literally hundreds of books where someone has developed a new buzzword with suitable language to convince the gullible that this latest fashion is really important. The only way we have to distinguish between such buzzwords and notable topics is to rely on reliable sources. The topics in these two articles do not have such secondary sources. Johnuniq (talk) 07:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as for reasons meantioned above. @Johnuniq: I am sure that everybody has some knowledge of some areas. But yours is clearly not "International Business". If you would know anything about international business, you would know that the Sprinkler Strategy apears in pretty much every international business textbook. Don't think we should allow people to get a vote that don't understand the topic at all. In literature there are two main timing strategies the Waterfall & the Sprinkler Strategy. If one does not know eather one of them, he/she should not write comments about topics that they don't understand. I don't mean this personal, but from my oppion, people that comment about something they demonstrated to have very little knowledge of, are a bigger threat to wikipedia than people that are speciallist in an area and contribute articles that are relevant, but not as known. Raid008 (talk) 11:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Just to note, this isn't a vote, it's a discussion and what counts is a reasoned justification to keep or delete these articles. What would help you is to give a reason why this subject meets inclusion criteria at WP:N. Saying "don't think we should allow people to get a vote that don't understand the topic at all" goes against our deletion discussion criteria, and I assure you that attacking the competence of other editors in this discussion is going to be counter-productive. -- Atama頭 15:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, I am sorry it came out a bit disrespectful @Johnuniq: I crossed a line, it was really not personal or an attack. I am sure that in general you agree with me. Raid008 (talk) 22:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I consider both articles quite important. In fact I am actually disapointed to find only these three here. There are a few more that should be on Wikipedia such as the North-South Strategy or the Bridgehead strategy. I find especially the Wave Strategy Article very well written. in my eyes there is nothing wrong with it. A lot of poeple have contributed to this article, including me. I am sure there will be more references, but I see already three or four. I whish every article would have that many! BredMiller —Preceding undated comment added 10:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

-> added: 13:28 22 October 2009: I have added two more references to the wave strategy, one from the Government of Dubai proposing the wave strategy in their "Guide to Export" and an other one from the York University. I am sure there can be more, but hey, this should be enough now. @Raid008: If you could add some more references to the Sprinkler Strategy this deletion thing should be off the table. Especially since we have now established that this article is not about advertising a book or something. I also took the name C. Lymbersky out of the article, that there wont be any confusion in the future. BredMiller

The University of Adelaide, Australia teaches the Market Entry Strategy as well. I am 100 per cent sure that this gets tought in pretty much every class that teaches market entry strategies. Somebody who knows Market Entry strategies form uni, also know the Wave Strategy and the Sprinkler Strategy. I also added an other link to where the Wave Strategy is suggested by Global Equations in their Annual Magazin. Ending up with about 7 references, that should do it. ;) Chris008 (talk) 12:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC) An other link for the Sprinkler Strategy: http://www.rainerbusch.de/mo_13_imstrategies.htm#Timing Strategies[reply]

  • commentWell, I think it is clear now that we should keep the article. There are reliable resources and I think the disscussion showes that it is a notable article. There are far less notable articles here with only one or two references. This one has some pretty good references now and considering that this is one of the most important timing strategies in Market Entries, it is clearly notable. The 'promoting a book' thing is off the table as well. Sure maybe we can add more references in the future and there are clearly a couple people working on this article here, thus there will be more comming up, but what we have already is pretty good and better than average here on Wikipedia. After all, why should we discourage users to spend time on contiuesly creating and edtiting articles if they get deleted, because seven reliable reference and this beeing part of the curiculum of many universities, is not enough for inclusion on Wikipedia?! I think it is, and I am sure the others will keep working on this article as well. BredMiller (talk) 11:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - No, it's not clear at all. The only people arguing to keep the article have done so without giving any actual evidence for their claims. The sources added don't meet the criteria at WP:RS, and without meaning offense to any of you, your participation in Wikipedia has only been to promote these concepts, and I was originally made aware of these articles due to conflict of interest complaints from those who have created them. As I said before, Wikipedia is not the place to promote book sales, or to try to spread the word about neologisms. -- Atama頭 18:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There appear to be three closely-related topics: Market entry strategy, Sprinkler strategy, Wave strategy, and there are three users recommending "keep" (BredMiller, Chris008, Raid008) who edit mainly in these topics. There are many online financial publications, and since none have been cited to support the notability of these terms I think the very incidental comments in the linked pdf and munich-business-school.de link are not sufficient to keep these articles. Johnuniq (talk) 00:52, 25 October 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frozen baby case[edit]

Frozen baby case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was a news event, not an encyclopedic topic. Damiens.rf 15:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Not just a news event forgotten as time goes by. The incident is still referred to as a high achievement of South Korean criminal investigation, and related to infant murder. So I think this article deserves its own article.--Caspian blue 15:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. News, that's all. Szzuk (talk) 16:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)'[reply]
  • Delete immediately. If I want news I'll go head over to WikiNews. WOW WE ALREADY HAVE A WIKINEWS IMAGINE THAT. JBsupreme (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most articles about murder on Wikipedia are published via NEWS MEDIDA, WOW I DID NOT KNOW THAT.--Caspian blue 16:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. —Caspian blue 16:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —Caspian blue 16:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Caspian blue 16:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Freezer Babies case. I don't read Korean or French, but searching "Veronique Courjault" reveals significant coverage that fulfills WP:GNG and WP:N/CA. WP:NOT#NEWS refers to "routine news coverage" which is not what this case has received. A brief look at GNews indicates that this story has received widespread international coverage; not just in South Korea and France, but also in the UK, the US, Turkey, Malta, etc.[12]. Location (talk) 17:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC) [edited 14:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)][reply]
  • Keep per Location. Substantial international news coverage over an extended period of time, thus passing WP:N/CA. Moreover the case has had effects beyond the crime itself: Mazarine Pingeot was accused of exploiting the case in one of her novels ([13], [14]). --Chris Johnson (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable per substantial coverage in reliable sources and continuing relevance and reference being made to the event. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with possible name change? It's a bit too generic of a name to be on en.wiki. Forgive me for a lack of suggestions, though :-) Tan | 39 00:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Freezer Babies Case In line with policy the detail in this article seems notable enough for a keep, even though quite frankly it is a poorly written article with very little detail and in agreement with Tan - it needs to be renamed, firstly because the name is too generic, but secondly because it isn't accurate - Frozen Baby Case refers to the singular, and even the references refer to the case as Freezer Babies Case - given there were two infants.--VirtualSteve need admin support? 05:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I know this is indeed poorly written with not much details, but the title was named as such after examined on how English sources called the incident. It is not my invention..--Caspian blue 05:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Still it could be changed in line with the English reference provided couldn't it?--VirtualSteve need admin support? 05:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, since I have to rely on native English speakers' help in the end (copyediting etc), I'm open to all suggestions for the renaming.--Caspian blue 05:57, 22 October 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 by forwardslash backslash citing this discussion. Spartaz Humbug! 02:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 NSW Premier League results[edit]

2009 NSW Premier League results (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Excessive detail for the results of a domestic football season, thus a violation of WP:NOT#IINFO. Content is sufficiently avaiable at 2009 NSW Premier League season. Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 11:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 11:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - content is already covered in an existing article, no reason for a seperate one. GiantSnowman 11:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - doesn't warrant a separate article Spiderone 12:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. This information doesnt need a seperate article. Eddie6705 (talk) 15:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - 2 numbers showing a result does not cover as being sufficient, when detailed results are. SuperSam,, (talk) 04:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is overkill. – PeeJay 10:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above - excessive detail -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:37, 21 October 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 Aardman Animations. Spartaz Humbug! 02:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aardman Classics[edit]

Aardman Classics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of this article is a non-notable and long out-of-print DVD, and most of the films featured on it do not have entries of their own because they are so obscure and it doesn't look like anybody will ever come along and create them because of this fact. In addition, the article was created by now indefinitely-blocked User:I Hate That Small Claymation Sheep, who was exposed as a sock puppet of banned User:I Hate That Fat Claymation Sheep in violation of his ban two months ago. Skcusnoitaredefgniltserwbmuht (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion. There is nothing non-notable about this, and in fact I'm watching it tonight with friends, and that's why I chanced upon this article. This Request for Deletion is just frivolous. The work is by an Oscar-winning animator. Do not delete. Possibly merge with Aardman Animations. -- Evertype·✆ 22:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The work is not just by one Oscar-winning animator, it is by at least ten of them - but like the films, most of them do not have entries of their own on this encyclopedia. However, if there is no good reason to delete this article (even if it was created by a banned user in violation of his ban), I would support a merge with the main Aardman Animations article. Skcusnoitaredefgniltserwbmuht (talk) 11:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/Merge to Aardman Animations, expand "selected" list in that article to complete, use asterisk to indicate which productions are not included in this DVD. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as far too obscure to warrant a redirect; most of the content isn't notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Aardman Animations. Fits into the history of the company. Can be easily identified within listings. andyminicooper (talk) 19:58, 21 October 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)--Krazycev 13 other crap 21:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agraceful[edit]

Agraceful (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

My speedy deletion was declined, so I bring it here. I believe that Agraceful do not meet notability. Opinions?--Krazycev 13 20:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How don't they meet notability? 1)They've played with some of the biggest bands in their genres and been on some pretty huge tours 2) here is another source 3)They have been played continually on Radiou 4)They have over 2 million views on myspace, and 34,000 friends (not a real way to classify notability, but still...) GaudiumInVeritate (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an audio stream from RadioU with Chris being interviewed. GaudiumInVeritate (talk) 21:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, there is no copyright violation, even if there was a copy and paste from last.fm, as that website can be edited by anyone. If you look at both sources currently on the article, you will see that they provide ample information to back up the current configuration of the article. GaudiumInVeritate (talk) 21:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Gaudium, I didn't mention copyright infingement in this nomination. I did at a time, but not now.--Krazycev 13 other crap 16:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep please see WP:BAND. I have provided one of the requirements: "Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network." I merely mentioned the copyright information, because I saw the last.fm page and noticed it was a copy/paste. GaudiumInVeritate (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless verified The only sources provided for this article's are primary sources, and therefor do not count towards as reliable sources towards the notability guideline. A search yields plenty of results, but if i start seeing Habbo Hotel at page two and The Pirate Bay at page 3 i have little faith that searching further will reveal reliable sources. Unless the articles notability claims can be verified trough reliable sources i am voting delete. The inclusion criteria is after all Verifiability, not truth.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Excirial (talk • contribs)
  • Delete unless verified as noted by Excirial there are Google hits but most are to primary sources or those which would otherwise be defined as unreliable. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 19:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why everyone is saying delete, I provided the proof of notablility per WP:Band. GaudiumInVeritate (talk) 19:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network." The station only plays in Columbus, Ohio so it fails WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 20:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true. The station plays many places in besides Columbus, Ohio. If you actually look on the RadioU website which I previous provided, you will see that there are stations in all of Central Ohio, Miami Valley, Central Coast, Seattle, Okalahoma City, and broadcasted on SkyAngel nationally in the form of TVU (which Agraceful's music video has appeared on). GaudiumInVeritate (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I personally believe that Gaudium is right. I was overlooking a few factors. RadioU is in several areas, as he stated. If possible, I think this AfD should be withdrawen. I realize my nomination mistake.--Krazycev 13 other crap 21:17, 21 October 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. Spartaz Humbug! 02:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 2005 in Hong Kong and Macao[edit]

April 2005 in Hong Kong and Macao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I really don't see how this article is notable enough to have its own page, it should be deleted or at the very least merged with the main event by month page; i.e. April 2005
I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same WP:N reason:

January 2005 in Hong Kong and Macao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
February 2005 in Hong Kong and Macao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
December 2004 in Hong Kong and Macao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Tavatar (talk) 05:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
March 2005 in Hong Kong and Macao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (missed one)Tavatar (talk) 02:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks very much like a Wikinews-ish feed, which isn't appropriate here - and some of the entries were never updated as they happened (see April 2005, for example). Are there other articles for the remaining months? It's possible that an article 2005 in Hong Kong and Macao would be worthwhile as a summary, esp. if notable things took place during that year. If the author(s?) were still working on it, or the following months, then userfication might be an option as well - but the creator, User:J3ff, has not edited since July. So, absent another option, I'd have to say delete. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 16:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all such articles. WP is not a newspaper. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above. WP:SNOW close. Bearian (talk) 01:02, 29 October 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. Spartaz Humbug! 02:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biciromab brallobarbital[edit]

Biciromab brallobarbital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources found, despite an effort at WT:PHARM#Monoclonal antibodies revisited. The discussion at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive171#Mass of hoax biology stubs gives a source, but that is broken. Furthermore, there is no content: All the information in the article can be derived from the drug's name or from the article about biciromab. ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nothing in PubMed, one patent found in Scholar, but that isn't a reliable source. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hard to verify, no easily accessible sources that might explain why this patented compound might become useful (a barbiturate that sticks to fibrin??) JFW | T@lk 09:55, 23 October 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 Humanx Commonwealth. Spartaz Humbug! 02:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blasusarr[edit]

Blasusarr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable fictional planet, no source is given. JL 09 q?c 16:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:38, 21 October 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 Humanx Commonwealth. Spartaz Humbug! 02:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bran Tse-Mallory[edit]

Bran Tse-Mallory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable fictional planet, no source is given. JL 09 q?c 16:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, merge or redirect Sigh, I thought we got all of these on yesterday's AfD. Simonm223 (talk) 20:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Not to a list of planets, since this is also a character. I think the deletion reason was just copy/pasted for a list of fictional entities from Foster's series. InitHello (talk) 03:53, 22 October 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. MuZemike 20:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BuyWithMe[edit]

BuyWithMe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is promotional in nature, company is just a startup and lacks notability. Eeekster (talk) 08:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I declined a WP:CSD#G11 on this, but it does not seem to pass WP:CORP specifically significant coverage form secondary sources. A couple of press releases does not, IMHO, count as independent coverage. Pedro :  Chat  08:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO they are notable competitor. They are present in 3 cities, groupon in 10. Group buying is a new category, quite interesting to follow. Would love to see more companies added.

Multiple external media . Please review

You tube is not a reliable source. The examiner, I believe, has user generated content and the whole article on that site is a puff piece. The Boston pieces are self referencing. These are not reliable secondary sources. Pedro :  Chat  09:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually see the video on Youtube? It is from a news channel in washigton. . Pedro —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedro.tudela (talk • contribs) 09:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and clean up/rewrite The Boston Globe, QSR Magazine, FOX, and the Boston Herald satisfy WP:RS. Youtube is not a reliable source, however the Washington news channel IS, so the citation would be to the news channel piece, not youtube. Whether the video copy from youtube could or could not be included as a convenience is debatable, but if it causes problems it can be left out entirely with the reference simply to the original news piece itself. News is news, whether written or broadcast. Also, Pedro, please sign your comments by adding 4 tildes to the end of your post (EDIT: I mean User:Pedro.tudela, not User:Pedro). <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 23:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Multixfer there are enough sources here to justify the article, I guess. JBsupreme (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although several of the sources provided by Pedro.tudela (talk · contribs) are passing mentions, two of the sources are sufficient. The sources are this article from the Boston Herald and this article from QSR Magazine. After looking through Google News Archive, I found this article from San Diego Business Journal. These sources are enough to justify inclusion of this company. Cunard (talk) 21:58, 21 October 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. Staxringold talkcontribs 04:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Horseye[edit]

Horseye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable fictional planet, no source is given. JL 09 q?c 16:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable fictional element that hasn't received any coverage. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a minor entity which hasn't recieved significant coverage in multiple, third-party sources. ThemFromSpace 00:03, 25 October 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. Kevin (talk) 08:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Florence[edit]

James Florence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

College basketball player: falls well short of inclusion standard at WP:ATHLETE. Speedy deletion tag removed, but IMO clearly a speedy candidate. I42 (talk) 09:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:39, 21 October 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 delete arguments are far more convincing in this debate. Kevin (talk) 05:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremiah David Heaton[edit]

Jeremiah David Heaton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable enough. Certainly fails WP:POLITICIAN. Rd232 talk 20:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - member of board of supervisors is not normally significant enough an office to rate WP:POLITICIAN. Bearian (talk) 23:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep . Jeremiah Heaton is a Federal United States Congressional candidate. As a legitimate political figure seeking public office the listing should remain. He represents my Congressional District and I would be willing to bet NONE of the editors on Wikipedia are aware of how well known Mr. Heaton is within the 9th Congressional District of Virginia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawntullis (talk • contribs) 03:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia should be interesting in documenting all information that is legitimate for public consumption. Mr. Heaton is a candidate who is registered with the Federal Election Commission. He is not a teenager running for student council. Mr. Heaton should clearly meet the criteria for legitimacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.104.128.37 (talk) 03:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: two IPs, 99.197.64.56 (talk · contribs) and 75.105.0.52 (talk · contribs) removed the nomination and the two delete !votes from the page. It has been reverted. Tim Song (talk) 04:38, 28 October 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 20:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Karlee Perez[edit]

Karlee Perez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't satisfy WP:ATHLETE, as she only has competed in WWE's farm team, Florida Championship Wrestling. Doesn't have any third party sources to help establish notability. Nikki♥311 20:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to the lack of third party coverage needed to establish notability of this biographical article. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 20:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- ISLANDERS27 09:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Poorly sourced stub and no claim to notability. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 07:05, 28 October 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Hodges[edit]

Ken Hodges (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN. Rd232 talk 18:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Being a candidate for a notable office does not make one notable. Come election time, it's always interesting to see the SPAs battle over what content should be added and what should be removed: [15]. Location (talk) 19:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:POLITICIAN.

  • Subject is not just a candidate for office, also a former office-holder as District Attorney in Georgia from 1996-2008. The office of District Attorney is notable under WP:POLITICIAN since it covers a large metropolitan area in Georgia. Further, subject meets criteria in substantial press coverage as District Attorney.[1]
  • Also, subject's candidacy has received substantial media coverage [2]. and has attracted the attention of major Georgia politicians (UN Ambassador Andrew Young, Fmr. Chief Justice of GA Supreme Court)[3]
  • Disclosure: I created this page.
  1. ^ Press Releases
  2. ^ Atlanta Constitution Journal Search
  3. ^ Sears endorsing Hodges for attorney general
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Peach State Politics (talk • contribs) 20:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The DA's office is not "inherently notable" under WP:POLITICIAN #1 as it is not a "first-level sub-national political office". The DA in Dougherty County, Georgia or Albany, Georgia also does not meet #2 which refers to "major local political figures" in "major metropolitan cities". In my opinion, "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" in #3 refers to coverage of a broader scope that would take this beyond WP:NOT#NEWS and blogs. Location (talk) 20:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response I agree that the DA's office is not a "first level sub-national political office defined under, WP:POLITICIAN, but I am confused as to the rejection of the DA's office in Dougherty County, Georgia as insignificant. The DA's office represented "95,693" citizens, certainly not a minuscule number, considering that most elected officials in the state legislature represent smaller populations.[1] I would certainly cede the point if this elected official was a minor town official, but instead the subject represented numerous communities, with almost 100,000 citizens. Since Wikipedia offers guidelines on these issues, not strict policies, can we come to a consensus that the guidelines in WP:POLITICIAN are meant to prevent small, localized politicians from creating pages, not to inhibit larger, metropolitan-area wide officials from having pages?
  • Response Also, I understand the premise laid out in WP:POLITICIAN that being a candidate for a notable office does not by default make one notable, but it's evident that this case is not simply an unknown person trying to make a name for themselves by running for a high office, but rather the subject is an established politician who is already well known in his district, and has been the subject of extensive media reporting, as noted earlier. I honestly think we can come to consensus that this subject is admissible under Wikipedia's guidelines, since this article only serves to enhance, not detract, from the amount of useful knowledge on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peach State Politics (talk • contribs) 21:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


COMMENT: There are numerous newspaper accounts, most notably in the Atlanta Journal Constitution in 2005, about Kenneth Hodges' abuse of his office and unethical conduct, including his using grand jury subpoenas issued on behalf of local campaign contributors when there was no grand jury in session to obtain telephone records, which he turned over to the contributors in exchange for several thousand dollars. There is currently a federal lawsuit against Mr. Hodges in which United States District Judge Louis Sands has denied Mr. Hodge's claims of immunity and the matter will be going forward for trial. The case number is 1:07-CV-22 (WLS) and the order denying the motion was issued March 31, 2009. Judge Sands' order recounts the abuse of the grand jury and the payment of funds to Mr. Hodges' chief investigator, who was acting on Mr. Hodges' direct orders. Here's an excerpt from the order:

"Upon receipt of the subpoenaed records, Defendant Paulk provided the records, including Plaintiff’s personal e-mails, to private civilians,

Case 1:07-cv-00022-WLS Document 34 Filed 03/31/2009 Page 2 of 24 3 who in turn paid for the information. The subpoenas were never intended to require an appearance before the Grand Jury on any matter pending before a Grand Jury, but were intended to obtain confidential and private records for private civilians." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.217.212.105 (talk) 04:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: The following entry from Mr. Hodge's Wikipedia entry is demonstrably false:

"Phoebe Putney

In 2004, the emergency rooms and operation rooms of Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital (“Phoebe”) were being inundated with faxes sent from an anonymous source. The faxes repeatedly targeted board members of Phoebe, disclosing their names and contact information.[13] Ken Hodges was the District Attorney in Dougherty County, GA at the time of the incident and he responded by subpoenaing the phone records in accordance with Section 16-11-39.1 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated."

