Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 October 22

Guide to deletion

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deletion (G7).

Matt Brown (actor)

Matt Brown (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

it's a blank page BurtonH0123 (talk) 16:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 since the page author requested deletion (G7), and there doesn't seem to be any objection to deletion. JamieS93 19:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The Bangellame

The Bangellame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Recently published book written up by the book's publisher who is also the grandson of the book's author. Despite requests, no evidence of notability has been produced, either for the book or its author. -- Sgroupace (talk) 22:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The information with strike through above is false information. There is no evidence to support the above description, which is very misleading. --123flamenco (talk) 13:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the strikethrough. It is inappropriate to alter another editor's comments in an AFD. If the information is wrong, then you are free to point it out, and the original editor is free to retract the statement. -- Whpq (talk) 14:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought this discussion was already taking place here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Bangellame Shall I migrate the contents of the discussion to this page now? --123flamenco (talk) 13:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to copy the material here. The link you provided above allows editors to review the material. This discussion here is a result of a formal nomination for deletion of the article. -- Whpq (talk) 14:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note - It's unclear why the nominator believes the original author of the article is also the publisher. The publisher is Su Su Publishing which has published very little. The original author has acknowledged that he is the grandson of the book's author. -- Whpq (talk) 15:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • My apolgies. For "book's publisher" above, read "person instrumental in getting the book published". The strong, and admitted, COI is what I wanted to convey. Sgroupace (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - This article is about a book that was published only last month. It does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for books, and represents inclusion criteria for Wikipedia and is not a comment on the worthiness of the book itself. I can find no reviews in reliable sources about this book which shouldn't be too surprising as it was published last month. The book has not won a major award. It matters not if an illustration used for a book won an award, as the award is not for the book. Nor is the author of the book so historically significant that all their works are notable. James Joyce would fall into this category, but not Miriam Wilkinson. -- Whpq (talk) 14:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, mainly per Whpq. If there are news articles on this book, I am unable to locate them. Alternatively, we need a date and page reference for any news article that isn't online - Something like "New book released; Indianapolis Star, Page G7, 27 October 2009" would work, so long as it provides enough information for someone to track down a copy of the article. If there is additional information about the author or the book itself, now is the time to bring it forward. Please focus this debate on the article, not on other contributors. Thank you. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that some people at least give some thought to what they say in such discussions as this. I do not believe that this information can be found online. The articles from the early sixties are mainly kept on microfiche. Anyone who has ever searched through such archives will realize that 7 days to locate sources of this nature is rather too short. I simply haven't finished searching, however I know that several newspaper articles will be found, because I have seen them with my own eyes about 40 years ago. Not that I am suggesting that the wiki policies should change. I was simply unaware of these policies when I posted the article, which happens to be the first article that I have ever posted on Wiki. --81.135.80.178 (talk) 21:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Now there seems to be a problem. No matter how anyone tries to argue the contrary, my credulity is on the line and I have no choice other than to react with strong words. Perhaps some people try it on, I am not one of them. The way I see it: Sgroupace seems to have nothing better to do than invent false information. This by the way was both damning and extremely rude. Considering that anyone can read these words, I feel compelled to delete the damning tag once more. Though it should be somebody else that does that. Rather than suffer anymore indignation, I suggest that someone delete the whole article without further ado, including all links to this page because I am sick to the teeth of having to defend claims which are known to be true by not only myself, but by several other people. --81.135.80.178 (talk) 21:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not want to see a page that says THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN DELETED written in bold. That would be worse than me digging a deeper hole for myself than I already have, with the help of Sgroupace - might I add. Just ERROR 404 will do! --81.135.80.178 (talk) 21:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• 81.135.80.178 please sign in before editing. Why should your credulity be on the line? I believe every word you say. It is just that a) your claims are insufficient to establish notability and b) for Wikipedia we must have evidence. -- Sgroupace (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, maybe I'm overreacting, it's just that the description at the start of this page makes it sound as if I am trying to avoiding providing you with more tangible evidence. The fact is that unearthing it could take a while, because I can't invest an unlimited amount of time searching through archives. The buildings I need to visit are not just on the corner of my street. It is not necessary to explain the criteria any further, and I apologize for my words above. I appreciate your last comment. --123flamenco (talk) 22:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why you would need to search for archived material from the 1960's. At issue here is the book, and not Miriam Wilkinson, and since the book was published in September of 2009, there wouldn't be material to substantiate the notability of the book in those archives. You need to provide sourcing to establish the notability of the book. If you are trying to establish that Miriam Wilkinson is of such historic significance that all her works are also notable, then I'm, afraid you will not convince me, as that level of significance should be very evident, and as such would have a plethora of material available online. -- Whpq (talk) 23:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