The Code Section he cited relates to harassing phone calls, which require repeated annoying phone calls to a human being- not faxes sent to a hospital fax machine or to a Congressman's fax machine. That's one of many reasons why the criminal prosecution which Mr. Hodges initiated was dismissed prior to trial- the indictment didn't actually charge any conduct which constituted crimes in Georgia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.217.212.105 (talk) 04:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable local politician. A district attorney of a large county is almost always notable, and Albany, Georgia, site of the University of Georgia, is within his territorial jurisdiction. While the office he holds is 'not a "first level sub-national political office', it is significant enough when the county has over 100,000 people and it's a well-known college town. So it is a safe bet that he is de facto notable. The fact that he is a candidate for higher office is nice, but not needed to clear the threshold for WP:POLITICIAN. It would be great to add more sources, and some sections are too long per WP:UNDUE, but that can be solved by the normal editing process, not AfD. Bearian (talk) 23:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will admit that there is no consensus on what defines "major metropolitan cities" in #3 of WP:POLITICIAN, however, census figures note that there are 100 counties with populations over 600,000. I haven't done a thorough search to find out how many have at least 100,000, but I would guess in the neighborhood of 300 or 400... Dougherty County, GA is roughly 95,000. The point being that we are opening the door for 300 to 400 DA articles to be added to Wikipedia. Location (talk) 00:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as meeting inclusion criteria of WP:BIO under WP:GNG. I look at the dozens upon dozens of in-depth significant articles about this man as found in multiple reliable sources and look to caveat #2 of WP:POLITICIAN: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage". He neets caveat 2 as being local, major for the locale, and for having received significant press coverage... with a lot of it from outside his local. Yes, the second sentence of caveat #2 gives Mayors and members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city as examples, but it does not state that those are the only local political figures receiving significant press coverage that might be considered. It easily could have, but I note that it specifically did not. The key words of caveat two are in its first sentence. The guideline of WP:GNG has been met. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 02:09, 23 October 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 topic in general might be notable as defined by WP:N, but this is in no way an acceptable encyclopedic article as it (fundamentally) violates such basic content policies and guidelines as WP:OR. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of antisemitic accusations[edit]

Misuse of antisemitic accusations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a fascinating essay and I've already taken the liberty of saving a copy (with the history) for future reference. It makes a lot of very valid points. However, it is ultimately an essay. And the topic by nature cannot help be both original research and an essay. Almost everyone who is accused of antisemitism denies the accusations. Deciding which are valid and which are not is fraught with difficulty. Useful analogies would occur to the hypothetical articles on similar topics such as Misuse of accusations of homopobia and the like. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not get into the messy (and impossible to resolve) question of "Is a certain accusation of antisemitism true or not". That is an impossible question to answer in many cases. Instead, this article focuses on the signficant issues raised in the two books, namely: Is there a _pattern_ of overuse of the accusation with the goal of stifling debate? That is notable, topical, and has many articles and books to support the discussion (regardless of whether or not one thinks there is such a pattern). --Noleander (talk) 21:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
David Duke doesn't get included as someone who denies being an anti-Semite. Why not? The decision to take some accusations seriously and others to take as reasonable examples where accusations of anti-semitism may be inaccurate is inherently POV and OR. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not include David Duke or others, because it only includes persons who claim that accusations were intended to stifle criticism. If you examine the article closely: every person/organization is saying "Not only is this accusation false, but the intention (or consequence) is to censor legitimate criticism". That is the point of the two books this article is summarizing. --Noleander (talk) 01:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh really? I just googled for "David Duke" + anti-semitism and the first hit I got was this where Duke makes precisely that claim. So, should he go in? JoshuaZ (talk) 01:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of David Duke he really was in the KKK, so as far as I know he never denied having been anti-semitic at least at some point in his life. He may deny currently being antisemitic. The point is you can never know if someone is lying and if the accusation is true or not, or if the denial is true or not. Mel Gibson, yes has made anti-semitic comments, that is verifiable, is he antisemitic in general though? He says no, the comments were "accidents" and he was drunk. Well, whats the truth? Plus the entire topic of this article is synth, and any outside source you find that tried to put it together on its own is going to have a serious reliability issue and would never get by RS/N as acceptable "peer reviewed" or reliably published material to use in a Wikipedia article. I also would like to question Noleander's fascination with articles that put Jews in a bad light and that inherently, by topic and by name, have a POV against Jews. It seems the only articles he works on are about Mormons and Jews, and his treatment of Mormons is much fairer and on a variety of neutral points. Could Noleander please elaborate as to why his work on these subjects?Camelbinky (talk) 01:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure: But first, I'd have to say that the article - like any article - needs to be judged on its merits, regardless of the motivation of the editors that created it. Anyway, I'll answer your question: I have no strong feelings about LDS or Israel or Scientology or Islam. My motiviation is simply that I've noticed that the encyclopedia tends to be missing lots of critical (in the sense of "negative") information. The editing trend is very clearly that certain topics are "owned" by a group of active editors, and they numerically dominate any discussion. Efforts to introduce valid critical (negative) information into LDS articles or Zionism/Israel articles is met with very stiff resistance. As a consequence: The encyclopedia tends to be too, um, politically correct? Censored? Lacking balance? From a Palestinian's veiwpoint, Wikipedia is a "fucking joke" to quote Steven J. Anderson from farther down in this discussion. The lack of balance in Jewish/Israel related articles is astounding. I have no special interest in Palestine or Israel, but I do have an interest in attempting to bring balance to the encyclopedia. I cant imagine how many muslim editors have given up on trying to contribute to this encyclopedia. --Noleander (talk) 04:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not hide behind Palestinian rights. Also, please get your own story right - first you tell us that the intentions of the author of the article (you) are irrelevant, and then you tell us that your intention is to make WP less of a fucking joke. Look, either is a plausible position, but you can't have it both ways - either your intentions don't matter, or they do, just stick to one. Now, if you want to write an article on racism against Arabs or Muslims in the US or generally, go ahead. I am sure it is possible to write a good articl on this without stooping to anti-semitic remarks or insinuations. I have problems with articles relating to the Israeli occupation the West Bank, but in my view the problem is that WP editors do not go to libraries and read the scholarly books by historians and political scientists on the ways the occupation took shape. There are scholarly books by Jews that are in fact quite critical of Israeli policy, and of the occupation, period. But since most editors do not know how to, or do not want to, do library research, they just surf the internet for quotes, and for a variety of reasons we should all understand all that is left of NPOV after this form of research are quotes from two sides each calling the other side wrong. This is indeed a problem and the worst of this crap rightly gets deleted. But the sollution is to read the considerable scholarly research on the occupation, and write about it. The solution is not to attack Jews. I really believe that one can write an NPOV article on the current situation of Palestinians and how they ended up there, drawing on scholarly sources, and I do not see how this article brings us one step closer to that, so please, spare us the pieties. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Whatever worthy content exists in this article belongs in articles on the two major books cited. If these views are deemed significant, I assume there is room for them in articles on anti-Semitism or the new anti-Semitism. I just can't see them having their own article. I fail to see how a series of bickerings involving accusations of anti-semitism and denials of anti-semitism is in any way an encyclopedic topic. Do we have an article on Misuse of slander accusations or Misuse of sexist accusations or Misuse of posession of marijuana accusations Misuse of "Liar, liar, pants on fire" accusations?? Where will this end? I just do not know where to begin - all criticisms of another person are potentially controversial, and often meet with denial. That is inherent in any accusation. it is not in and of itself noteworthy. The issue in this article best I can tell has to do with politics, and these politics are already covered in other article. I do not like seeing Wikipedia articles appropriated as someone's soap-box, no matter what their politics Slrubenstein | Talk 20:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You give some good examples there, but I would disagree for two reasons:
1) the other examples you cite DO NOT have two widely read, notable books that cover those topics. This article does, so this article is much more notable than those other examples you cite.
2) You ask "when will it end"? This encyclopedia is intended to grow and grow, and gradually acquire more details as the years go by and editors do more and deeper research. Articles will get subarticles, and those in turn will get sub-subarticles. There are many hundreds of articles on Antisemitism and singling this one out for deletion smacks of censorship.
--Noleander (talk) 21:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those books are not primarily "about" the misuse of antisemitic accusations. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep For several reasons:
  • There are two notable books on the subject The Politics of Anti-Semitism edited by Alexander Cockburn and Beyond Chutzpah by Norman Finkelstein. So clearly the topic is notable.
  • This topic has been discussed, in writing, by many, many notable people including Ralph Nader and Noam Chomsky.
  • This topic is a subject of noteworthy on-going discussions by Jewish groups such as Jews for Justice for Palestinians and Jewish Voice for Peace.
  • There are approximately 400 articles on antisemitism (see Category:Antisemitism) and virtually none of them are critical of the alleged overuse of accusations of antisemitism. One article to present some balance against 400 brings some balance to the topic.
  • The topic of the article is noteworthy, topical, and of interest to many people, including Palestinians.
  • Including this neutral, informative article improves the quality of the encyclopedia, and provides information that would otherwise be missing, or not readily accessible to users and readers.
  • One of the key points of the article (and the 2 notable books) is that there is a pattern of overuse of the accusation. The existing two articles on the notable books are just two instances: a new article is needed to comprehensively survey the range of claims of alleged overuse of the accusation.
--Noleander (talk) 20:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete The subject is absolutely notable, but the article as it now stands is an essay. It would be better to start from scratch than to try to salvage the existing article. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per Malik Shabazz. Article looks too much like SYN; though there are notable books on this topic it should be reframed -- "misuse" is not the best title for OR and NPOV reasons. csloat (talk) 21:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominated. Crafty (talk) 21:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Syn, OR, POV. --jpgordon::==( o ) 21:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Malik. Perhaps a neutrally re-written compilation of other authors making this point in suitably notable publications would be acceptable, but this is not. Avi (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per synthesis, and nom. I agree that this article as it stand now is an essay, so delete. - Epson291 (talk) 23:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and Rework The use of accusations of anti-Semitism in political contexts is a significant topic and is the subject of continuing debate. It is worthy of an article in Wikipedia. However the very title of the current article pre-judges the matter in hand by saying that the such accusations are misused. Within the article, denials are taken on face value and the sources selected are heavilly weighted to one side of the argument. Renaming and reworking will remove the POV-fork (Declaration of interest: I am a member of one of the organisations mentioned in the article. However, I do regard one of the individuals listed as anti-Semitic.)--Peter cohen (talk) 00:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep by merging into other articles per Peter Cohen and Noleander. The article on Antisemitism should have some more of this kind of well-referenced info. So should many of the other 400 articles in Category:Antisemitism. Since in many cases there is no way to know the heart of the person accused, it is problematic to have an article titled Misuse of antisemitic accusations. The word "misuse" in the title puts the opinion of "misuse" in the narrative voice of Wikipedia. Maybe keep an article called Accusations of antisemitism that is spun off of the starting info in Antisemitism. There is not enough room in Antisemitism for all of this important info concerning the notable topic of the defaming, slanderous, silencing, threatening, or intimidating use of accusations of antisemitism. I hope the closing admin here remembers that their decision should not be based on counting votes, or accusations that User:Noleander, the main author of the article, is an antisemite. Oh, the irony. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Is user:Noleander an anti-Semite? --Timeshifter (talk) 04:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC). Later note: Keep. Rename to "Anti-Semitic smear". Per CarolMooreDC. I think, besides being merged as I previously stated, that the article itself should be kept, further edited, enlarged, clarified, and that all major viewpoints in the form of X says Y be covered. How do baseless and near-baseless accusations of antisemitism effect people, organizations, their livelihoods, their relations, their safety, etc.. It is interesting that "anti-Semitic smear" can mean both baseless accusations of antisemitism, and antisemitic attacks in the media and elsewhere. It is used both ways in Google Scholar. See: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=anti-Semitic+smear --Timeshifter (talk) 23:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You beat me to the "oh the irony" comment :-) The fact that I was accused of antisemitism for presenting an article that was _about_ the use of accusations of antisemitism to censor criticism of Israel, is ironic indeed. --Noleander (talk) 05:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't ironic at all. You should look that word up. Moreover you're doing precisely what all bigots do when their odious activities are uncovered, you're shrieking censorship. It's more than clear that you're using these articles to push a vile, anti-semitic POV here at Wikipedia. Crafty (talk) 05:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, guys? A bit of civility please? JoshuaZ (talk) 05:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's keep it civil. No need to resort to name-calling. I would point out that many of the people/organizations that claim that accusations of antisemitism are over-used include are, I believe, Jewish, including Chomsky, the Jewish organizations listed in the article, Finkelstein, and William Robinson. If you'll notice: the article is presenting the statements of notable people in their own words. Because this was a controversial topic, I was careful to ensure that the editor's voice was not presented in the article. --Noleander (talk) 05:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Malik and nom. Shlomke (talk) 00:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:Syn, WP:POV as others have noted.ShamWow (talk) 00:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete this is the second article this editor has created/worked extensively on that deals with Jews in a POV manner, and thankfully both are now up for deletion. Non-notable subject, and poorly written.Camelbinky (talk) 01:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An appropriate topic could be something like "contemporary debates about antisemitism," although that in itself should probably start as part of a larger article. As framed here it's a WP:POVFORK, by limiting its scope so narrowly to one controversial claim. Mackan79 (talk) 02:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This, as it stands, is little more than a poorly written persuasive essay. Perhaps it could be written as an encyclopedia article. What is there now is just synthesis. Hipocrite (talk) 02:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Possible Delete This is a fucking joke. It's basically a personal essay and the most obvious example of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:POVFORK I've seen on Wikipedia. There's barely anything here but a list of people who have been accused of antisemitism, who, presumably in the article creator's infallible opinion, didn't deserve it. There are absolutely no objective criteria determining which cases are considered a "misuse", and even if there were the whole exercise would still be clear-cut original research and synthesis.--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Double Standard at work. Yes, but that is a double-standard. The encyclopedia's job is to present information: If 40 notable people think that accusations are made to effect censorship, the encyclopedia should capture that information and present it. It is not an editors job to decide if Noam Chomsky is sincere ot not. There is a double standard at play here: In an article on Antisemitism: if 40 examples of offensive comments are captured in an article, we dont ask "Why _those_ 40?" or "Were those targets _really_ offended"? No: the encyclopedia captures the notable, documented instances of antisemitism and presents them. It is a double standard to suggest that a list of people like Finkelstein, Chomsky, Nader, Tonge, etc must somehow "prove" that their issues/concerns/hurts are .... what is it that you are suggesting they must prove? In any case, it is a double standard, and censorship. --Noleander (talk) 04:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: How is this article different from the article Israel and the apartheid analogy? Both deal with a controversial political issue that has been raised in books and articles. Both articles are basically a list of _examples_ of notable people making a political point. The Israel and the apartheid analogy article is a long list of people, books, and articles that say "The situation in Israel bears some resemblance to Aparthied". This article is a list of people, books, and articles that say "The antisemitism accusation is used to stifle legitimate criticism of Israel or Zionism". What is the distinction? My point is: This is an encyclopedia, and it should be capturing key topics of note, even if they are uncomfortable or controversial. Censorship is not healthy. --Noleander (talk) 04:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being familiar with the many discussions over how to deal with that article, I'd say the primary difference has only to do with where the material is best placed. A whole list of options with that article were considered, but couldn't garner consensus. Human Rights in Israel, for instance; I don't think either side of the debate considered that especially desirable. The debate went on for years all the same. Here it would seem there are plenty of more balanced ways to approach this material, and thus no real need to separate it into its own article. Mackan79 (talk) 04:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the background. Can you give a couple of examples of "more balanced ways" to approach this material? --Noleander (talk) 05:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested "contemporary debates about antisemitism" above, which presumably would start at Antisemitism before being branched into other articles. That may be a place to start a discussion. See also Timeshifter's comment above about merging into various other articles. Mackan79 (talk) 06:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In the interests of balance I will start by saying that I'm sure there are many cases where an argument has been deflected or attacked by responding with "you are x" where x is some bad label. However, as noted above, this is an essay not an article; it is SYNTH, OR, POV. Johnuniq (talk) 04:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There is an underlying sense that this essay spins a little too hard in the opposite direction of its true intent...Modernist (talk) 04:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would ask that commentors be a little more rigorous and precise in their comments. Simply saying "OR, POV, SYNTH" is no different than saying "I dont like it". Every article is a synthesis of something. For example, take a look at Antisemitism #Middle East. That section is very, very poor. A non-notable list of events, without any notable cite that even claims they are antisemitic. Yet, are any of the above editors cleaning up that section? Bear in mind that is the top level article of a Category that contains 400 articles! That section, of course, is negative towards muslims, and has stood un-edited, un-challenged for who knows how long, so it gives the appearance - to me, at least - of a double standard. --Noleander (talk) 04:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research by synthesis unless very substantially rewritten. There appear to be few if any reliable sources characterizing the various examples cited as "misuse of antisemitic accusations". The general topic appears to be notable (either as an anti-semitic or as a political phenomenon) and could warrant an article, though, beyond coverage of the two books it cites: Beyond Chutzpah and The Politics of Anti-Semitism. Such an article would need to be limited to summarizing the phenomenon as characterized in reliable sources preferably independent from the authors of these books, as they seem to be somewhat involved themselves in the dispute they say they describe.  Sandstein  06:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are correct when you say that "There appear to be few if any reliable sources characterizing the various examples cited as "misuse of antisemitic accusations" ". The reason is the following: The sources characterize the issue as "many accusations of antisemitism are false, and are targeted simply to stifle negative commentary". I originally entitled the article something along those lines, as "Controversies related to false accusations of antisemitism". But then I figured that was rather provocative, and thought I would try to tone down the title to a more sedate phrase, and I picked "Misuse of antisemitism accusations". You are correct that none of the sources use the word "misuse", but it is unfair to use that as a reason to delete the entire article, when the more accurate title would have been even more provocative. I concur the title could be improved to more accurately reflect the sources in the article. --Noleander (talk) 07:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See Quote mining. It is precisely to avoid POV opinion pieces that Wikipedia requires articles to be based on reliable sources. A well known person may say something, but later explain that their words suggested a meaning they did not intend. An independent analysis is required to determine whether the person has a history of that kind of view (did they really mean it, or was it just a mixup?). Sorry, but you cannot write articles on Wikipedia based on your own collection of data. Johnuniq (talk) 10:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct: Quote mining is not acceptable. However, I dont think this article suffers from that defect. The sources in this article are all notable, and their comments fall into two classes: (1) "I offered a legitimate criticism Israel or Zionism, and I was subsequently labelled antisemitic, in an attempt to silence me"; and (2) "There is a pattern of the overuse of the term antisemitism, whereby the term is loosely applied in a systematic effort to silence critics of Israel or Zionism". As I look at the article now, I see that the sources are all jumbled, and there is no distinction between the two distinct points. The question facing us, as editors, is: "Is this topic of censorship relating to antisemitism accusations notable?". My opinion is, Yes, it is notable. My main reasons for noteworthiness are:
  • Two books cover this topic (see above)
  • Notable people discuss it, including a Nobel Laureate (Desmond Tutu) and a member of Parliament (Jenny Tonge)
  • The topic not yet addressed in the Category:Antisemitism category, which includes 400 articles on the topic if antisemitism, yet none of them mention this particular topic.
--Noleander (talk) 19:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:Syn, WP:POV. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The title is unavoidably non-neutral. "Accusations of antisemitism" would be better, if there is to be an article like this. --Apoc2400 (talk) 08:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is no doubt that the topic passes the notability guidelines, so it can have its own article, although it need not necessarily have one. The author clearly tried to be as neutral as is possible with such a topic. That the article is not generally being recognised as neutral is probably due to the topic's inherent difficulty more than anything else. It's not a very well defined topic, and even choosing what to write about in detail amounts to taking a position. Hans Adler 12:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and rework, per User:Peter cohen above. Remember, our job here is not decide whether we like the article as it is at the moment (a few days old, before the community has really set to work on it), but rather to ask whether there is a subject to write an article about here, and whether WP could have a reasonable article on it. In my view the answer is yes. It doesn't (necessarily) make somebody antisemitic if they bridle at a hard-right Likud-nik view of Israel's foreign policy; or if they think that it is indeed reasonable to hold a Jewish state, created to be a "light to the nations", to a higher standard of ethical behaviour than the level of the thuggish terrorists who oppose it. The article perhaps needs to be seen as the other side of the coin to the article New antisemitism -- a similar but perhaps opposite non-neutrally titled article, if titling an article predisposes the reader to assume that what is being named by the title actually exists. Jheald (talk) 12:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break 1[edit]

  • Delete per Syn, POV, OR. Article could be interpreted as being antisemitic in and of itself, too. --Nsaum75 (talk) 16:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete yes, it's OR / POV / SYNTHESIS, and its very premise is a polemical argument. If there is anything to the subject, it belongs in the article about the subject (allegations of antisemitism, or antisemitism). We don't clog up the encyclopedia with articles opining on backlashes (accusations that accusations of antisemitism are improper) against backlashes (accusations of antisemitism) against backlashes (antisemitism). For every controversial type of allegation there is a phenomenon that some people think the allegation is wrong. That the article's creator and prime proponent plastered "see also" links to this article on bios of people who called things anti-semitic, or were accused of anti-semitism, illustrates the problem here. This article cannot be fit into the encyclopedia in any meaningful way without it being a political opinion piece. We don't need a soapbox for that here. Wikidemon (talk) 17:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename to "accusations of antisemitism" and expand per several editors above. notability seems apparent, and POV isn't a reason to delete. many scholarly sources discuss the prevalence of using an accusation of antisemitism, or "self-hating Jew"-ism, as a means of silencing debate about israel. untwirl(talk) 18:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Untwirl: Your point about Self-hating Jew is an important one. Two of the sources cited in this article, Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein were both given that label by their critics. I suppose that topic could be more clearly explained in the article as in "Some notable people say that the accusation of antisemitism is levied in order to silence otherwise legitimate critism of Israel or Zionism. If the recipient of the accusation is Jewish, the accusation sometimes includes the additional charge that the recipient is a Self-hating Jew. Some commentators point out that both charges sometimes have chilling effect on discussion about Israel or Zionism. --Noleander (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—this article is a collection of loosely-related topics under an inherently biased title. It is extremely difficult to think of a way to salvage an article on a topic like this, because of problems already mentioned, like inappropriate synthesis. —Ynhockey (Talk) 21:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Far too many of the contributions here by the delete lobby seem to be variations on WP:IDON'TLIKE combined with libellous personal attacks claiming that the original author of the article is anti-Semitic. There are also unfounded claims that there cannot possibly be reliable sources that look at the matter when the article references a number of academics. I can certainly envisage this as a topic that might be covered in peer reviewed social psychology journals.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC) (Removing clause now that soem material in other article has been sourced to Stormfront)--Peter cohen (talk) 16:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Possibly Rename First, there obviously are problems with the article that need work. That aside, there is no doubt that there is a phenomena described as false accusations of antisemitism or “misuse of antisemitic accusations,” among other things. The phrase that came to my mind and brought a number of WP:RS references is "Antisemitism smear.” It is very well established and a possible alternate title. See books.google, google search and news.google. (Different results may be obtained searching “anti-semitism smear,” with the spelling not used in google.) Probably most of the incidents mentioned in the article will have some WP:RS source using the words "antisemitism" and "smear," if not the phrase itself. Other material can be merged into the antisemitism and two articles others have mentioned.....It should be noted that the fear of being labeled antisemitic - as the author of the article was most inappropriately in a WP:ANI - probably keeps people from voting for keeping this article. Just like it keeps others from voting for deleting things like Category:Antisemitic_propaganda - now up for deletion - or the phrase Anti-Israel lobby in the United States which survived a deletion move, even though there is not one entry for the phrase in google search. One certainly hopes these sorts of numbers on various pages are not an example of the success of the CAMERA_Israeli_lobby_campaign_in_Wikipedia. The issue particularly of organized WP:tag team especially would undermine Wikipedia's credibility. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note another suggestion for what to do below...
  • Keep & Rename. I agree with several editors that the topic is notable, and should be covered in a separate article. I agree that the title is too long and leading, and support Carol's proposed alternative. As I noted at ANI, the fact that Noleander was accused of antisemitism for writing this article seems a textbook case of this false accusation. That said, I agree with Peter that the accusation is indeed sometimes appropriate, and we will have to be vigilant to ensure that this article does not become the scene of edit wars intended to either smear or whitewash individuals.RolandR 07:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No one ever accused Noleander of being an anti-Semite Slrubenstein | Talk 13:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This Diff shows the original title of the the WP:ANI thread was "Is user:Noleander an anti-Semite?" Later changed at this diff. Asking a question on this topic is just as good as making an accusation. The text of the renamed ANI is here now. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh really? If people ask if I m a racist, and others answer, no, she is not a racist, that means i am not a racist, right? How else does one ask a question? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is along the lines of publicly asking someone if they beat their wife. It is one thing for people to discuss the public angles of "liberal media" or "vast rightwing conspiracy". But public accusatory questions at the personal level are considered a form of attack in the real world. If you did it on your job you might be fired. You would bring that up privately to your boss. Is so-and-so a racist or bigot, and is it effecting how he treats his coworkers. At the public level it is along the lines of people asking "Is Hollywood controlled by Jews?". The question itself is problematic. It is one of those type of Fox News type set-piece "debates." Any public accusations or discussion of personal or organizational antisemitism or Jewish control or Christian Zionism or George Bush's Gog and Magog comments (see Gog and Magog#Gog and Magog and President George W. Bush), etc. ... all of it is fraught with spin. They all deserve WP:NPOV Wikipedia coverage. At least in the form of covering the history. It will be very difficult to cover some of it in a neutral manner though without spin and adding to the flames, but it needs to be done. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your thinking is pretty sloppy - the joke is not about "Do you beat your wife." If someone asked m I beat my wie, the answer would be "no," case closed. The joke is trying to make a serious point which you seem to miss entirely, and which has nothing to do with these kinds of legitimate questions. And my question was in no way analogous to asking if Hollywood is controled by Jews, which is why there is nothing rong with my qustion. However, the artiucle under question is alanogous to asking whether Hollywood is controlled by Jews And you are right, that this is a very unconstructive way to phrase a question, and that is exactly why you must agree that this article should bedeleted. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You missed the points I was making. Number one; I wasn't making a joke. Number two; asking these kinds of questions publicly can be perceived as an assumption, an accusation, a smear, a stain, and a setup. Covering this issue in Wikipedia is important, as it is a notable topic with a long history. See CarolMooreDC links. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You were referring to a very old and well-known joke (about beating one's wife), but missing the point of the joke. Secondly, your point is rubbish: a question is a question, a statement is a statement, and we learn these things when we are very young. A question asked in public is a question that can be answered in public. You say "covering this issue" and I agree, anti-Semitism is covered by two articles already. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it was missing the point of the joke so much as not needing it. CarolMooreDC's point (and now also Timeshifter's point) was clearly that antisemitism, like domestic violence, is considered such a strong accusation that the normal way to treat it is 1) keep your suspicion quiet until you have convinced yourself that the accusation is true with at least 90% certainty, then 2) start mentioning in public that you have a suspicion, and say precisely why.
The well-known joke is completely irrelevant for this, although I note that it would work just as well with "When did you learn to get your antisemitic feelings under control?" This is not the way you put it, but part of the reason the joke is so funny is that even just asking "Do you beat your wife?" / "Are you an antisemite?" is offensive unless you have a very good objective reason to ask. Hans Adler 12:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quite. The "are you still beating your wife?" joke is both funny and makes a sharp point, because whether the question is answered yes or no, the answer is an admission of guilt. The question, "Is x an anti-Semite" can be answered "no" with no admission of guilt, indeed, the answer "no" is (unlike in the joke) a negation of guilt. I asked the question because I saw one editor create two articles, one of which belitles accusations of anti-Semitism, the other of which showcased and continues to chowcase anti-Semitic canards without any encyclopedic content e.g. analysis of what these examples of anti-Semitism reveal about anti-Semites or anti-Semitism or the epoch in which they were (are?) popular. They are both gratuitously offensive. Since that time another editor made a number of cuts, some of which turned attention away from anti-Seitism to other issues in Jewish-American history - this is material I would not consider offensive, but which no longer fits with the article title or the article. I would be just as offended by an article called "misuse of homophobic accusations" or "misuse of racist accusations" or "misuse of anti-black accusations." At the AN/I I provided my reasons and invited people to respond; there was nothing coy about my question. I believe that Wikipedia should have no tolerance for racism. I think Hans Adler's point abo9ut spousal abuse is dead wrong. As to my question: If the answer to my question is "no," there is no harm done as the articles will simply remain. If the answer to my question is "yes," we need to act, and act quickly, to delete articles and to watch the edits of this editor. How many people turn to Wikipedia each day for information? Where in google searches do Wikipedia articles come up? A lot, and high up. Wikipedia should not be a purveyor of racist material. The harm that this does far outways the possible harm of the question. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think my point about spousal abuse is technically wrong, but after looking a little bit closer I am not sure how relevant it is. It seems that you had more convincing arguments for your suspicion than those I was aware of. E.g. I was not aware of the existence of the Jews and Hollywood article. Presumably I would have to spend more time on this than I can right now to form an opinion. Hans Adler 13:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your thoughtful reply. Wikipedia offers perhaps endless opportunities for people in good faith to disagree. I just wanted Timeshifter to acknowledge that my concerns were serious and expressed in good faith. His casual remarks left me in doubt. Your's do not, and I appreciate it. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carol is mistaken. It wasn't this thread that was originally titled "Is Noleander an anti-Semite?", but an ANI thread initiated by Slrubenstein, in which s/he writes that another article by Noleander "seems to be a thinly disguised pretext to bring out the anti-Semitic slur of Jews controlling the media... what kind of person would even think to create such an article? I view it as an attack against me." So it certainly looks as though Slrubenstein is accusing Noleander of antisemitism, and her/his comments above are at best disingenuous. RolandR 19:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope my clarification a few days ago that I was in fact talking about ANI thread and not this one was clear :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that some of Noleander's work is a direct copyvio of material located at Stormfront. Specifically, in this, the writing starting "The article then describes" through "prominence of the Jewish role" is apparently lifted (copyvio!) from [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=98084&page=2 this forum post (WARNING HIGHLY OFFENSIVE)] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipocrite (talk • contribs) 13:53, 22 October 2009
Sigh. No, the source of the Michael Medved quote was RadioIslam, here. I apologize for cutting-and-pasting that text without proof-reading. I dont trust Stormfront, I dont like Stormfront (Im a liberal environmentalist, for crying out loud). Let's focus on the quality of the encyclopedia rather than the personalities or motivations of editors, shall we? --Noleander (talk) 16:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only person loudly commenting about your anti-semitism or lack thereof is you. If you don't want people to think you are an anti-semite, perhaps taking articles that are the bottom-scum of the shitbucket are copyvioing them into your brand new articles is an error. Hipocrite (talk) 16:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Radio Islam article is itself blatantly anti-Semitic. Further the fact that one of your new articles was plagiarised means that there is a strong possibility that this article too is a copyvio and shoudl be deleted as a precautionary measure.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was no copyright violation in the other article, but even if there were, why would that impact this article? Again, the issue here is censorship: Censorship of people like Ralph Nader, and even censorship here in Wikipedia. The value of this article needs to be judged on its own merits. From my point of view: it looks like the "Deleter"s do not have a strong argument for deleting this article, so they are now resorting to a possible, minor copyright violation in another article, as an argument for deleting this article. Lets focus on this article in this AfD. --Noleander (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. Still copyvio. Source article still anti-Semitic. This point now taken to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Noleander —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter cohen (talk • contribs) 17:27, 22 October 2009
(unindent somewhat). Slrubenstein. Accusations of antisemitism are a serious matter. You continue to say that it was OK to title your ANI thread "Is user:Noleander an anti-Semite?" People with years of Wikipedia experience disagree with you. That is why the thread title was changed to user:Noleander and antisemitism-related articles. Here are some relevant quotes:
Slrubenstein and Camelbinky, if you believe the article(s) written by Noleander are problematic, take them to AfD, please, and not to ANI. Asking these sorts of loaded questions on ANI, and thereby accusing another editor of racism - a very serious allegation where I live - is a violation of good faith and our policy against personal attacks, and I strongly advise you not to do it again unless you have many and very persuasive diffs to back it up. (This comment is, of course, not an endorsement or defense of any actual anti-semitic disruption that may have been going on.)  Sandstein  06:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still have an open mind on whether the article itself should be deleted or massively rewrittten. But this thread seems a textbook case of the phenomenon being discussed. Of course it is possible to suggest that such accusations are misused without oneself being an antisemite. RolandR 07:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I share Slrubenstein's concern, although I have toned down the thread title[16] as being needlessly accusatory. ... [snip] ... - Wikidemon (talk) 18:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[End of quotes from ANI thread]
Others have apologized to Noleander on his talk page. See User talk:Noleander. I looked at the Afd articles in question, the deletion discussions, and Noleander's past history. He does not seem like an antiSemite to me. I looked at the titles of his user contributions going back a couple thousand edits. He helps edit many articles on various religions. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy This is an essay, not a wikipedia entry. But it is a pretty darn good essay. Simonm223 (talk) 20:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is not a topic worthy of an encyclopedia entry. We could have articles on People and groups objecting to being called right-wing, Misuse of the term liberal, Misuse of the term Jew as it applies to Jews for Jesus, Environmeltalists objecting to being called tree-huggers, This sort of POV-pushing can get out of hand. Josh02138 Josh02138 (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hear what you are saying. But there a couple of distinctions between this topic and the exmples you list, such as (1) This article's topic captures an assertion made by very notable people including Desmond Tutu, Ralph Nader, Jenny Tonge, and Noam Chomsky; and (2) this article is about the censorship or chilling effect of the accusations; and (3) there are a couple of books (see the article) that address this issue of censorship. If a Nobel-prizer winner and a member of Parliament ever say "tree hugging accusations are being used as a form of censorship", then that may well deserve an article in this encyclopedia :-) --Noleander (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • We tree huggers are never taken seriously. Seriously, though, terms like "right-winger," "left-winger", "ultra-", and liberal are used just this way. To censor and condemn. An article on "right-wing" is appropriate, as is an article on anti-semitism. The problem is that this is not an article that is about something, it is about people who object to a label. There are, of course, people who deem the label anti-Semitism appropriate for anti-Israel individuals and groups. They would see the sources in this article as anti-Semitism deniers. So we could have an article about "Anti-Semitism denial". Then Norman Finkelstein would object to being called an anti-Semitism denier and we would have an article about "misuse of the term Anti-Semitism denial." Which, since Finkelstein writes quickly, there would be articles about. I think we should leave it at articles aobut anti-Semitism. And put the denials of anti-Semitism by Finklestein et al in their personal pages and...Josh02138 (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • this material already exists In the page on New anti-semitism. Which is where it belongs.Josh02138 (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with new anti-semitism might be the best course--the material is not identical, but similar. The material in this article seems reasonably OK to me, and not SYN or essay. the problem is really just the title--as it's hard to think of a NPOV one, I think that suggestion just above is a good one. Joshua, would that course meet your original objections? DGG ( talk ) 00:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The odd thing is that, compared with New antisemitism, the arguments for keeping this article could be seen as stronger. "New antisemitism" is a sort of paradigm in which, drastically reduced, various forms of hyper-criticism of Israel are considered to represent or reflect a new form of antisemitism. What amounts to hyper-criticism is, like the rest of the theory, under dispute. Another paradigm suggests that, in recent times, Israel's policies of various sorts have come to be inappropriately defended with the "misuse of antisemitic accusations." It could be argued that an article on one is no more or less POV than the other. For basically this reason, I don't think it's right to say that this material can just be "merged" into New antisemitism. The follies of socio-political rhetoric nevertheless seem to include that sometimes language lines up behind your concept, and sometimes language leaves you looking more muddled, which is basically why I think this is still material in need of a better home. Mackan79 (talk) 09:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, there is some overlap between this article and New antisemitism. A merger is certainly something we could consider. A couple of things to ask: (1) Is there any important material in this article (now) that does not fall under the umbrella "New antisemitism" and hence would get lost?; and (2) The topic of this article is very focused (censorship) yet the New antisemitism concept is rather vague (the article implies that there is not even a single agreed-upon definition), so would a merger cause the censorship topic to become "buried"? Hmmm. I suppose another option would be to leave this article as-is, and move the censorship material from New antisemitism into this article ... that would solve the "some censorship material is not under the 'new antisemitism' umbrella" problem. --Noleander (talk) 11:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excellent point, Mackan 79. How about merge into New Antisemitism by changing name to Accusations of antisemitism with "New Antisemitism" a sub-section. The phrase has many hits on all search engines and does not have the ambiguous meaning of "Antisemitic smear." CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Searching Google Scholar for "accusations of anti-semitism" (phrase search) pulls up around 326 results. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Guess what comes up with 200,000 searching the web though a lot less on books, news and scholar: "FALSE accusation of antisemitism" - and those are the issue of concern. FYI In any case, time to start a draft article somewhere? CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The actual phrase (Google Phrase search) only comes up 7 times though. Drsmoo (talk) 02:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rename to Anti-Palestinianism, with a section for "Accusations of antisemitism." Macken79 and CarolMooreDC both make good points about the problem of merging with some of the info in New antisemitism under that name. See: Framing (social sciences) and Spin (public relations). Accusing someone of being antisemitic just because that person thinks there are problems with Israeli policies cheapens the meaning of antisemitism. One can be against Israeli policies or any nation's policies, without being bigoted or racist. Some of the precedents for the article name are Anti-Arabism, Anti-Catholicism, Anti-Zionism, Anti-Masonry, etc.. Search Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com) to find many results for Anti-Palestinian. Less for Anti-Palestinianism. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is a good idea for its own article. However, it does not include all the other reasons people might be falsely or questionably labeled antisemitic, including especially criticizing Israel supporters because of their lobbying efforts in their own nations, even when a person doesn't necessarily support Palestinians. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with New Antisemitism. Because this is not an independent, article-worthy phenomenon, it is merely a response to accusations of contemporary or new anti-Semitism.Josh02138 (talk) 06:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's a content fork at best, definitely a personal essay, the use of the word "Misuse" to invent this topic screams out for a "Sez who?" Are people sometimes unfairly called antisemitic? Yes. But so are people often unfairly called nazis... and unfairly called fascists ... and unfairly called socialists ... and unfairly called racists and on and on. Should we allow our editors to do a bunch of original research and create encyclopedia topics for all these? We'll, if you're voting keep here, you're voting for an encyclopedia filled with this stuff. Bali ultimate (talk) 14:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good points, but there a couple of distinctions between this topic and the examples you list, such as (1) This article's topic captures an assertion made by very notable people including Desmond Tutu, Ralph Nader, Jenny Tonge, and Noam Chomsky; and (2) this article is about the censorship or chilling effect of the accusations; and (3) there are a couple of books (see the article) that address this issue of censorship. If notable people start writing books about, say, "the excessive use of the label 'socialist' for the purpose of silencing debate on health care reform" that may indeed warrant its own article in this encyclopedia, true? --Noleander (talk) 15:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and also, I think everyone here who wants to keep the article is willing to change the title wording, so, Bali, an objection based primarily on that does not quite seem reasonable to me. DGG ( talk ) 00:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original synthesis, essay. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 17:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pavel: I was wondering if you could elaborate a bit on your "synthesis, essay" comment, in light of the text immediately above (that starts "Good points, but there ... Desmond Tutu ..." )? Do you still think the article is synthesis considering the books The Politics of Anti-Semitism and Beyond Chutzpah etc? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 22:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although interesting this article is really about people making charges and counter charges at each other, and is mostly about the Israeli-Palestinian issue. The fact that sometimes people are unfairly accused of antisemitism, or else protest against fair accusations, is true enough. But somehow it doesn't seem to be the type of article that should be found in an encylopedia. The fact of accusations and denials could be mentioned in each article but there doesn't seem to be a reason to put them all together. Kitfoxxe (talk) 07:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: pervasive WP:Synthesis in its construction. Lacks coherent definition of "misuse" and often third party sources stating that a particular accusation is 'misuse', and thus often relies on self-serving protestations from the acusee (essentially accepting one POV in a 'he says, she says'). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote, just comment Since I am a member of one of the groups mentioned I don't think I should vote but just let the AfD run its course. In the case of my group (the Unification Church) we are more often accused of being "neocons" than antisemites. We seem to have just been added to the article so that it doesn't look like everything is related to protests against Israeli policies. Steve Dufour (talk) 23:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Personal essay, OR, oddly written. The material could be summarized and added as a section to one of the articles about antisemitism, if secondary sources who discuss the material in this context can be found. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 04:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This AfD was never properly transcluded on the log page, apparently. Just fixed.Tim Song (talk) 16:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I'm sure most WP:SOAPBOX violations could be made into something resembling an article, but that doesn't make them encyclopedic. This is an synthetized essay. Auntie E. 16:52, 24 October 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 17:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moth (fictional planet)[edit]