That is fine. However the archives will be searched. The relevance of the materials I uncover remains to be seen. I am sure you will appreciate that opinions sometimes change. I myself am not an art critic. The Bangellame is art, poetry, calligraphy, a puzzle. Unique among books, but then again it's not for me to judge that. --123flamenco (talk) 23:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete unless notability can be established. 123flamenco, what the article really needs to avoid deletion is third-party sources to establish its notability, such as book reviews. The only citation it has now regards Wilkinson's tapestry, which is not the subject of the article. If the AfD does result in deletion, don't worry, the article can be userfied for you to work on and find sources for without a deadline. BlazerKnight (talk) 23:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that I could resubmit the article at a later date. I see that there would have to be more substance to the article and some history to the book. Well it has 30 plus years history, so far. It's just not notable by Wiki standards. Thanks for the advice. --123flamenco (talk) 23:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW - Wilkinson's tapestries. There are several.

Voicing Concern: The Bangellame Wikipedia article appeared on Google search results faster than it was created, and was flagged within 60 seconds. Will Google's database be updated so quickly upon deletion? If not, what message will people see when they click on the link? Most people are not aware of the policies employed by Wikipedia. The first impression that I get when I see a notice of deletion is one of inappropriate content - usually meaning something bad. Are there any assurances that this will not happen? Would it be possible to display a message that does not convey this impression, or will The Bangellame have to wait up to three months as a consequence of my mistake? Updating Google search results can take up to three months. What exactly are the consequences of this deletion in terms of bad publicity? Perhaps three months is nothing compared to having already waited over 30 years to reach the printing press. Still I am having sleepless nights worrying about this. Would it be possible for Wikipedia admin to delete the page entirely rather than displaying a notice of deletion. I would prefer the following message: ERROR 404. Thank you. --123flamenco (talk) 05:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I will point out that Wikipedia is NOT a vehicle for the promotion of the book which appears to be the reason for this article. As such, its appearance on Google is not relevant. However, you may request speedy deletion as the author, and an admin will evaluate and determine if the request is within policy and act accordingly. -- Whpq (talk) 11:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the question about Google search results. I have more understanding now, after this discussion, and I am not contesting the point. Please understand that I have invested nearly a whole year in doing research, writing text and learning how to display it online etc... to promote something that I consider worth promoting. Adding an article to Wiki was a bad idea, but in no way an unreasonable one. Miriam Wilkinson has created some beautiful art after years of painstaking labour. She simply deseves recognition. I would not dream of promoting my own work on here because I am not at all vain. I would like her artwork, including The Bangellame, to be reviewed. Perhaps I should have invested more time in my own art which happens to be music, but instead I have sacrificed much of my time to this, and not without risk. I cannot make such a decision to delete the article until I know what the consequences are. This article is quite simply bad publicity and I do want the whole affair to end ASAP. I am not sitting at my computer day and night responding to all of these comments for nothing. This means rather too much to me for that. I have read more of the regulations regarding new articles and the deletion process. I didn't find an answer to my question above. I did discover that this AfD has not been conducted as and according to those regulations. I have allowed myself to become embroilled in petty arguments. Perhaps I didn't take much goading, but that is what has happened. The first result on Google points to this page which I am not in favour of - as it does not give a fair representation of Miriam. Nor would a sign saying THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN DELETED - as I have tried to argue above. I admit that I have made a mistake, but it was not intended with any malice. Three months with Wikipedia having the first link on Google pointing to a deleted article about the Bangellame is quite simply unreasonable. I have been pressed to meet deadlines and made some mistakes. What I want to know is what can be done about it. Thank you. --123flamenco (talk) 14:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Surely if Wikipedia can magically make search result appear on Google within seconds, they should be able to make them magically dissapear too. As you point out: This is not what the discussion is about, but I don't see the point in starting another discussion elsewhere. That might be of interest to someone else, and perhaps I could contribute, however my attention is focused here. --123flamenco (talk) 14:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like to say thank you to Whpq who has sent me a PM and been most helpful. If I were to request a speedy deletion, and the message were to read 'This article has been deleted at the request of the author'. I would find that acceptable.