Moth (fictional planet) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable fictional planet, no source is given. JL 09 q?c 16:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fictioncruft, plus the article itself claims the planet is non-notable. Deathawk (talk) 19:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Humanx Commonwealth planets. Truth be told, they're probably all non-notable. Very few fictional planets get the notice, outside of their own fictional universe, that would justify an article. Vulcan, Krypton, and maybe even the ice planet Hoth, but Moth? No, get lotht. Mandsford (talk)
  • Delete. Non-notable fictional element that hasn't received any coverage. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - needs real-world content to stay. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge seems a good outcome. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable fancruft. Reywas92Talk 20:30, 27 October 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 17:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Riveria (fictional planet)[edit]

New Riveria (fictional planet) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable fictional planet, no source is given. JL 09 q?c 16:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:41, 21 October 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 13:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prism (fictional planet)[edit]

Prism (fictional planet) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable fictional planet, no source is given. JL 09 q?c 16:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm, looks like JL09 is "Shiva, destroyer of worlds". Seriously, this and the others should be merged into the list of planets that goes with this book series. Mandsford (talk) 20:12, 21 October 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. Staxringold talkcontribs 07:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Role Players Creed[edit]

Role Players Creed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. No secondary coverage or any other sort of evidence of notability. Fails WP:N and should therefore be deleted. Percy Snoodle (talk) 18:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I created the article and than tried to show that it met WP:N, which of course is backward logic. My mistake.--Kthapelo (talk) 02:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:N. Nada in Gnews, Gscholar. There are as many creeds as there are role players. RayTalk 19:18, 26 October 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. More recent additions to the page seem to establish sufficient notability. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trybesmen[edit]

Trybesmen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Found this article about this band. The article asserts "chart topping", but I see nothing in Google in the way of anything reliable to that effect. Mostly blogs and WP articles are turning up in a Google search. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom unless "chart topping" claims can be somehow magically verified, of course. JBsupreme (talk) 16:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added some newspaper articles to the article that talk about them in some depth.Prezbo (talk) 02:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added a little more, the article now cites several independent reliable sources. The BBC called the group "legendary" in 2005 [17]. Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are plenty of good sources, including several stories in Nigeria's paper of record Thisday. Really the delete voters are too poor at sourcing to be contributing in the area of deletion. 86.40.59.30 (talk) 16:57, 25 October 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. Staxringold talkcontribs 07:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crookham Rovers Youth FC[edit]

Crookham Rovers Youth FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Originally PRODded with the rationale "Youth team playing in non-notable league", dePRODded by article creator with edit summary "More detail added, including further citations to the league and FA awards. Crookham Rovers is the biggest boys club in the area and is approaching 40 years in age. It is also a registered Charity", however I don't feel that any of that conveys notability -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - definitely non-notable. My local golf club is the biggest in the area, is over 100 years in age, and is also a registered charity - but none of that makes it notable! (me playing there does... :D) GiantSnowman 15:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - following on from GiantSnowman, my local tennis club is a registered charity, but it definately isn't notable. Eddie6705 (talk) 15:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Affirmative action for kids. Bluehotel (talk) 15:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Can't find anything that throws notability on it. (My friend Olivia's brother plays for a youth team in Morecambe that's coming up to it's 50th anniversary, but that doesn't make it notable.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Football clubs having wiki pages tend to need to be registered with the FA and play competition football. Although charities can have a page on Wikipedia this one could possibly go down that route if there is enough notability however there doesn't seem enough at present. As for your Golf Club, it might pass under the Geography project guidelines for an article! Govvy (talk) 14:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails to show any notability despite their 27 league titles and their charity status Spiderone 09:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--Jemesouviens32 (talk) 13:26, 25 October 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. MuZemike 15:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes Maas (missionary)[edit]

Johannes Maas (missionary) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not assert , much less establish, any notability other than being "a Christian leader". Leader of... what? The only references are mentions in "Who's Who" publications, alumni magazines, YouTube, and other self-published sources. :Ἀλήθεια 13:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This article establishes clear notability in several areas:
Maas served as an advisor for the White House during the Carter administration, and was
granted a rare letter of recommendation from a presidential assistant (sourced}
Maas was independently featured in a University of Pittsburgh alumni publication (sourced)
Maas was awarded a key to the city by Mobile, Alabama
Maas' biography has been independently published in several biographical publications (sourced)
Maas' works and contributions have been independently published in several leading newspapers
and websites (sourced)
Maas is indeed the leader of an international organization. His biography indeed merits
inclusion R/T-รัก-ไทย (talk) 04:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only one of the sources in the article that looks as if it might confer notability is the Maddox book, which, according to Google Books, doesn't have any mention of the subject. Marquis Who's Who is a publisher of vanity bios. Searches for "Johannes Maas" and "Joe Maas" with "missionary" don't come up with anything. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The letter from Maddox is published on Scribd. I found many references on Google,
(without missionary, which was added because another article is named Johannes Maas)
including the feature in PITT magazine R/T-รัก-ไทย (talk) 16:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt the existence of the letter, but it it not a published source usable for an encyclopedia. Anyone can put anything they want on Scribd. The "feature" in PITT magazine consists of two sentences in a local university publication, not the significant coverage in independent reliable sources required for notability. If you can provide evidence for the fact that "Maas' biography has been independently published in several biographical publications" as you claimed above then we can keep this, but this claim is not currently sourced. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Searches combining the subject's name with every one of the potential claims of notability in the article find 66 web pages, none of which amount to significant independent coverage, no Google News hits, three irrelevant Google Scholar hits and these 10 Google Books hits, only one of which appears to be about the subject - this mention in the Christian Herald. Of course there may be significant coverage in offline sources, but I think that I've done a pretty exhaustive check of what is available online. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have worked some on this article, and have checked out the reliable sources cited in the article. The Pitt article is an independent source of his
notability as this was a choice of the university editors. Further, I have read his aticles in "Bangkok Post" and "Nation" newspapers, whose editors considered his writings
to be worthy of publication. As compared with similar articles, this merits inclusion Jackie-thai (talk) 18:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, none of the statements below demonstrate notability:
    • "served as an advisor for the White House" - not notable
    • "granted a rare letter of recommendation from a presidential assistant" - not notable
    • "independently featured in a University of Pittsburgh alumni publication" - per WP:BIO, trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability
    • "awarded a key to the city by Mobile, Alabama" - not notable
    • "biography has been independently published" - per WP:BIO, entries in biographical dictionaries that accept self-nominations (such as the Marquis Who's Who) do not prove notability
    • "works and contributions have been independently published in several leading newspapers and websites" - unable to verify this
    • "the leader of an international organization" - this alone does not confer notability. HokieRNB 18:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep IMHO, the founder of such global humanitarian efforts as Worldwide Faith Missions and Feed the Orphans (very similar in scope to Cross International) -- not to mention the services rendered to our own government -- deserves a couple kilobytes of server space in Wikipedia. JimScott (talk) 14:08, 23 October 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. Staxringold talkcontribs 04:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Short shifter[edit]

Short shifter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to be merely an inconsequential commercial product. Tag for sources was deleted by creating editor, and links attached to advertising material. No RS Bluehotel (talk) 12:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a legitimate specialised car modification installed in a multitude of cars worlwide the fact that Bluehotel doesn't care for the author does not justify an AfD. Furthermore it is neutrally sourced as the references illustrate. --Jemesouviens32 (talk) 14:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and fix as needed, meets WP:N easily. Please be sure to follow WP:BEFORE as finding these sources was trivial. AfD is not for cleanup...
[18] is solely about this topic. [19] is a section in a book about installing these. [20] discusses the topic in solid detail and sources like [21] show that the topic is a fairly common notion. A quick search turns up plenty more sources. Hobit (talk) 17:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Indeed, you can find these sources. However, the purpose of this entry is to advertise a commercial business which was recently deleted under AfD. The article's author has made no effort to properly source the article, but one must really infer, to use the page to send traffic to his preferred business. I originally tagged the page for references, but the author merely removed the tag and further packed the article with advertising links. He has, similarly, just created another article with a series of links to the same commercial business, which, as I say has just been deleted (about a week ago) Bluehotel (talk) 09:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not sure of my recommendation yet, but thought I would address my current thoughts. There are currently 2 sources in the article, both are manufacturers' websites, these are not independent of the subject and do not confirm notability. As for the above four references, this is not a reliable source, anyone can log in and answer a question. This is just a how to install one and just confirms that they exist, not that they are notable. This looks good and comes close to establishing notability, but I don't think it does by itself. This does not confirm they are fairly common, it only confirms that one car has them. The one source does not make them notable, but not willing to say delete yet. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 23:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first source anyone can comment on, but only the site can post the "answer". cars.com is darn reliable with respect to cars. As far as #2 goes, it does meet the requirements of WP:N as far as I can tell. On the last one, I agree. There are tons of links to individual cars that have short shifters. That was one. But it doesn't prove they are common. Couldn't find a list of cars that have short shifters as an option in a RS. Hobit (talk) 12:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep fixed as per Hobit researched related links which I added to the article. I confess that I do not understand why GB fan removed the reference from de.wikipedia [22] which has a diagram illustrating the short shifters' mechanical principle vs the stock shifter and even less why he states "I have removed the german wikipedia as a reference, wikipedia is not a reliable source." isn't it up to us to make Wikipedia a reliable source and the whole purpose of this discussion? --Jemesouviens32 (talk) 07:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • He's right to remove the reference to another wikipedia entry. That's, (oddly) how we do things around here. There is a proper way to link to articles on the same topic in different languages and that link is there on the left. That said, you can copy the diagram over if you wish, but because it's in German it probably isn't ideal. You could redraw a similar picture and upload it if you wished. Hobit (talk) 12:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have added references to Mazda and Porsche both offering this component as stock and as an option further dispelling the notion of lack of notability--Jemesouviens32 (talk) 08:01, 25 October 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 in order to move Kirtichakra to here. As near as I can tell, the spaced title is the main spelling. If notability concerns remain (unlikely), feel free to renominate. ThaddeusB (talk) 13:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kirti Chakra (film)[edit]

NOTE: This is not actually the second nomination, I previously attempted to nominate the article via Twinkle but it failed. HJMitchell You rang? 12:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:
Kirti Chakra (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Film does not appear to be notable. A google search throws up no reliable sources, thus the information currently in the article cannot be verified or corroborated, never mind expanded beyond 2 sentences. HJMitchell You rang? 12:49, 21 October 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 per WP:CSD A7, no assertion of notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Green Life Innovators[edit]

Green Life Innovators (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-notable organization, per WP:ORG. Google searching does not produce the required references per WP:RS. However, a Google search confirms that the article's creator is also the chairman and founder of the organization. Warrah (talk) 12:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; unreferenced article about a non-notable online global community for the exchange of ideas in green technology and green solutions.... founded .... by 4 Norwegians on October 1st 2008. Possible speedy delete as web content or an organization that, despite the glittering generalities of its self-description, contains no minimal showing of importance. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:25, 21 October 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 Twinkle fail. Tim Song (talk) 12:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectus language centre[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Intellectus language centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Absolutely no evidence of notability whatsoever. A company established two months ago. Zero Gnews hit. Only Ghit of English name is WP. Lithuanian name has 7 Ghits in total, and no reliable source. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Tim Song (talk) 12:28, 21 October 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.  Skomorokh, barbarian  17:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectus language centre[edit]

Intellectus language centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Appears to be a non-notable organization; I cannot find independent reliable sources to show notability.  Chzz  ►  12:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Absolutely no evidence of notability whatsoever. A company established two months ago. Zero Gnews hit. Only Ghit of English name is WP. Lithuanian name has 7 Ghits in total, and no reliable source. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Copied from my nom, which was made at about the same time... Tim Song (talk) 12:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Contested PROD per request. No notability, COI problems with the creator.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 12:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious speedy delete - no need to bother with AfD. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I prodded the article to allow it some times to extend, but the lack of sources made that kind of hopeless right from the start. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 16:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per A7, so nominated. ukexpat (talk) 17:28, 21 October 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. Arguments for keeping this page are astoundingly weak. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BGVIP.TV[edit]

BGVIP.TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable claim of notability. 142,995th on Alexa. Haakon (talk) 12:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This is by far the funniest keep reason I have ever seen. --Odie5533 (talk) 03:23, 23 October 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 arguments for deletion seem to prevail over the arguments for retention in this case. MuZemike 15:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stendhal (computer game)[edit]

Stendhal (computer game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As far as I can tell, this game has not received any coverage from reliable publications, so is unlikely to be notable enough for inclusion. In fact, independent verification is an issue too. Marasmusine (talk) 11:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wiki-link you critized was only added one and a half year after the article was created. I think it was NPOV when it was created and it is NPOV now mostly. In between there were some announcement style edits that have been removed by now. --Gamfa (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable, couldn't find any reliable sources out there. --Odie5533 (talk) 12:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Agreement with poster and Odie5533. The article certainly shouldn't be marked for speedy delete since it meets the A7 requirement of "existence, not notability", but to keep the article we do still need referenced sources to back that up. Ironically, one of the links listed on the page is "Wiki" and leading to quite literally an off-site Wiki-style information database for the game. I have no idea what category or tag you would give something like that, but simple reasoning would make one wonder why something would need a Wikipedia article if one of its external links is "Wiki". Alternate dimensions? Though the article is informational and doesn't give a self-promotional vibe, that link is highly suspicious as WP:COI; This article would be little more than a portal to suggest people go to the "real Wiki" for the game. WP:NOTDIR is what I see the list of concerns adding up to be. Even past that, the resources and link are self-promotional or irrelevant. Normally, articles that have existed this long don't reach AfD discussions, but it has apparently been hiding under the radar. Datheisen (talk) 20:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Stendhal was repeatably featured in the SourceForge newsletter (but i am not sure if that is more worthy than random blogs and game review sites). And it got some attention because it is used as the base for "Krakow Online" by the city of Krakow to present the city to tourists in an online world. There was some coverage about that in Polish i cannot find as I don't speak Polish.
The article was appointed for WP:PROD twice, deleted the last time therefor a couple of month ago. It was only recently restored because I asked for the wiki text in order to extends the article on Libregamewiki. In difference to the version that was deleted (which only lists the very high activity rating), there are the two new references (Krakow and the SF Newsletter). I don't know if that is sufficient to keep it in Wikipedia as I try to stay away from AfD. -- I am a contributor to both Stendhal and Wikipedia (using my real name for this article and discussion to make that obvious) --Hendrik Brummermann (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Featured"? Sourceforge is the host of the now-defuct Self-Promoting "Wiki" link. Suspicious. Probably a lot easier to get featured on a a website you regularly contribute content to. Sorry, but it's a blatant COI to me. The only things in Wikipedia directing to this article are a few user pages talking about this very discussion, or the AfD lists. That would help show a lack of further impact.Datheisen (talk) 22:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edited for a chance to clarify; I admit I could have looked rude and I certainly didn't read over my comment very well before saving. I'm sticking with a Delete though... searches for content and news were blank and nothing that could be used as a 'rescue resource' stuck out to me. Datheisen (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The project is hosted on SF.net, except for the Wiki (!), main game server, and irc channel. SF.net is hosting a huge number of open source projects so getting mentioned in their newsletter is not something that happens easily. Anyway the other sources, "Gazeta Wyborcza" newspaper and GameStar are more reliable anyway. --Hendrik Brummermann (talk) 00:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


(at this point an online article of GameStar and the newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza have been added as sources)


  • Keep: GameStar should be a valid source. The linked article, although in Polish is obviously not a press release since it mentioned that the server were offline on launch day). Having an MORGP developed by and on the official webpage of a large city is notably on its own. It is used in a Ph.D. research project, which unfortunately is not completed and therefor not published, yet. --Gamfa (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There was some coverage in Gazeta Wyborcza of the launch event of the Polish variant "Krakow Online Game" on 15., 16. and 18. December 2006. The electronic version of those articles is pay per view. But I guess the headings are a valid prove that it was mentioned on three succeeding days in that newspaper: [23] [24] [25] (Google Translate: [26] [27] [28]) -- I am a contributor to both Stendhal and Wikipedia (using my real name account for this article and discussion to make that obvious) --Hendrik Brummermann (talk) 07:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Whilst I'm not convinced about the significance of coverage from GameStar and Gazeta Wyborcza (the former being quite short, and the latter being pay-per-view and possibly just coverage of a press release), it's enough to show that there are at least reliable sources, at least enough to have the game included on some List articles. I'd like to hear what other people thing about these sources. Marasmusine (talk) 10:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there are enough reliable sources to warrant an article. --Odie5533 (talk) 02:08, 28 October 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. Discussion to redirect/merge should continue on the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zombie Cow Studios[edit]

Zombie Cow Studios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

contested prod, lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources RadioFan (talk) 11:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - a very minor point, but sources 1 and 2 are the exact same article. I'm not voting one way or the other, just saying that it seems odd to use the same article on a sister site as another reliable source. --Teancum (talk) 11:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • At least both attribute the same source, Phill Cameron. #3 is a press release; #4 is not significant coverage, so we need something more. Marasmusine (talk) 12:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources that Odie5533 listed whilst I was still looking around. Whilst they are not the most brilliant sources in the world, they still seem to qualify as secondary sources for WP:ORG, and the fact some products of this company have been well recieved by the industry (see metacritic), that hints at notability. --Taelus (talk) 12:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm still not convinced that this article may meet notability guidelines. It is not clear how notable those sources are. Hinting at notability isn't the same as "significant coverage" in 3rd party reliable sources as required by notability guidelines.--RadioFan (talk) 03:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to and list at List of indie game developers, citing the Gamasutra inverview. With one item of significant coverage, I'd suggest going with Wikipedia:N#cite_note-3. Dan Marshall has given several other interviews at sites I've never heard of before, so can't vouch for their reliability. Other hits are largely press releases. Marasmusine (talk) 13:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seconded - Not enough coverage for their own article, but enough to be put in the list. --Teancum (talk) 15:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed: I actually did not know we had an extensive list just for things just like this! Perfect. It would solve the problem of the article being in a frustrating gray area; It'd be hard to argue a company that has releases on major download services and have metascores based on a good number of reviews should be deleted, but in its current form it's just a short fact sheet and no real content. Redirect is a creative solution, as we lack solid secondary sources for a full article.
  • Comment this merge sounds like a good idea.--RadioFan (talk) 12:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A redirect sounds like a good idea to me RadioFan (talk) 20:03, 22 October 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 13:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheung Yin Tung[edit]

Cheung Yin Tung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Autobiography of a politician, spamming, dubious notability, previously removed from Chinese wiki[33][34] --Ice Sea (talk) 10:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Seem to be a few hits for him on gNews: [35]. I don't speak Chinese, can anyone confirm if the hits on gNews are non-trivial coverage and in reliable sources? --Odie5533 (talk) 12:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Two of those Google News hits mention the subject in the title.[36] The first of those links isn't working for me at the moment, but a Google translation of the second shows that it does little more than announce the subject's election candidature. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting us know, but sadly I don't speak a bit of Chinese. Anyone that does care to summarize the arguments? --Odie5533 (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomination is based on the promotional tone of the article and the lack of improvements. There is one keep vote that asserts there have been improvements. Also mentioned the article here, but I'm not clear on what he was saying, exactly. The translation is not perfect. Then it goes into a discussion between the nom and the voter debating significant coverage and WP:AUTO, the nom stating that the coverage is not sufficiently focused on the subject and bring up AUTO, the keep voter noting that AUTO doesn't apply because the subject didn't write the article. From there it's further policy debate, someone else joins and appears to suggest the nom is being hypocritical by arguing over this article's neutrality and the propaganda within it while he has written articles of questionable neutrality including propaganda, and then that person mentions the article here as well, but again, I'm not able to figure out the context. Hopefully that was a decent summarization.[38] Lara 21:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, basically the summarization was correct. And the User Bīng Rè Hǎi fēng (nom) is me myself. The user 某生 accused me of creating advertisement articles such as Eugène Ionesco,Allen Ginsberg and Jean Genet, but I think the notability of those articles were very clear. He mentioned in the last paragraph that he was very angry at me because I started a discussion here.
    • Yes, there are some google web results (張賢登+民主黨). But just look at the first page please! Many of the entires were from blogs and forums. Only one third-party source was from wenweipo, and that was only a short news, did not provide particular imformation about him.--Ice Sea (talk) 02:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The notability of Cheung for having an article here is not less than many of others who are listed in Category:Former member of district council in Hong Kong. Cheung was an elected member of the Yuen Long District Council in Hong Kong until 2007, and he is still an active member in the Democratic Party of Hong Kong. If one uses "張賢登" (Cheung Yin Tung) + "民主黨" (Democratic Party) as keywords to search in google, about 60,000 entries would be found (replicas not excluded). Cheung was mentioned by local media many times, particularly during elections. --Mewaqua (talk) 02:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merely mentioning or just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability for persons. That's the debate topic in the Chinese wiki as well. In the online sources cited in the current version of the Chinese article, most of them are the meetings he attend and the election in which he was defeated. The only article covers him substantially does not mention him in the title.--Skyfiler (talk) 02:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It is inappropriate to use {{Findsources|張賢登 民主黨}} to perform google search, the goal is to search entries containing both pharses "張賢登" and "民主黨", not entries containing the one pharse "張賢登民主黨".--Mewaqua (talk) 15:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - Just added {{Findsources|張賢登}} for you at the top.--Altt311 (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please note that there is a blank between 張賢登 and 民主黨， that means to search entries containing both pharses "張賢登" and "民主黨".--Ice Sea (talk) 03:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seems that {{Findsources|張賢登 民主黨}} is to search "張賢登 民主黨", not "張賢登"+"民主黨". This is the correct search you want.--Altt311 (talk) 03:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, you are right. I'm sorry--Ice Sea (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Please take note that those so-called "mentioned by local media" are news reports during the elections. My own search has kicked out facebook and some of the blogs and internet forums (and Wikipedia to prevent self-reference). In these 67,000 results, most of them are mentioning him as a representative of HK Democratic Party (Secretary of the party) or a candidate representing HK Democratic Party in the elections. None of the results (at least I can't manage to find any) describe Mr. Cheung in detail. Due to this, I determine that these search results are trivial descriptions that cannot justify for Mr. Cheung's notability.--Altt311 (talk) 17:39, 26 October 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. Staxringold talkcontribs 07:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Health Consulting[edit]

Animal Health Consulting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to meet WP:CORP. No citations or references in the article. I'm not finding any material on-line where this group is the topic. —Largo Plazo (talk) 10:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Non-notable: 4 hits on gScholar, 1 on Books, has not received significant non-trivial coverage. --Odie5533 (talk) 12:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Largo and Odie. Warrah (talk) 12:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MuffledThud (talk) 13:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PERNOM – just a friendly reminder. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Data is valuable, if somebody can complete it then keep. Olivemountain (talk) 02:37, 23 October 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. Staxringold talkcontribs 07:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rokwai[edit]

Rokwai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is supposedly about a "force" from Hawaiian mythology. The original author changed this to "unknown mythology", which is essentially useless. It currently has a footnote stating "more possibly related to Māori"; however, it clearly cannot possibly be from any Polynesian language since none can have a "kw" letter combination. No references are cited, despite the claim that it is "Definitely an existing island myth". A Google search turned up no mythology-related hits on either "Rokwai" or the alternative "Rogwai". This has the appearance of either a hoax (by or on the author, I don't know), or something heard third-hand that is not real as it stands in the article (wrong name, wrong region etc.). KarlM (talk) 10:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As hoax. Most of the hits I'm seeing are related to Japanese. Didn't see anything on Hawaii or Hawaiian mythology. --Odie5533 (talk) 11:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "I think this thing exists somewhere, can someone confirm?" is not helpful even as a stub. I can't find any evidence of its existence. The author is welcome to recreate when they know what their article is about and have a source. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 14:57, 25 October 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. NW (Talk) 21:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Jr. Parks[edit]

Nick Jr. Parks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another hoax on the face of it, there's little in the way of reality here as other related articles don't mention it in their history. Outside of hoaxery, there's not much of an article here, no sourcing and barely any content. treelo radda 09:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as hoax Not blatant, but google does not support the 21 million people, 11 parks, etc assertions.--Terrillja talk 10:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as a hoax blatant or not. (WP:IAR if you have to, I don't care if it doesn't meet the criteria.) JBsupreme (talk) 16:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources whatsoever. Mokoniki | talk 17:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a G3. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:37, 21 October 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 by the nominator, which is effectively the same as "nomination withdrawn" with no other delete !votes. Closing the AfD accordingly.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Hem Chander Vikramaditya[edit]

Hem Chander Vikramaditya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article already exists by another name Samrat Hem Chandra Vikramaditya with more information and citations. TheBigA (talk) 09:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, you didn't; that wasn't the correct syntax for a redirect. I've undone your revision for the moment, and I shall not close the AfD quite yet. Such a closure would be subject to overturning at deletion review. It's only fair that the nominator has a chance to answer us; there may be some factor of which we are not aware.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:18, 21 October 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 Commitment. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personal commitment[edit]

Personal commitment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced vague WP:DICDEF. Cirt (talk) 09:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Commitment. It's a plausible search term, so should be a redirect rather than a redlink. We also need to fix Commitment by removing the link from there to here and trimming the amount of discussion of "personal commitment" in that article.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 10:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Assuming that the article at commitment is worth keeping, a redirect there would be appropriate. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:43, 22 October 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. Hoax NW (Talk) 21:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JumpStart Superheroes[edit]

JumpStart Superheroes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reads like a fairly elaborate and convoluted hoax, for a show which has been ongoing since 1994 there is next to nothing regarding it anywhere. There's no sourcing and seeing as the two inline links posing as sources don't exist it doesn't really encourage me to believe this is a work of anything but pure fiction. treelo radda 09:17, 21 October 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. NW (Talk) 02:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brandy Howard[edit]

Brandy Howard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete - clear-cut failure of WP:BIO and WP:N. This person obviously is not the subject of reliable third-party references to scrape her past the bare minimum required by relevant policies and guidelines. PROD removed, so by all means let's spend another week debating her lack of notability. Eddie's Teddy (talk) 06:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - her large number of commercial appearances could arguably take her over the "prolific" threshold in WP:ENT; the article needs cleanup (and sources) but I'd err on the side of retention. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete zero notable films, only one article about her (but that is in what I think is a fairly reputable blog). DGG ( talk ) 01:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - her large number of verifiable commercial appearances and her resume of relevent television on imdb (which is a reliable 3rd party source) and the article on the movie she co-wrote, is starring in and is producing is also from a reliable 3rd party source. She is referenced on several other VERY NOTABLE pages of wikipedia and has her name has been blog and google searched leading people to this page. I vote for retention- although I have no idea what I'm doing here. Unclehowardgoldman (talk) 02:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Brandy Howard is becoming notable in the gay community due to her affiliation and project with Julie Goldman and Tammy Etheridge. There are 2 seperate articles illustrating this and the website for the movie. The interest is there and this wikipedia page is providing valuable information to interested parties in said community. GordyLaChance (talk) 05:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC) :— GordyLaChance (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep as a user of Wikipedia surfing for information on Julie Goldman - finding Brandy Howard - She seems very notable. Perhaps You need to define Notable and explain who you are to judge what makes someone of note or not. I didn't realize there was a board room of judges deciding who's notable - what's notable and what's not. I searched Brandy Howard online and he has been in major Network Television shows, Independent Films, national commercials, and print ads, and as an actor that makes her Very notable. She has several third party mentions, Afterellen.com, Autostraddle.com, and the clips on Youtube of commercials are third party clips. Her Page should be kept and you should all find better things to do - or at least do your research before you start ruining someone's hard work and livelihood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garybusy (talk • contribs) 05:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC) :— Garybusy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • The relevant standard for notability in this case are the general notability guideline which states in relevant part that a topic is presumed notable if it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Reliable means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. Sources, for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred. Independent of the subject excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc." Of the sources being offered: IMDB is not considered reliable; automaticmovie.com is the official site for a film in which the subject appeared and so is not independent of her; nicethingsthemovie.com is the site for a film the subject is trying to finance and so is not independent of her; itsnotgayitsfashion.com is the subject's blog and not independent of her; Gay Pimpin' with Jonny McGovern is a Wikipedia article and Wikipedia is not a reliable source for Wikipedia, nor does McGovern mention her on his website; the subject's YouTube channel is not independent of her; the AfterEllen article menions the subject in a single sentence out of a three page interview with Julie Goldman and so is not significant coverage; The OUTmedia.org article is about Julie Goldman and mentions the subject in a single sentence and so is not significant coverage. The site describes itself as being for the promotion of LGBT talent and so may not be verifiable under the standards required for reliable sources.
  • There is a secondary guideline for notability of people, WP:BIO. Under BIO, a person may be notable if: s/he "has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for one" (not the case here); s/he "has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" (not the case here). As an entertainer, a person may be notable if s/he "has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" (no reliable sources indicate that the subject's roles were "significant" [many are non-recurring roles in single episodes of TV series] or that any of the films meet our notability guidelines except for Pandemic (TV miniseries) in which she is billed 35th); s/he "has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following" (no reliable sources indicate this to be true); s/he "has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment" (no reliable sources indicate this to be true and the only assertion that she has, for appearing in 50 TV commercials, is neither unique, prolific nor innovative).
  • So you see, I have done my research despite your snippy assumption to the contrary and I also searched for actual reliable sources that discuss the subject in any detail before opening this AFD. And now, by posting the above, I've done your research too, since you clearly couldn't be bothered to actually read the guidelines for including articles in Wikipedia and have no informed basis whatsoever for your opinion. Eddie's Teddy (talk) 07:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:N is the standard for establishing a presumption of notability. That presumption is rebuttable; notability may also be established without satisfying WP:N. The secondary guidelines (in this case WP:ENT) provide guidance on interpreting this presumption in specific cases. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment relocated to the end of mine. WP:ENT is a sub-section of WP:BIO and it is addressed and rebutted in its entirety (along with the relevant remainder of BIO) in the second paragraph of my comment (no significant roles in notable projects, no fanbase or cult following, no unique, prolific or innovative contributions). Eddie's Teddy (talk) 13:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:ARTIST. The refs and a search show no verifiable notability. Johnuniq (talk) 06:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Her large number of commercials is a claim to notability, but I can not find significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 13:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Her handful of relatively minor TV/film credits are definitely not nearly enough to make her notable (Just Shoot Me is a notable show, but she was apparently only in one episode), and, although I'm unaware of any official Wikipedia policy addressing the matter, it doesn't seem reasonable to ascribe notability for appearances in commercials, no matter how numerous, unless those commercials were themselves very noteworthy and she had a major part in them (like the "Can You Hear Me Now?" guy from the Verizon commercials). This does not seem to be the case. So, in summary, as an actor she's completely non-notable. As for her writing, that may be notable if and when their screenplay The Nicest Thing is actually produced—the article refers to "rumored attachments" and who's "slated to direct", but that's all crystal balling. So... she may very well be notable in the future. She isn't now. —Smeazel (talk) 02:16, 24 October 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 DON'T Shii (tock) 06:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado balloon incident[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Colorado balloon incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

DELETE. We need to achieve a consensus here. Clearly, Wikipedia is not a news site, and this article fails WP:NOTNEWS. JBsupreme (talk) 06:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. This has been through an AFD and a DRV in less than a week. Not enough time has passed for us to be able to gauge consensus, so we should close this and reopen in a few months. The WordsmithCommunicate 06:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: At this point Shii (talk · contribs) closed the AfD, but JBsupreme (talk · contribs) undid the close, and the following comments were added. Tim Song (talk) 06:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close: While this nomination might have been made in good faith, it strikes me as being in poor taste. When a no-consensus closure is resoundingly endorsed on Sunday, to come back on Wednesday, saying, "We need to achieve a consensus here", has something of a "screw-you-guys" effect. Anyhow, consensus was reached in the DRV, and the consensus is that there is no consensus to delete. Should that consensus not be respected? Cosmic Latte (talk) 06:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strange, I saw this as closed by an admin a couple of revisions ago. Antipastor (talk) 06:48, 21 October 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 - I suggest some of those who say "all it takes is a bit of work" actually work on it ;-) Xavexgoem (talk) 02:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of religious organizations[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of religious organizations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article purports to be a list of religious organizations. It is actually a very short and very incomplete list which mixes together denominations, organizations associated with religious denominations, organizations which have something to do with religion but are not associated with specific denominations, organizations which are not even clearly religious, and at least one parody religion which has no actual organization. The list is a bare alphabetical list with no classification used, no explanation of the criteria for inclusion, and no added information provided about the entries. As I said the last time this came up for AfD, I can't envision the existing article serving as the basis for a better article; if someone wanted to write a better article they would be better off starting from scratch than using this list. During the previous AfD, which closed as "no consensus", it was suggested that the article should be improved rather than deleted. However, in the almost four months since the last AfD, the article has received no edits other than my own edits today. I recommend that this article be deleted. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, this is not a maintainable list and we are much much much better off using categories for this. JBsupreme (talk) 16:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- There's no problem with this list that can't be solved with editing and proper sourcing. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I feel the need to point out- Lists and Categories can and are supposed to co-exist, with one doing things that the other can't. To say "It should be a category", or "Its better handled by a category" deprives readers of the advantages that lists bring to the table, and vice versa. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are examples, such as this, where categorization is preferred. So yes, many things can co-exist, but that does not really mean that they should. JBsupreme (talk) 17:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neither you or the nominator have given a convincing reason why it SHOULDN'T be done. If someone can actually come up with one, I'll listen. But until then, nothing has been put forward that says this article is unsalvageable. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Trouble is, nobody really has enough spare time to salvage it. I think it survived deletion review before because of that attitude of "Somebody, other than I, can fix this". There is no virtue in having a useless encyclopedia article on display from one year to the next. This survived deletion back in June based on the suggestion that someone would be interested in expanding the list, notwithstanding that it's been neglected since its creation five years ago. Trying to make a somewhat complete and useful list of this nature would be a major undertaking, so it is no surprise that nobody has ever been thrilled about trying to to undertake such a task, including the original author. At some point, the concerns over deleting a potentially useful page have to be balanced against perpetually leaving up an unencyclopedic page, and this is just as unencyclopedic as a "List of American states" that's in alphabetical order, but doesn't get past "Connecticut". Someone who wants to make a comprehensive list of religious organizations should be able to create it to suit their own vision. Mandsford (talk) 17:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Keep and expand--I agree this article is not yet in a reasonable state but incomplete is not a reason for deletion. Most articles here are incomplete, if it comes to that, though this is certainly among the weaker ones. All that means is that it needs more attention. DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, the only attention that this pathetic little article has gotten in 2009 has been the pity it has received during the two nominations for deletion. Mandsford (talk) 01:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And the reason for hurry is what exactly?Umbralcorax (talk) 02:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone knows that this is a work in progress, but at some point you have to draw the line. 5 years? Yeah that's about where I'd draw the line if not sooner. JBsupreme (talk) 05:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your opinion, but why "at some point you have to draw the line"? There is no hurry. At least, I don't feel the need to draw any line. We're not a corporation. We're a volunteer effort. --Cyclopia - talk 00:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG. Article has problems but this is not a reason for deletion. We should help this article, not destroy it. --Cyclopia - talk 00:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fair to say that nobody in this discussion has any interest in taking the time to improve this article. This may close again as a "no consensus", but I wouldn't count on this surviving a third nomination for deletion if it remains unchanged. Mandsford (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And what should this mean? I would improve it but I don't think to have the knowledge to do that. This doesn't mean that the article shouldn't stay. There is no deadline, there is no hurry, we're not in a rush to deliver. The deletion policy says: If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. --Cyclopiatalk 00:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...and at some point you have to make the executive decision as to whether the pile of flaming dog shit on the porch should be removed, rather than waiting and hoping that one day it will turn into a gold plated door mat. JBsupreme (talk) 00:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice image, but that's not what the policy says. --Cyclopiatalk 00:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • JBSupreme is right, of course. I haven't turned the article into a gold plated door mat, but at least the odor of flaming dog shit isn't lingering. If this is going to close as another consensus, it doesn't have to stink. Mandsford (talk) 16:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - User:Mandsford has made some very drastic edits to the article which I am unable to revert. They make a good point but as they fundamentally change the article into a different article I don't believe they're in the spirit of the AfD process. (The page would now be better titled "List of Lists Of Religious Organisations".) The pre-edit version of the page (last edited by JBsupreme) can be found here. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it originally appeared; delete in its current format. If the page starts with lead text establishing it only lists groups which have themselves claimed to be a religious organisation, it's clearly delineated and maintainable. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with you. I reverted to JBSupreme last edit. --Cyclopiatalk 12:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's all right. I think that the closing administrator will look at the history when considering the keep comments. The "I'd improve it but I have the knowledge to do it" arguments might work a second time, but not three times. No information will be lost when this article is deleted. Mandsford (talk) 12:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that our deletion policy explicitly says that if the article can (not "will":"can") be improved through editing, deletion is not the way. We can for sure ask about the article to some Wikiproject that may recruit interested editors, for example. I will do it ASAP. --Cyclopiatalk 12:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good luck on locating an interested editor to do the work. As with trying to make a list of every political organization that has an article here, it would take a lot of labor to list every "religious organization", even after someone figures out what to include and what not to. "Conservata veritate" wouldn't apply here, since this information exists elsewhere on Wikipedia. Mandsford (talk) 15:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you argument based on my inclusionist position (by the way I am quite a weak inclusionist probably, since sometimes I endorsed deletions -it's more of a way to be not-deletionist given the current mood). But if you think about, all reliable information on WP exists elsewhere, on reliable sources. So one could theorically use your argument to endorse deletion of all WP as just redundant. Of course it is nonsense, and it is nonsense because we're not only here to collect information, but to collect it in a useful and practical way. The list has potential to be useful and practical (and lists, in contrast with other articles, are made especially to be useful, see WP:LIST), even if now it is not so much. Again, the delete policy is clear: if it can be improved, don't delete. Deletion is for articles that are intrinsically impossible to improve to WP standard. This is not the case. --Cyclopiatalk 15:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (hesitant) - I stand corrected. Delete - This list, in order to be accurate, needs to be much longer. In order to be useful, it needs to be understandable and have some logical flow. There are more interesting articles to work on. No one has made quality contributions to the article for years. No one will for years. It has "potential" that will never be realized. I challenge everyone who voted "keep" to spend some time improving this article rather than simply prolonging the life of an awkward, and (in its current form) useless list. Otherwise, in a few month or maybe years, it will be nominated for deletion again. And again. And again. I vote delete per no one is ever going to improve it. ...but what do you think? ~B Fizz (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal: Since everyone here feels better if someone promises to work on the list, I propose the following. I am officially going to work on the list, starting probably tonight or tomorrow. I am not the best person to do it and I had other articles on my radar to work on, but I promise I will do my best. I will do the following:
  • Editing the list to list coherently the religious organizations
  • Ask several religion-related wikiprojects to help in editing the list
Would non-trivial edits to this list to make it better and possibility of recruiting some interested editor make people reconsider their !votes? If yes, I am going to do it. --Cyclopiatalk 18:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: I've begun to work on it. It is still of course truly far from optimal, but I feel it has begun a long journey to improvement. I am going to inform relevant Wikiprojects. I would be impressed if someone of the delete !voters who complained of "no one will fix it" shows good will and join me in helping the article *smile* --Cyclopiatalk 23:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have already taken a stride in the right direction, and I applaud your effort. My vote has been swayed from delete to keep, as seen above. ...but what do you think? ~B Fizz (talk) 00:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. I have received a first answer from an editor of a Wikiproject in my talk page, and I hope to recruit some other editor on the thing. --Cyclopiatalk 00:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above, thanks to anyone who works on this. dml (talk) 20:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've added my proposed inclusion criteria to the lead paragraph - "As it can be a matter of debate as to whether an organization is, in fact, religious, organizations only appear on this list where the organization itself claims or has claimed to be a religious organization" - although it seems like there might be a more appropriate way to phrase or present that criteria, so rewrites are, as always, appreciated. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • ... and thanks to Cyclopia for the work on the article. I'm still against you on the Criminal Organisations AfD but I've got a lot of respect for your willingness to put the work in on articles you believe in! - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're welcome. The point is not "believing in". It is that article in a poor state should not be deleted just because they are in a poor state, and I'd prefer people to at least try to recruit editors that can help on the Wikiprojects instead of just throwing the towel and saying "no one will rescue it". I've been a bit hair-pulled into this, but it's fine, if it helps WP. The other list controversy on which we disagree is at a deeper level (on the appropriateness of the list), so this kind of work wouldn't help as much -but please tell me there if there's something I can do that could help. --Cyclopiatalk 12:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - But make it more of a disambiguation type of list linking to more narrowly focused religious organization sub-lists. I will be working on this wen I have the spare time. --Devin murphy (talk) 05:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll withdraw my delete !vote, since an effort is being attempted by the person who urges a keep. Still, I think that you'll find that Devin and is right, that this works better as a disambiguation page than as an attempt to list all the religious organizations of the world on one page. I think that the person who started the page, as well as others who thought of improving it, soon realized that it was a bigger project than they had envisioned. Mandsford (talk) 13:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Newer version is much improved. Notable enough topic, meets all requirements for a Wikipedia list. List of major religious organizations, or List of religious organizations listed on Wikipedia perhaps would work also. Dream Focus 14:05, 27 October 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 (G4) as blatant recreation of deleted material. Article also salted to prevent recreation. MuZemike 06:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Kirkey[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Barry Kirkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod by what looks like an in-experienced user who suggested a WP:POINT violation should this page be deleted. That aside, the original prod reasoning is as follows: The sources are not reliable sources, but are part where the main person of the article has influence over the content. Blogs do not count as reliable source nor do radio interview the main person hosts (self-published). This article has no reliable secondary sources nor does it comply with the WP:BIO standards. Please discuss. — Dædαlus Contribs 03:52, 21 October 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. NW (Talk) 01:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Matrix character names[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The Matrix character names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original research and fancruft, no citation since first nomination —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, huge glob of unsourced and unnotable info Shii (tock) 06:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just a long list of fancruft which is based upon original research. JBsupreme (talk) 06:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete Unencyclopedic original research. Lugnuts (talk) 17:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This would be perfect for [matrix.wikia.com| The Matrix Wiki]. Entertainment wikis are generally more tolerant about essays, original research, etc, and a lot of the episode, character and in-universe articles from Wikipedia's early days have gradually gone over to a more agreeable climate. Mandsford (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: seems to be an original research, no reliable sources --Rirunmot 23:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rirunmot (talk • contribs)
  • Delete: without references to reliable sources for these interpretations, this is pure original research. -- The Anome (talk) 23:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- original research amounting to a thinly disguised trivia page. If sources were to be found for the article, it would still be necessary to show how each and every "fact" meaningfully contributes to an understanding of the parent topic and/or its impact/legacy. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. Edward321 (talk) 17:41, 25 October 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 00:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sindy Espitia[edit]