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

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

The result was Speedy close Not a deletion discussion. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Identity fraud

Identity fraud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Identity_theft#Identity_fraud_to_be_created Elvey (talk) 23:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Certainly a notable topic (to some extent it's my day job), article shortcomings merely need some expansion.

OTOH, how about deleting this user with extreme prejudice for their choice of username? 8-( It's impossible to reconcile that username with any pretence of GF. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep I usually tend to lean towards the deletion end, but this is an important notion and absurdly nominated.WildHorsesPulled (talk) 23:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Did any of you follow the link I provided explaining the reason I proposed deletion? I think not! OF COURSE the topic is notable. Why do we need Identity theft and Identity fraud??--Elvey (talk) 00:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy close - AfD is not for discussing mergers. If editors feel the two topics are one and the same, that is a reason for merger or redirection, not deletion. (And there isn't sufficient discussion to determine consensus at the link provided anyway.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After reading all the arguments, and every comment, I think it's fair to say that the only consensus garnered here is that global warming is controversial. The title of the article is clearly problematic; a significant amount of editors requested a rename if the article was to be kept, and considering that the no consensus closure will default to keep, I would suggest all parties work to find a suitable rename. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming
• Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming
• Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (3rd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (4th nomination)
• Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (5th nomination)
• Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (6th nomination)

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (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 question to ask ourselves: Is a list such as this one anything other than a POV-push?

In my opinion, any list of the style “X's who Oppose/Support Y” is a POV push. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• comment i dont like the article name. it implies that all the scientists listed are opposed to a single, monolithic assessment of global warming. since we know that there are thousands of shades of interpretation of the data and stances along multiple gradients (scientific judgement on global warming cannot be represented as a simple line from "very opposed" to "totally supporting"). the sections do break down the scientists into categories, but i would submit that doing this is OR, unless these categories are clearly defined outside WP and used by scientists to self identify themselves. I am not sure a name change is possible or could salvage the list. perhaps (let me think here), "Scientists wholly or partly critical of global warming theory". this would allow for scientists who may prove to be mostly supportive on balance, but have reasoned critiques. as it is, the title sets up a subtle POV: "aha, here are reasonable people opposed to the big bad mainstream" which, while obviously summarizing notable points of view, by omission ignores much of the debate within the scientific community around many of the specifics of GW. I would say, to leave out any critical voice, however close to mainstream they are, from a notable scientist, in an article with this subject is inherently POV.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Mercury above makes a very important point. Clearly there's a whole spectrum of counter-consensus opinion on climate change, ranging from people who disagree with aspects of the current scientific consensus to those who reject the whole thing out of hand. Lumping them all together into a single broad-brush category of "opposition" is not only inherently POV, it grossly misrepresents the gradient of opinion that exists. The conception of this article is fundamentally flawed. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Per others who say the concept of the article is fundamentally flawed. There's no value a list like this could serve beyond what might be covered in Climate change denial or something similar, if the scientists themselves are notable and have a position to contribute to that article. If they don't have a notable position that would go in that sort of article, there's really no point in listing them off. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Agree - inherently misrepresents. Categories will handle this better than a list. Hipocrite (talk) 01:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't know how to link, but I'm pretty sure you'll find that we had categories of this kind, and they were deleted, on the basis that they were too blunt a classification device and that something like a list article was needed. JQ (talk) 02:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment I suspect that the reason the category was deleted is because most of the scientists on the list wouldn't fit into any neutrally worded category about climate change denial because the goal of this list is to misrepresent the views of people who have minor technical objections to various models as supporting the finge nutzoids who believe that cow farts are a larger threat to global climate that SUVs. Hipocrite (talk) 18:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep This is an important/highly current topic. It could go into a different article Climate Realists or similar, as long as it doesn't make the article to large. ^rossnixon 01:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Question Do you have an answer to the position that an article such as this is inherently pushing a POV and violating our OR and Synthesis policies? ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 01:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep with my comments from the 1st AfD: The list starts by a short and clear description of what "opposing mainstream scientific opinion" is, and then describes the conditions that have to be met, to "qualify" for inclusion. The quotes are there specifically to ensure that each scientist is indeed placed correctly on the page (per WP:V), and has to be directly from the scientist (to ensure that WP:BLP is in order). They have to be quotes so that we can assure that interpretation of text is kept to a bare minimum. (again WP:BLP and WP:NPOV). All the scientists have to be notable (per WP:Notable - ie. no red-links), to ensure that we are not diverging into WP:FRINGE. All quotes have to be in reliable sources (of course) (per WP:RS). There are two common ways to view the list (which to me at least indicates that WP:NPOV is upheld):
  1. as a list to show that consensus doesn't exist.
  2. as a list to show how few scientists really are in opposition.