Sindy Espitia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable starlet. Orange Mike | Talk 03:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — The main, in fact the only substantiated claim to fame in the article is a part in The Bleeding, but according to both the film's article and its IMDb entry, it's a very minor billing. This does not meet the requirements of WP:ENTERTAINER. Favonian (talk) 07:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this actress. Joe Chill (talk) 01:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A minor role in one notable film doth not notability make. —Smeazel (talk) 02:21, 24 October 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. Staxringold talkcontribs 04:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Froguerock[edit]

Froguerock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete. Pure hoax. This "genre" doesn't exist. Any of the cited "bands" are perfectly unknown (no article, even on fr WP), no reliable sources avalaible etc. etc. Obviously out of quality standard. Xic667 (talk) 03:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Lacked mainstream awareness, as the article itself states. Alexius08 (talk) 11:39, 21 October 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. At a first glance this seems like an obvious "no consensus" or even perhaps a "keep". Many editors who took part in the discussion submit that the article is adequately notable and that the article is of sufficient interest to justify keeping it around. However, such arguments are quite often unsubstantiated. Indeed, many keep votes consist of essentially "It is notable" without any sort of explanation or reasoning. This is not always the case granted, so with a hint of reluctance, I conclude that consensus endorses the nomination. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Fox News – White House controversy[edit]

2009 Fox News – White House controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete An important news item but WP:NOTNEWS. Any worthwhile content can be moved to the linked pages -- most likely the article on Fox News. Article is a WP:COATRACK as is. HyperCapitalist (talk) 03:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The title to this article also opens up the material to anything in the past 10 months that could be considered a controversy between the WH and FN too. I suspect that means a few other items... HyperCapitalist (talk) 23:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment After hearing the debate here, I strongly support the merge strategy (U.S. Presidents and the media) as suggested by Stevertigo way down below and at the top of the article in question. However, I don't feel I can change my position from delete as my opinion is unchanged if the article's title remains as it is currently. HyperCapitalist (talk) 04:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is attracting quite a bit of attention in a variety of sources and appears to be a fairly significant event in the early Obama administration. Trilemma (talk) 03:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies WP:NOTE. Topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Cirt (talk) 03:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:NOTNEWS, in spite of its name, says that news is OK provided the item is significant. It seems that this is certainly significant enough to have it's own article.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 03:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Quote notable at this point, but the article needs a complete rewrite. Third party sourcing is copious, but you can bet this is going to be an OR and POV target for a while to come. Suggest everyone put this on the watchlist and help keep things neutral.  :) / /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, WP:NOTNEWS and is notable - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This reads as contradictory, can you please elaborate upon what it is you are trying to express? JBsupreme (talk) 06:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP is not a repository of every single reference to every single whining bitchfest that Fox News manufactures between itself and the Obama or any other presidential administration. Obama appeared on several news shows on the same day and Fox News whinged about it. Not anywhere close to the threshold for a WP article. It's not a "controversy" anywhere outside the fevered brains of Fox News. Eddie's Teddy (talk) 06:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Cos the material, obviously, is adequately sourced (and do so speedily for reasons of Wiki proper procedure because this nomination requests no more than a merger).↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 07:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm leaning more towards delete on this but the unavailability of the PBS website makes it impossible for me to properly assess the sources so I will reserve judgement for now. Adambro (talk) 07:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not Fox News, nor any other news organisation. At best it might merit a sentence in the Fox News article or an article about the media relations of the Obama presidency, but nothing more than that. "News organisation didn't get interview, throws toys out of pram" is not the basis for an encyclopaedia article. Thryduulf (talk) 08:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What's with using ae in encyclopedia? Now I feel really embarrassed; people from other countries see the crap we (U.S.) air on television. Tis shameful. --Odie5533 (talk) 11:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I'm British, I use the British English spelling of "encyclopaedia", which includes ae. Alternatively "encyclopædia" is also correct here in Rightpondia, but that can be seen as pretentious! Thryduulf (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Although a ton of media voices have advised the White House to ignore Fox News, the White House probably knows what it is doing to call Fox News out for essentially being a partisan organization. Those who believe and argue that the controversy is one-way, Fox complaining about the White House, may well be influenced by some desire to pretend that the White House had indeed ignored Fox. But, geez, folks! The die was cast and the White House has drawn its line in the sand! ( -- which several commentators think may well work out well for the White House, in the end, truth be told). Still, it boggles the mind that folks could argue that the topic isn't of note (per, of course, WP:N).↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 09:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • After reading those links, I stand by my opinion that this event merits a sentence in an article about media relations of the Obama presidency and Fox News. Thryduulf (talk) 09:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thryduulf (and others) - Do you have a policy on which a delete opinion is based? Is there a notability guideline that you believe this article fails? I've yet to see anyone address a policy whilst issuing a delete !vote... WP:NOTNEWS and WP:N are both satisfied. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 10:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • (edit conflict) Well, the guidelines I'm basing my opinions on include WP:N, WP:NOTEWS, WP:RECENT. Just because something is verifiable, newsworthy, recent and/or controversial does not necessarily make it encyclopaedic. If you want to document current and recent newsworthy items then Wikinews is the place to be. If anything is encyclopaedically notable about this event it is only as a small part of the wider topic about the relationship between Obama's presidency and the media. We don't need a separate article every time a politician does or does not appear on a television network. I also don't see how WP:NOTNEWS is satisfied. Thryduulf (talk) 11:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)\[reply]
          • Oh please, what part of WP:N isn't satisifed? I think you misunderstand WP:NOTNEWS, which is intended to keep us from becoming a newspaper (and not a bar against having encyclopedic articles about news stories). Given that virtually every news outlet in the country has covered this (most notably, USA Today, NPR, and (ironically) Fox news) the argument that it's non-notable is almost laughable. WP:RECENT is an essay (and in any case is trumped by the significant amount of coverage this has received). I'm not sure how anyone can argue that this isn't significant, verifiable, and copiously sourced. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm not saying, and have never said, that this is not verifiable, not sourced/sourceable or not significant. What I am saying is that on its own the event is not encyclopaedic (everything that is encyclopaedic passes WP:N, but not everything that passes WP:N is encyclopaedic, and not everything that is encyclopaedic needs its own article). My view is that the incident itself is newsworthy, as demonstrated by all the news coverage, but is only encyclopaedic as a small part of the larger encycloapedic topic of Fox News and/or an article about the media relations of the Obama presidency. There is nothing in the article that is not news coverage, and news coverage belongs in Wikinews not Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 13:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The topic is notable, I just hope this doesn't set a bad precedence for creating a new article every time Beck bursts into tears. --Odie5533 (talk) 11:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - The article seems to fail to demonstrate why this particular incident is notable and so I agree with Thryduulf's comments. I fear some may expecting that this issue might become something more significant but such speculation isn't appropriate. WP:NOTNEWS is relevant; "not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own". The length of the article seems to support the suggestion that an article here is not necessary and that this event could be adequately dealt with in other articles. It note the comments that this article satisfies WP:NOTE that has been given as a reason for keeping this article but I'd suggest we can't simply say that any topic which has "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" automatically needs an article, not least where it is probably true to say that any trivial incident concerning the White House is likely to result in dozens of news articles. Adambro (talk) 13:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    News outlets all over the U.S. have been pushing this thing for what feels like months now; this wasn't just a one day thing. Also, the length of the article is irrelevant, this isn't FAC. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure that your first point is relevant to how we choose to handle particular events. There could be a thousand news stories about something that still might only merit a single paragraph in an existing article. We shouldn't take the view that the requirements of, for example, multiple independent reliable sources, being satisfied automatically mean a new article is appropriate. What it means is that we could have an article on that subject, not that we have to. It is for us to carefully consider how that would fit with our other content and whether we already might have an article where the subject could be appropriately covered.
    On your second point, that "the length of the article is irrelevant", I'd very much disagree. The amount of coverage of a subject is always relevant in considering if a separate article is appropriate or it can be included in existing articles. In this situation, the amount of content we have on this subject is such that it could probably be merged into another article. Adambro (talk) 13:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, WP:ONLYGUIDELINE, but I think in this case, bearing in mind that its notability does not necessitate an article, I think it is deserving of one. This controversy is big enough that it should be included both as a paragraph in other articles and with a link to a full article detailing the entire controversy. I think by covering it in this manner we can give varying amounts of detail to it while still providing full coverage. I guess it really comes down to whether or not we believe it deserves a full article or not. Also, the length of the article would only be relevant if we had exhausted all sources available on the subject. This is definitely not the case here. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The subject matter is notable, though difficult to manage. Because its an ongoing "controversy" its hard to know how long this will last and whether merger into something greater will be appropriate at a later date, which was similarly debated in the recent AfD for Resignation of Sarah Palin. In the meantime, does anyone have the number to that red phone Beck has, I'd like to prank call him.--Milowent (talk) 13:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Reliable sources exist and have been cited. We can give it encyclopedic treatment, so I can't support deletion, and do not feel that an accurate reading of WP:NOTNEWS requires one. I agree, however, that as an editorial decision, this might be better handled inside an article such as Fox News until time gives us a better perspective on how significant this incident truly is. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you clarify whether you are suggesting this article be merged rather than left as a standalone article? That is my position but I've described that as "Delete" in the sense that I feel this article doesn't need to exist, not that I don't think we should mention this incident anywhere on Wikipedia. I've revised my comment to change it to "Merge" which is probably a better description of my position. Adambro (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think the article meets the guidelines for a standalone, and nominally is entitled to exist as such. However, as a matter of editorial discretion, I favor the article being merged until we have more perspective. TLDR version, just because we can doesn't mean we should. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. This should be part of the Obama Presidency and FNC. As it stands it is likey to become a WP:FORK. Arzel (talk) 14:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete This article certainly falls under the domain of WP:NOTNEWS and it should be also noted that this sort of complaint/controversy is not new with previous administrations blocking/complaining/etc of a news channel/paper they do not like/agree with. (It seems as if the reverse was happening last year with MSNBC and the Bush administration and even earlier on with the Nixon administration and the Washington Post.) This article should be merged either with the Obama presidency article, FNC article, or some other related article. Alone this topic does not stand up to have it's own article and can quickly devolve into a complaint/criticism article with only biased RS's to back it up. Brothejr (talk) 14:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Not sure if this deserves its own article..yet. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 15:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- not news is around to prevent us from becoming from some cheap tabloid covering the ordinary minutae of every day life. This situation is far from ordinary and far from mere minutae, given the fact that those involved are the White House and a major "news" network, this is not something minor and trivial, nor will it end quickly and cleanly (ok, maybe I'm engaging in a little crystal ball gazing here, but it still seems like a reasonable conclusion to make given the facts). This is likely to be a long, drawn out mess. Whether or not it deserves its own article outside that of Fox News and President Obama, I'm not sure. That, however, is a matter for discussion at the talk page, not a matter of deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with extreme prejudice. Every politician in every democratic country has conflicts with every independent news agency in that country. Its part of the proper relationship between journalists and politicians; journalists are supposed to be the watchdogs of the government. They are supposed to be a critical voice, and the government is supposed to not like that. Its how the system works! This conflict is no more important or notable than any other conflict between a politician and the press that covers them. There is absolutly nothing notable about this situation. The bigger issue is why this article exists, which is patently obvious, its a WP:COATRACK to stuff all of the material that continually gets removed from other articles. People have gotten tired of trying to insert overt commentary about Obama into articles where it doesn't belong, so this article is merely an attempt to get in through the back door what isn't being allowed to come in through the front. --Jayron32 16:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "journalists are supposed to be the watchdogs of the government." I think part of the reason for the controversy is that these "journalists" had no apparent interest in being "watchdogs" of the last government, but seem to decide whether or not to be "government watchdogs" on the basis of which party is running the government. Carlo (talk) 00:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. The controversy calls into question the very reasons why we have journalists and news networks. For instance, what function does Fox News provide to the public? Indeed, this should be the very topic of the article, vacuous as the answer may be. --Odie5533 (talk) 00:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jayron32: Re-read whatcha wrote! You did not provide a genuine rationale for deletion, per se; you only provided a rationale not to merge to -- (it would be presumed) "Presidency of Barack Obama." ("Movies are made everyday; so, therefore, no movie is notable" -- ain't an argument!)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 17:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(2 edit conflicts) Eh? My interpretation was that because it's regular news, it shouldn't have a special article and should be either within the presidency page or similar related page. He makes a good argument, but I still think this particular case is deserving of an article since the FNC arm of the GOP is really pushing this one more than most of their regular pander. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whateva. ;^)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 17:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article but keep the info. I don't think this is an encyclopedic or particularly notable subject. It's looking like an essay on a real issue, but one that's a collection of different subjects. Sure, Fox News is conservative, it has been antagonizing the White House and vice-versa, and a series of individual incidents and scandals have taken place. That is worth describing in the encyclopedia to the extent it can be sourced and written about neutrally. But it isn't worth cobbling all that together in an article that claims it is a notable subject in its own right. Instead, the information is better organized by farming it out as a series of individual articles about various incidents, and for less notable incidents adding the material to the articles about the various people, news programs, events, and institutions involved. For example, if Glenn Beck gets in a dust-up with an administration appointee that can go in the Glen Beck article, in the article about his show, an article about the incident, and/or an article about the appointee. For purposes of keeping the information in the same place I would go with a category or template, so people who want to follow the history of Fox v. White House they can just click there. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds mighty complicated.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 17:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, at least until it develops further. This could turn into a major problem for either the Obama administration, Fox News, or both, and could become a major tipping point in the continued popularity and/or survival of either, and that absolutely has encyclopedic value. If nothing else, at least merge it with Presidency, and then later it can be decided whether or not to break it off or leave it Joshua Ingram 18:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment. This is entirely more important than the Colorado balloon hoax, and I don't see anyone suggesting we delete that article! This is important, and could develop to be huge. Let's just keep it for now. Joshua Ingram 18:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wonder if this article could be merged or rewritten to encompass other presidents and their interactions/disagreements with the press? I feel that angle we be more encyclopedic then how the article is currently written. Brothejr (talk) 19:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I like this suggestion, but I have concerns regarding the scope of the proposal. Whilst this particular micro-issue is very well sourced, I could see the additional information of the macro proposal as being a bigger original research/synthesis target (which occurs when sources are lacking and the topic is 'hot'). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Let the present editing fury play out. Too often, articles are nominated for deletion simply because one side has strongly held views about (an uncomfortable, for them) subject. Nomination for deletion seems to be the first line of recourse in such situations relating to controversial topics. I've seen it happen on some of the "hot topic" global warming articles, especially as it relates to BLPs of individuals on the "wrong" side of the issue. It too often serves as a vehicle for de-emphasizing or burying topics one disagrees with. --John G. Miles (talk) 00:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • John, I'm the nominating editor for this AfD. Which of my edits has led you to this conclusion? HyperCapitalist (talk) 01:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was honestly a generic observation of past experience and wasn't directed at anyone in particular but the pattern I've seen in nominations (as soon as an issue seems to be controversial) and really more so in the voting that follows the nomination. Don't worry, it wasn't a criticism of you in particular, just a general observation of how I have seen these things work in the past. No offense was intended whatsoever. --John G. Miles (talk) 18:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, no offense taken. HyperCapitalist (talk) 00:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a pretty normal tit-for-tat that happens regularly between the administrations and dissenters. Every government body decides which dissenters it wants to dialog with and which it wants to snub. We don't shouldn't have any articles about specific events during Carter's relationship with the media. Instead, we have a few sentences in his article. This article is going to seem pretty dumb in 30 years. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 07:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Per WP:OTHERSTUFF, comparison to what Wikiarticles exist with concern to the Carter administration isn't valid (especially since there was no Internet nor Wikipedians then to write them); we only need to determine if the topic is notable. (And, in that regard, see the following Wiki editing helps):

    Recentism in the first sense—established articles that are bloated with event-specific facts at the expense of longstanding content—is usually considered one of Wikipedia's faults. But in many cases, the recentist content can be a valuable preliminary stage in gathering information. Any encyclopedia, even Britannica, goes through rough drafts; new Wikipedia articles are published while in draft and developed/improved in real time, so rapidly developing drafts may appear to be a clutter of news links and half-developed thoughts. Later, as the big picture emerges, the least relevant content ought to be and often is eliminated.---WP:RECENTISM

    Policy relating to fancruft. As with most of the issues of What Wikipedia is not in Wikipedia, there is no firm policy on the inclusion of obscure branches of popular culture subjects. It is true that things labeled fancruft are often deleted from Wikipedia. This is primarily due to the fact that things labeled as fancruft are often poorly written, unwikified, unreferenced, non-neutral and contain original research, the latter two of which are valid reasons for deletion. Such articles may also fall into some of the classes of entries judged to be "indiscriminate collections of information". Well-referenced and well-written articles on obscure topics are from time to time deleted as well, but such deletions are controversial. It is also worth noting that many articles on relatively obscure topics are featured articles.   ¶   Generally speaking, the perception that an article is fancruft can be a contributing factor in its nomination and deletion, but it is not the actual reason for deletion. Rather, the term fancruft is a shorthand for content which one or more editors consider unencyclopedic, possibly to the extent of violating policies on verifiability, neutrality or original research.---WP:FANCRUFT

    ↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 12:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding my statement about Carter, your argument is valid. It was meant as an analogy, but I wasn't clear about that. I added a strike-through above and I recognize that it doesn't totally fix everything. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 18:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a notable set of events within Obama's first year. Give it time to sort out. Jwesley78 (talk) 15:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Source list
  1. The New York Times: The Battle Between the White House and Fox News
  2. The Washington Post: The White House's war with Fox News
  3. St. Louis Post-Dispatch: The White House war on Fox News
  4. The Daily Telegraph: War between White House and Fox News
  5. Canada Free Press: The White House will lose its war against Fox News
  6. The Washington Examiner: Why the White House attack on Fox is backfiring
  7. Baltimore Sun: White House war on Fox
  8. Detroit Free Press: The White House vs. Fox News
  9. Kansas City Star: The White House vs. Fox News White House and Fox News sniping gets louder
  10. CBS News: Missing The Point In The Fox-White House Spat
  11. The Daily Telegraph: The White House will lose its war against Fox News
  12. Dallas Morning News: White House only loser in fight with Fox News
  13. Baltimore Sun: Obama vs. Fox? Fox wins
  14. The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer: White House Steps Up Criticism of Fox News Channel
  15. The Washington Post: Obama's dumb war with Fox News
  16. CNN: Good strategy for White House to go after Fox News?
  17. The Week Magazine: Obama's war with Fox News
  18. Boston Herald: Obama vs Fox News
  19. World Magazine: The White House war on Fox News
  20. Los Angeles Times: The Obama war against Fox News
  21. CBS News: White House Takes Aim at Fox News
  22. Reuters: White House vs. Fox News
  23. MSNBC: White House steps up attacks on Fox News
  24. Detroit Free Press: Despite claims, White House says it won't shut out Fox News

Cheers, Cirt (talk) 11:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about source list
  • I hope Cirt doesn't mind but I've refactored his comment in an attempt to improve the readability of this discussion. I don't think we need to repeat the same list of sources in more than one place so I've replaced it with a link to the same list on the talk page. In response to Cirt's comments, I would highlight my earlier comment that satisfying the basic criteria of WP:NOTE does not mean we must have an individual article on this or any other subject. It simply means we could do. What we have to do is consider how best to present content about a subject in the context of other articles covering related subjects. That means we should consider whether this subject could be appropriately dealt with in other articles. That is the reason why I feel this page should be deleted and the content merged into other articles. Adambro (talk) 12:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do mind. It is inappropriate to refactor comments of other editors other than yourself. Especially as you are an involved participant in this AFD, and not an uninvolved admin in this AFD. Cirt (talk) 12:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the list should stay, but would you mind collapsing it Cirt?  Skomorokh, barbarian  12:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Skomorokh (talk · contribs), thank you very much for your polite request. I will do so now. Cirt (talk) 12:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. :) Cirt (talk) 12:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough if Cirt feels the list needs to remain on this page. It's just a shame he reacted how he did following what was intended, exactly how I explained it, to simply improve the readability of this page. I welcome his edit to collapse the list but am disappointed by his pointed comments in doing so. Let's try to keep focused on discussing this article instead of getting into pointless squabbles. Adambro (talk) 13:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See this comment by Skomorokh (talk · contribs) I am definitely on the same page as you on the issue of altering other editors' comments. Note also Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Others.27_comments: Do not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission. (bolding in original page). Cirt (talk) 13:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like I've said, lets not get into pointless squabbles. Adambro (talk) 13:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Previously uninvolved admin Skomorokh (talk · contribs)'s choice to ask me to collapse the list, instead of doing so himself, was a much more polite and constructive way to act. Cirt (talk) 13:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would note that this and this are the same story, this appears twice in this list, and the link to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch article doesn't work and so needs changing to this. This is perhaps another example of why it would be better to simply link to the list on the talk page. For fear of upsetting Cirt I won't fix these errors in either of the two places they appear but would ask that he does. Regards. Adambro (talk) 16:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are coming across a bit hostile User:Cirt, just letting you know. --Odie5533 (talk) 03:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, Odie5533, and I have apologized to Adambro (talk · contribs) [39]. I wonder if it would be alright to collapse this above exchange, as was done with my source list? Cirt (talk) 18:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jayron32, with whom I agree completely. Tim Song (talk) 13:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this "controversy" is not an encyclopedic topic in its own right. It might merit some bare mention in the Fox article or the Presidency of Obama article, but this ginnned up "controversy" (Obama says Fox are a propaganda outlet! Fox says Obama is a secret communist!) does not rise to encyclopedically notable on its own. It's basically just a coatrack for the mud thrown in both directions during a hissy fit. If any mud sticks on either party well, as I said, put it in the Fox article or one of the Obama articles.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (@ Jayron32 & @ Bali ultimate, etc.): The NYTimes-JMcCain-lobbyist affair or the Obama-Ayers controversy, for example, could well have been covered, in the first case, on some McCain-series article plus on wherever is the "NYTimes controversies" page and, in the second case, on some Obama-series page plus on Professor Ayers's BLP, but it just made more sense to treat the events of either controversy in one main place each -- that's the Wikiway. (a) Per WP:N, if reliable 2ndary sources cover a controversy, it merits coverage in Wikipedia, and if this would be more conveniently accomplished through having a distinct article on the topic, do so. (b) Per WP:OR/WP:SYNTH and especially per NPOV's WP:ASF#A simple formulation (which reads, Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves, [bolding in the original]) if notable commentators believe whatever issue -- eg the supposed "McCain lobbyist affair" or the supposed "Ayers issue" -- a hissy fit, the encylopedia might make note of or grant encyclopedic coverage to that opinion, nevertheless we cannot unilaterally endorse such an opinion.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 15:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is an important topic which has enough media attention.Clearcrash1 (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, also check out
  1. WP:POV fork#Related articles
  2. WP:POV fork#Articles whose subject is a POV
  3. WP:POV fork#Article spinouts – "Summary style" articles

    Essentially, it is generally acceptable to have different levels of detail of a subject on different pages, provided that each provides a balanced view of the subject matter.

  4. WP:SUMMARY#Levels of desired details (or WP:DETAIL)

    Wikipedia is not divided into a macropædia, micropædia, and concise versions as is the Encyclopædia Britannica — we must serve all three user types in the same encyclopedia. Summary style is based on the premise that information about a topic should not all be contained in a single article since different readers have different needs;
    - many readers need just a quick summary of the topic's most important points (lead section),
    - others need a moderate amount of info on the topic's more important points (a set of multi-paragraph sections), and
    - some readers need a lot of detail on one or more aspects of the topic (links to full-sized separate articles). ¶ The parent article should have general summary information and the more detailed summaries of each subtopic should be in daughter articles and in articles on specific subjects.

    Plus one comment (last one, promise): I've always been curious, When "merge" discussions are merely templated with "Merge to"/"Merge from" tags, the resulting discussions attract maybe a half-dozen commenters, but when someone who favors a merger instead starts an AfD, a score or more folks show up to debate the issue, why is that? I think it's cos the AfD page is more sexy somehow than Wikipedia's list of contemplated mergers.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 16:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cmt Justme, you write: 'Per WP:N, if reliable 2ndary sources cover a controversy, it merits coverage in Wikipedia." There is no such language on notability there. There is a one line summary: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. That word "topic" is a tricky one. I don't see a topic here. I see Fox and Obama as the topics (with perhaps some spinoff topics -- Beck, Biden, Emannuel, whoever). As to the two examples above (aside fron nyah nyah nyah otherstuff). We have no article called the NYTimes-JmcCain-lobbyist affair. We do have an article called the John McCain lobbyist controversy, February 2008 which i would be very happy to see nuked from orbit having just read it. A little of that could go into the McCain 08 presidential campaign article and since there is now a pending lawsuit by Iseman a bit more of that could go into Iseman article, with probably a little more of it in the NYT article, which can expand or shrink depending on if Iseman wins the suit. As for the Ayer's-Obama article. I hate it and do think it's a coat rack, but accept the shrillness and hysteria on this issue rose to such epic proportions that it became a topic. If this "controversy" likewise rises to those levels (it will take at least six months to figure out if it does) this could be revisited (in isolation from everything else, Fox News - Obama White House dispute would be a much better name for this). We should have a strong bias against alleged topics that involve large media organizations, since they obviously generate t heir own "sources" on the matter and feed the ginned up situation for ratings. That's certainly what I see here. Really, where does it end. Limbaugh-White house controversy, MSNBC-Bush White House controversy, The New Republic says mean things about Obama, makes Emannuel curse controversy. The mind reels.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@ Bali ultimate: w/r to WP:N's "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article": Nope, nobody forces WPdians to cover any particular topic; yet WP indeed grows as Wiki recentist fancrufters contribute collations of 2ndary sources on whatever quote notable end'o'quote topics they might find interest in (per WP:Recentism#Benefits of recentist articles, the entire section). IOW, I think it would not only hurt WP, it would be an asset to the project, were every single subsection in the article United States journalism scandals to receive treatment in distinct, well- researched and written articles.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 17:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is well-sourced, topical, relevant, and informative. QueenofBattle (talk) 16:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Frankly, there should be zero mention of it here in its own article, and we seem to have a pile of one-issue users trying to pile on a POV article. If it fits anywhere, perhaps a mention on the obama presidency. Showtime2009 (talk) 17:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Coatrack#What to do about coatracks:

"An appropriate response to a coatrack article is to be bold and trim off excessive biased content while adding more balanced content cited from reliable sources. In extreme cases, when notability is borderline, and there is little chance the article can be salvaged, deletion of the entire article may be appropriate."

Showtime2009, could you do the closing admin a favor and tag, as such, the "pile-on of SPAs," who you have discovered to be editing the article and/or !voting in this AfD?↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 18:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability guidelines aren't written in such a way that notability is a transitive property -- if it meets the criteria set for inclusion, it can't really "un-meet" them. I think the question you mean is "is the topic encyclopedic?" (ie, will it have any significance in 5/10/100 years?) Defining exactly what "encyclopedic" means is a subjective art; however I also believe that this certainly will have some lasting significance. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Notability is not temporary - if something is notable now it is always notable. However if something seems important now but wont in a few weeks then it is not notable but newsworthy, and should be documented not in an encyclopaedia but in a newspaper/news website such as Wikinews. Thryduulf (talk) 00:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For reasons stated by QueenofBattle. I don't see this battle between Fox and the White House ending anytime soon. There is already enough info, and every media outlet has an opinion with plenty of good material to work with. tsheiimneken (talk) 00:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes, the article needs to be watched (and possibly semi-protected indefinitely), but this became notable as soon as the Obama administration made it official White House policy to attempt to delegitimize the largest cable news operation in North America. This is not a minor spat (such as the pissing match between David Gregory and Dubya); this is a substantial and sustained campaign, including statements from Obama himself. Horologium (talk) 00:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Behind the War Between White House and Fox" article by Jim Rutenberg in The New York Times October 22, 2009 If the subject can support that article, which contains considerable interesting detail, it should be developed, not deleted. Also Segment on CBS News October 23, 2009. Fred Talk 14:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Came to this article this morning from its link on Google News Top Stories. Wikipedia is likely seeing considerable traffic from that link. If the article has specific problems, address the problems. To come to the Wikipedia page, from the top of Google News, and see an effort to delete the article does not seem in Wikipedia's interest. Fix it if it's broke, leave it be/improve it, if it isn't.Ted Clayton (talk) 15:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To add to Ted's comment, just because it interests me, I'll note that one of the article URLs got 963 hits on 10/21 and over 1700 on 10/22. [40].--Milowent (talk) 17:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - also came here from google news. This is relevant and important. Anyone with references to other times a US Administration boycotted a news organization, claimed it was not a news organization, and began to treat it as a political adversary in and of itself, please post that info. It is new and newsworthy in my experience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jd9507 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC) — Jd9507 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete - Not including tabloids such as the National Enquirer or Fox in press events is scarcely noteworthy. If the article were to be kept, we'd need to create companion articles for each of the many times that other administrations didn't interact with this or that media organization and link them all together. W was quite aggressive about freezing out media he didn't like, so we'd need, at a minimum, an article for each of those cases. Clearly, that gets ridiculous. I could, however, imagine a broader topic on media-whitehouse interactions, with this being a minor element of that larger topic, as an interesting entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.30.180.134 (talk) 22:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC) — 99.30.180.134 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
If you can find citations in reliable sources that the Bush administration actively crusaded against a particular media organization, including refusing access to said media organization during a press conference (see the New York Times article cited above by Fred Bauder), then by all means go ahead and start an article on the Bush administration's press relations. However, this discussion is not about an article describing the Bush administration's relationship with the press; this is about article describing the Obama administration's relationship with Fox News, and its unprecedented and coordinated attempts to delegitimize it. When four other networks refused to attend a round of interviews with the executive-pay czar because Fox was to be excluded, that seems to indicate that the other networks don't agree with the Obama administration's position vis-a-vis Fox News. BTW, that is all detailed in the >1000 word New York Times article, which deals solely with the dispute between the administration and FNC. Horologium (talk) 23:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are misrepresenting my point. I quite specifically said it would be ridiculous to have separate entries for every instance of wrangling between the the various media and the various administrations. However, I suggest above, a broader topic on this sort of wrangling in general might potentially make sense. You could push for your version of reality there. Note that your reasoning for what makes this entry worth keeping is based on questionable assumptions. "Here's a different view of what actually happened." According to this Fox had no intention of attending this event, were not excluded, and no comrade-in-arms protest occurred. (One wonders, was Fox planning to "report" without bothering to gather any facts whatsoever?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.30.180.134 (talk) 02:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.Seriously, there is nothing better for these people to do other than make gimmick accounts to swing the vote? Sounds like something ACORN has their hands in... Joshua Ingram 02:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had to look that one up. Surprised that the article on Poe's Law was deleted from WP too. HyperCapitalist (talk) 04:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Shorten, then merge to the Fox News Channel.--ChubsterII (talk) 14:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but WP:CONCEPTUALIZE beyond just this case. Most presidents have issues with certain people in the press (U.S. Presidents and the media?). I remember Bush Sr. taking issue with Dan Rather's commentary regarding the Gulf War ("..old men sending young men to die..") and then refusing to do interviews with CBS. This did not go well for Bush I, as CBS was a fairly popular newscast, and snubbing Rather seemed a bit aristocratic. (Rather's career itself was ended later through a clever little hoax set up by a Republican operative). There are several more examples of cases where Presidents take issue with certain members of the press, that offer certain general context here. It's important not to get too bogged down in current cases. This is not to say that this article was not created appropriately - often time we seed articles based on current news events and then get into the abstractions, the historical examples, tangential concepts, etc. In fact its a good thing to take current examples like these and broaden them. I may agree that this does not deserve its own article, and yet the view that this entire concept should be boiled down to a blip on the Fox News article is not valid. Regards, -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 16:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you both. HyperCapitalist, if you want to amend your listing of this AFD in accord with the above approach, consider commenting under your own first comment at top. Some people go so far as to strike out prior statements when they have changed course in some way, but regardless of the value in correcting oneself explicitly, I don't make any suggestion either way on that matter. Regards, -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 03:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not the place for news coverage. John Asfukzenski (talk) 21:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS which states that Wikipedia records the historical notability of events. Articles should be in proportion to their significance in the grand scheme of things, and shouldn't focus on passing news stories which are hyped up to gain ratings. Only after the historical notability of this event is evident will an article be appropriate. ThemFromSpace 00:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If a US presidential administration as well as the legacy media covering it consider some affair or related series of incidents to be of considerable importance, whereas certain commentators think it to be something that's been merely hyped up, Wikipedia errs on the side of the preponderance of the reliable 2ndary sources, granting some coverage as well to the opinions of those pooh-poohing the importance of the issue.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 00:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sourced, relevant, non-biased. It is for articles such as this that Wikipedia exists. 38.117.213.19 (talk) 02:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Based on support for using this material as part of a larger article on U.S. Presidents and the media, I have added a mergeto template to the article, and a move template to the article talk. Regards -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 03:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a president with one ideology has a kerfuffle with a "news" organization of an opposing ideology? Stop the presses! Seems a bit coatrack-ish to boot, though the fun of this one is that both anti-Obama and anti-Fox folks can use it as a launching pad against their targets. I'd also have reservations with the creation of an overreaching "presidents and the media" article, as it seems a bit of a gluing together of minor spats spanning the century. Notable enough in some cases to mention in appropriate articles, sure, but not as a patchwork of connected issues. Tarc (talk) 11:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I disagree with you on the appropriateness of this article, I do agree with you that an overarching, all-inclusive article would be a bad idea. When the topic becomes too inclusive, we end up with big, diffuse heaps of factoids (see any of the "foo in popular culture" articles), which become impossible to maintain and full of unreferenced, subjective junk. It might be a good idea to remove the "2009" from the article name, because it's likely to continue to be an issue past the end of this year, and there were clashes between the Obama camp and Fox News prior to the election (the Democratic Party primary debates come to mind; IIRC, the Obama campaign refused to debate on FNC, which eventually was canceled). Horologium (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Significant event of lasting historical note concerning the media relations of this Administration. WP:NOT#NEWS must be placed into perspective - it is designed to ensure that events with no lasting historical notability do not appear in an encyclopedia. For a sitting administration to orchestrate a deliberate effort against a news organization in a free society is a major event, even if it's just run of the mill in other countries with less respect for freedom of speech. Coatrackish and NPOV concerns should be handled via the usual content dispute resolution procedures. RayTalk 16:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Given way too much space. The issue belongs as a couple of paragraphs in the main article for the fox new channel. Even if this resulted in permanent "shut out" of TFNC it would only deserve its own article if the other organizations in The White House press pool objected to its exclusion. So far it seems that this is not the case and therefore this is just a proverbial storm in a tea cup (with or without its tea-bag).--Hauskalainen (talk) 23:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Fox News Channel gets into a lot of controversies. If every one of them were given "a couple of paragraphs" in the main FNC article, that article would be far too long, and with too much weight on the controversies. JamesMLane t c 04:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I vote to delete, but after reading some of the posts here, I can see that at best we are going to get NO CONSENSUS again. So I figure we may as well start on next years article. (No reason to put off for tomorrow what can be done today)). Sure why not. I can see it becoming WP:GA by Christmas.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Satisfies WP:NOTE. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 03:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Merger into another article, such as the one on the Obama presidency or even the one on FNC controversies, would entail either full-scale incorporation (creating a problem of undue weight because of the length of the section on this topic) or extremely selective incorporation (losing much information). Keep this article per WP:SS with a brief summary and wikilink in any other article where it's appropriate. The same applies if U.S. presidents and the media is created -- such an article could not cover every President-versus-media dispute in this level of detail, so it would most sensibly be structured as a general outline containing overall observations, with wikilinks to more specific articles like this one. JamesMLane t c 04:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly prefer merge, but keep otherwise I'm honestly surprised that a page like "U.S. Presidents and the media" does not exist. HyperCapitalist and others have presciently pointed out how useful such a page would be. This controversy here would be best discussed someplace like there. If there's no other option, I would support leaving this article as is. The Squicks (talk) 05:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Obama-Presidency This is actually a measurable policy decision on the part of the Obama White House. I think most of the pundits at Fox are lunatics, but not a lot moreso than those on the left. Singling out one network (apparently) because they were covering stories with a negative spin for The White House is worth a note in his presidential entry on Wikipedia. Do not delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.216.64 (talk) 10:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC) — 71.109.216.64 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete or merge. WP:NOT#NEWS; this is a minor controversy, and although it may be covered in WP:RSs, it is not encyclopedic. Bsimmons666 (talk) 01:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT#NEWS --Tocino 01:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not news, perhaps a sentence in the presidency article would be fitting. Hekerui (talk) 01:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This has not only received enough coverage, but is the subject of an increasing amount of commentary; definitely satisfies WP:NOTE. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 01:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split and merge into Presidency of Barack Obama#2009 criticism of Fox News and Fox News Channel controversies#2009 White House criticism of FNC as per above. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 05:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Criticisms that crop up within the natural course of politics are not necessary to cover in article form. There should be some mention of this within the context of Fox News Channel. Arguably, there might be some place to mention it in connection with the Obama administration, but an article is too much. Croctotheface (talk) 10:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a notable set of events within Obama's first year. Give it time to sort out. Jwesley78 (talk) 15:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Recentism, coatracking, not terribly noteworthy in the vast scheme of things. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:58, 27 October 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 00:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Potato (word)[edit]

Potato (word) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Although this is a well written article about an English word, the Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article is on the subject of potato which the Wikipedia already has an article on, and an incident involving Dan Quayle whose article covers the incident quite well. The article cannot reasonably be changed to give an encyclopedic entry, since the topic is a word. The Wikipedia is not about the usage of words either, except in the most general sense (the Wikipedia correctly covers topics like prefix, but tries to cover it for a whole class of words, and ideally does so for all languages, whereas potato is simply and only an English word that is already covered in Wiktionary). In general Encyclopedia articles should be translateable, but because this is scoped to be only on an English word, it is not easily translated.

The lexical companion already has the information on this word, and any more information should be placed there, in the more appropriate place. The Wikipedia is not a dictionary and is not simply about the meaning or usage of single words. Given that the potato article itself exists, the article should be deleted. Given the scope of the article, this article cannot be saved.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - first off on the grounds that I fundamentally disagree with Wolfkeeper that an encyclopedia cannot usefully have articles on words. Wolfkeeper seems to be on a one-editor crusade to purge these articles from wikipedia... see American (word) or Football (word). There is a difference between a simple definition, as a dictionary would offer, and a fuller discussion of a word, its origins, usages, etc. A well-written article on at least some words should have a place here. --CAVincent (talk) 03:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're supposed to quote a policy. This is not a vote.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 03:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're also not supposed to make personal attacks...- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 03:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if that sounded like a personal attack, it was not meant to be. Just seeing your name pop up several times recently. I'm reading the policy now; still not sure I agree with your interpretation, but I'll live if others support it. And it wasn't meant as an empty vote, I stated why I disagreed (even if I failed to quote policy; is it policy to have to quote policy on afd noms?) BTW, if the result is to delete, if someone more knowledgeable than I could help me set up a temporary home for the article I would appreciate it, as I think some of the etymology and popular culture info might be integrated into the potato article. Or, is etymology info no good either?--CAVincent (talk) 03:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can I quote an essay? Wikipedia:Articles about words suggests "If someone does create a decent sized, nicely formatted, well written and well sourced word article, though, we hate to turn such a thing down; it does indeed get kept." And, some articles "are treated in an entirely random and haphazard fashion, and might be kept and expanded, rewritten into something different, redirected, deleted, or who knows what else, based on the personality of the editor who finds it, the particular group of editors who wander into the article's AfD page, or perhaps the phase of the moon that day." Heaven help those editors who wander in and (express an opinion / vote) without a quotation, though. --CAVincent (talk) 04:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that is not policy, but even if you agree with this essay, the question is whether a ~6K article on the word potato couldn't be better merged with the potato and the Dan Quayle articles- particularly because there seems to be a lot of overlap; even to the extent that it's verging on WP:COATRACK on the latter; about half the article is Dan Quayle and trivia, and the rest is heavily overlapping with potato and the wiktionary.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 05:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as there is nothing encyclopaedic here that is not covered in the Potato and Dan Quale articles, and nothing dictionaric not covered at the potato entry on Wiktionary. Thryduulf (talk) 08:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Anything encyclopedic about the word can easily be covered in the potato and Dan Quayle articles -- and, oh look, it is! Powers T 14:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Rnb (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge back into the article in chief on potato, which already covers some of the same territory. Dan Quayle probably should be mentioned somewhere in the main article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)'[reply]
    • I would disagree with that; his involvement is completely tangential (at best) to an article on the tuber. Powers T 18:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Once you wash away the subtrivial cruft from this article, you are left with small bits and pieces which can be effectively covered in the Quale and Potato articles. We're not a dictionary, either. JBsupreme (talk) 16:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as trivial, unsourced dicdeffery. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Puzzled. I was auto-notified of this because of a single, unimportant edit early in the article's history. But here's the thing. If you look at the very first revision of the article, you will see that it includes two main facts: the Dan Quayle "potatoe" story, which is covered elsewhere, and the fact, moderately interesting in light of the Dan Quayle story, that:
. Now, as nearly as I can tell, this fact--I assume it IS a fact--is not included either in Potato, or Dan Quayle, nor the current version of Potato (word). Whatever the final outcome of AfD, I hope someone will see to it that the bit about "potatoe" once being an acceptable spelling does not get lost. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The detail about the word and spelling belongs in Wiktionary. There isn't an encyclopedia article here.--Michig (talk) 08:10, 24 October 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. — Jake Wartenberg 23:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Valley Waste Management[edit]

Valley Waste Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is about a non-notable waste management company operating in Houston, Texas. It does not meet WP:CORP. Warrah (talk) 02:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete both as non-notable and as an advert - not a ghost of a hint of notability; written in second person like any other advertisement. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete dispose: pure spam. Alexius08 (talk) 11:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've declined the speedy nomination as it is not obvious that this could not be a legitimate encyclopaedia article without a fundamental rewrite.  Skomorokh, barbarian  13:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • response - You don't feel it qualifies as an A7? --Orange Mike | Talk 14:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I did find some local coverage, such as you'd expect a local garbage disposal utility to generate. Not surprisingly, the coverage focuses on labor disputes and litigation, that this article fails to mention.[41][42] But this is local to California, and this article claims that the business is headquartered in Texas. There may be several businesses using the same name. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:35, 21 October 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 00:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chance (muskox)[edit]

Chance (muskox) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete, non-notable animal. It received only transient news coverage in Canada as a rescued animal, but then the animal died within a year and the subject died with it. WP:NOTNEWS. Postdlf (talk) 02:55, 21 October 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 00:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kaka Gill[edit]

Kaka Gill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find evidence of Notability. Everything I find via Google is a Facebook page or a listing or a poem posted to a blog by someone else or a self-publishing site, and many of these pages contain a reference to someone named Jat, which is also the name of this article's author. Possibly promotional? Also, regarding the remark, "His poems have appeared in many internet based Punjabi magazines, forums including Punjabi.net, Punjabilok.net, sadapunjab.com, and many others": the first has no hits for his name using its own search feature; the second doesn't exist; and I don't see any way to find any reference to him or any poetry at all on this site. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:18, 21 October 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. If a merge is still desired, it can be discussed outside AFD. Otherwise, no other arguments for deletion and strong arguments for retention prevail. MuZemike 16:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Martinez[edit]

Oscar Martinez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No claims of notability. No real world information. Everything is original research. Its pretty much just a page listing every time he makes an appearance on the show. Coasttocoast (talk) 01:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where did Thryduulf say that? That editor made no comments in this article nomination. Dream Focus 06:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Major character in a series watched by millions. If an entire episode was made about him, he must be fairly important, or important enough anyway. Dream Focus 06:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep AfD is not for cleanup. The subject is clearly one of several noteworthy characters in a television series with an ensemble cast. Other than "no claims of notability," the nominator's points are all reasons to add a cleanup tag, or even perform a cleanup themselves. As for the notability issue, the nominator did not back that up statement one bit, so it's kind of hard to argue against. Suffice to say, this is just one of many articles that don't necessarily fit the criteria cited by DustFormsWords, and this AfD is not the place to solve the problem if you want to wipe them all out. A centralized discussion would be more appropriate, so the issue can be discussed en masse – i.e. not just about Oscar. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Willoughby, DreamFocus and Benjiboi - The question is not whether Oscar has notability; he does, and there is no reason why information about him can't appear on pages related to The Office. The question is whether he has independent notability - that is, is he notable independently of the series he appears in? The answer to that must be "no" (there's no evidence for it in the article) and as such it's not appropriate for him to have a stand-alone article. (And specifically to User:A Stop at Willoughby - see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; the existence of other articles that violate policy isn't a keep argument in relation to this one.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment DustFormsWords: I am aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I'm not citing those articles as an argument to keep just this article. What I'm saying is that this is the wrong venue to pursue deletion in...there is an entire class of articles that exists which ought to be either all kept and all deleted, and it would be much, much more logical to discuss those options in a centralized location rather than one article by one at AfD. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 11:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Willoughby - That discussion is already happening at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), and the consensus so far is that (as per a common sense reading of WP:N) characters need to have independent notability to have their own page. It's not that there's a vacuum of policy on this that needs to be cleared up; it's that a policy exists, and it should be being enforced until such time, if ever, as there is a change in that policy. AfD isn't going to go on hold until that time. - DustFormsWords (talk) 12:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You are correct; my apologies, I didn't realize there was already an ongoing discussion. Nevertheless, I don't think a full consensus has been reached there and I still strongly support keeping the article at hand. 71.255.86.139 (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC) (wasn't logged in...) A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Most recent reply. Your argument doesn't make sense in light of the fact that the same argument could be made of all entries on characters on the show. Even the main characters do not have independent notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.143.76 (talk) 09:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]
  • Reply to unisgned comment - that may well be true; go bring 'em all to AfD. Although if I remember correctly Steve Carrell has won some awards for his portrayal of Michael so you could make an argument on that basis. An example of independent notability would be Bart Simpson; people who've never watched The Simpsons may still know who he is because of his level of cultural saturation. Or Kramer from Seinfeld. These are characters that are referenced and satirised well outside their home show; they're a shared part of our cultural consciousness. They have independent notability and it can be established by quoting a large number of sources that talk about and analyse these characters in some detail with only passing mention - or no mention at all - of their origin shows. That's a standard possibly none of the characters from The Office reach (yet) and it's certainly not one that Oscar Martinez can claim. - DustFormsWords (talk) 12:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Using this, or any article as a test case as part of ongoing fictional notability battles seems like a really bad idea and unlikely to help Wikipedia in the long run. At best you'd have a very large list article until each character was again re-spun off into its own article. As we are not a paper encyclopedia it seems to make sense, at least in this case, to let the article develop in peace since multiple independent reliable sources do seem to support a good article can be created. -- Banjeboi 20:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • COmment - nice work, Benjiboi. If someone were to work those sources into the article in the form of a "Oscar Martinez is independently notable because...", I'd be prepared to reconsider my vote. - DustFormsWords (talk) 20:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate that however with AfD we don't insist that the article itself be fixed to address the deletion concerns - although that would be nice. What we do instead is address if the issues are fixable. If it can be demonstrated that the issues raised can be addressed, in this case that notability can be shown, then it's simply a matter for the article to be improved, not that it has to be improved over the next few days or we'll still delete it. -- Banjeboi 21:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No one has suggested deletion (apart from the nominator), just that with only notability dependant on the series, this character is best covered in the character list article. Even if all the sources above were used, this character can easily be covered in a few paragraphs in the list. I do agree that this was not the best venue, as a discussion of all the character articles needs to be had. But this is not a case of "waiting for the articles to develop", this will just keep getting longer with far too much fan detail and no sourced discussion - in such cases, merging to a list and waiting for it to grow there helps the article. The articles as they now stand are more appropriate for a fiction wikia.YobMod 10:34, 28 October 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. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 07:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monkeybicycle[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Monkeybicycle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No third-party evidence of notability for this publication. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article makes no direct assertion of notability but I think it's capable of making that assertion as it features publications by notable authors. There's plenty of ghits, comprising both reviews, recommendation, and discussion of both the site and the publication. Assertable notability plus secondary sources equals a pass for WP:N, so keep. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:32, 21 October 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 Batman Beyond unless someone wishes to create a separate list on the characters. MuZemike 15:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warren & Mary McGinnis[edit]

AfDs for this article:
    Warren & Mary McGinnis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    Also nominated:

    Delete all - all of these articles fail WP:NOT#PLOT as they are nothing but in-universe plot summaries. There do not appear to be independent reliable sources that attest to the separate notability of the characters, several of whom appeared no more than twice or three times. Fails WP:FICT as it currently exists. Eddie's Teddy (talk) 07:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Except of course no one ever seems to actually perform the mergers, not to mention that there is no sourced information to merge. Eddie's Teddy (talk) 22:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've performed lots of mergers. It's one of my specialties! ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to an appropriate character list. Edward321 (talk) 02:16, 17 October 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, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge (all nominated entries) to appropriate character list. Per WP:N and proposal at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) individual characters must have individual notability, with the standard generally being that the character is titular, historically significant, or a major character of a multimedia franchise. I'm a Batman nut and I can't remotely make the claim that these are major characters. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which, since these are without exception minor characters, is an argument for deletion. Eddie's Teddy (talk) 06:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • They're notable within the context of Batman Beyond; just not independently notable. - DustFormsWords (talk) 20:41, 21 October 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.

    Merge Matt McGinnis with the Terry McGinnnis page.

    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Jake Wartenberg 23:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Mr Gorgeous[edit]

    Mr Gorgeous (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Even though having being charted may qualify, does that mean charted as high as "472" qualifies for WP:MUSIC. My nomination based on the line at the end of the introduction line: "failed to enter the UK charts".

    I recommend merging those listed below to the Clea (band) article for the same reason above:

    LoveShy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Emma Beard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Aimee Kearsley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Donnie Park (talk) 14:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - The singles chart in the United Kingdom only goes up to 200. So I'd love to know where the "472" came from. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 19:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, if content is to be merged the articles can't be deleted for licensing reason, if no one comments you might want to try simply redirecting the articles - quite possible no one would revert. Guest9999 (talk) 02:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - nothing of value to merge in. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Nothing worth merging, and no chart goes down to #472. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Individual songs rarely have notability, and this is no exception. Reywas92Talk 20:27, 27 October 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. Kevin (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wadih Saadeh[edit]

    Wadih Saadeh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    The article appears more or less with the same content in several wikis - it has no sources and all (but the en/simple articles) have been created by the same IP-user. In sv-wiki a user of the same name as this article is registered and this user and the IP-user have not been editing any articles but the Wadih Saadeh-article. It is probably an autobiography. Amjaabc (talk) 22:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per nom. UltraMagnusspeak 13:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongly Keep, the article is about an important historical figure, that was the founder of modern Pan-Arabism, the article needs to be improved, but not deleted, deleting it is like deleting the article about Karl Marx, or Mao, or Bolivar.

    Arab League User (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • if he is that important, why has no one written a book about him? or any academic papers? --UltraMagnusspeak 10:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 21 October 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 00:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Adam Tomei[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Adam Tomei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    I would nominate this for {{db-repost}} but I don't know if the article is similar. A previous biography on this individual was deleted per a deletion discussion.

    The current article cites nothing approaching "significant coverage" of the subject, and several of the references don't even mention his name. Bongomatic 01:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Two appearances in notable productions (Meet Dave and The Banger Sisters), but they don't seem "significant" - thus fails WP:ENT. Also, general coverage does not seem significant and notability is not inherited from his sister.  JUJUTACULAR | TALK  02:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it's very hard to inherit anything from one's sister unless one has quite unconventional family relationships. Bongomatic 02:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    At least, I hope he didn't inherit anything from his sister :)  JUJUTACULAR | TALK  02:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - the productions may be notable, but it doesn't appear that his roles were as well. His Meet Dave role was "No. 35", his role in Swing was "Mac," and his role in The Banger Sisters was "Club owner." Other non-memorable roles have included "Friend," "Postman," "Security Technician," "Audio/Video Agent," "Reporter," and so on. If all the IMDB refs were removed (as they should be) + everything about his sister, you'd have nothing left. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The deleted version was totally unsourced, and consisted only of a sentence saying he's Marisa's brother together with a list of his movie titles. The newer version, though still stubby, has a lot more content. So I think it's not similar enough for a G4 speedy deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:20, 15 October 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, 21 October 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/redirect to Darwin Football Association.  Skomorokh, barbarian  09:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yolla Football Club[edit]

    Yolla Football Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    This article is inaccurate and does not have enough information to identify the subject.  Btilm  01:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Fails WP:CLUB and, as individuals, WP:ATHLETE. No references to establish notability Amateur local clubs are generally not considered notable. WWGB (talk) 10:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There is plenty of information to identify the subject. The club is an Australian rules football club competing in the Darwin Football Association, a competition based in Tasmania. That is all directly from the article text. Some common sense, leads one to determine that the team itself is based in Yolla, Tasmania where I bet it is the biggest community organisation in the town. As for being inaccurate, I am not sure how anyone can tell, given that no sources have been provided. The article needs cleaning up but could be saved. I would be pretty confident that sources could be found if one was willing to look with the Burnie Advocate being a good place to start. Not sure how WP:ATHLETE applies, the article is about an organisation, not an individual. -- Mattinbgn\talk 10:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. From WP:ATHLETE: "Athletes [note plural] ... People [note plural] who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport". Doesn't sound like this mob! WWGB (talk) 11:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to Darwin Football Association - I can't see how it would be inaccurate given it is a stub. Orderinchaos 15:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete doesn't have sufficient references to meet WP:ORG and I don't see any reason to assume that more are available for a non-professional regional sports team. I don't see why the league it plays in is notable either. Nick-D (talk) 21:40, 14 October 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, 21 October 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 00:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Mike Fageros[edit]

    Mike Fageros (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Not notable. noq (talk) 00:00, 21 October 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. ^ Dougherty County
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_October_21&oldid=1142643252"