I suggest that people take a look at the discussion archives, to see that there indeed has been a very thorough review of each inclusion. The editors have strived to keep away from POV-issues - and an inclusion has been discussed by both "pro-" mainstream and "contra-" mainstream editors. A common topic on the discussion pages is for instance that "why can't i include X - he is obviously a sceptic", after an inclusion has been reverted. The article is imho WP:NPOV, since we have "anti-" people who are pushing to get as many scientists on the list as possible (to show that statements of consensus is wrong (i presume)), and "pro-" people who are trying to keep people out of the list. --Kim D. Petersen 17:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment If point #1, it probably runs afoul of WP:UNDUE, giving too much weight to an argument that consensus doesn't exist (consensus never means everyone agrees). Listing off every scientist that doesn't agree gives the false impression that there is a "controversy" greater than there actually is.

If point #2, it probably runs afoul of a number of things Wikipedia is WP:NOT. The Discovery Institute, by comparison, publishes a list of scientists who disagree with evolution, for the sole purpose of making it seem that there is a controversy and that intelligent design is something scientists seriously consider, when of course that's not actually the case. This "article" is exactly like that, and that's not the purpose and goals of Wikipedia. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment And my argument is that the article is neither #1 or #2. And exactly because people divert in how they are interpreting the list from two such very different positions - shows us its NPOV. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep The "science of GW is settled" POV is predominant, and this article/list shows that there is notable opposition to the "consensus" position. The mainstream position is made up of key conclusions, and the list is grouped to indicate where the various opponents "stick". Opposing a key (i.e. crticial to the position) conclusion doesn't put one on the "gradient of opinion" it puts one in opposition to the position. To suggest that this list belongs in "Climate Change Denial" is to assume the POV that those listed are inherently wrong in their conclusions (as if the very "denial" name of such an article). If the general GW related articles related such opposition in an open and objective manner, then I would say delete it as redundant. LowKey (talk) 02:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment That argument, that the purpose of this article is to list off the oposition in the way you describe, makes this article a POV fork. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Rather biased title and impossible to declare what 'mainstream' means. Czolgolz (talk) 02:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

  If a position endorsed by every national science academy and scientific society that has commented on the matter does not qualify as "mainstream," then what does qualify? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep I find it a useful reference list. I think readers can make up their own minds about whether the group listed here constitutes a significant body of dissent.02:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Quiggin (talk • contribs)
• Delete this blatant POV-push/fork/whatever wiki-jargon applies. The issue(s) represented in this article can easily be accomodated within Climate change denial as noted above. Crafty (talk) 02:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Also, WP:SYN and WP:OR issues concern me with this article/list/whatever the hell it is. Crafty (talk) 04:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep per previous AfD discussions. It's a legitimate article. (If any particular bias or POV is evident, it's probably from the exclusion of particular scientists.) ~ UBeR (talk) 02:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. While the list is POV, it counters that by explaining right from the get-go that these scientists oppose the mainstream view (which is explained). The quotes acceptably show the stance of each individual scientist (And NOT the opinions of their fields of study, employers, publishers, etc), and are very reasonably organized into section based on their position in the gradient of opinions regarding global warming. The fact that these are the minority counter the argument that "X's who Oppose/Support Y" is POV, as such lists will always be POV. To have an article listing all the scientist who have formed an opinion would be pointless, and this list serves to show the minority viewpoint. If only the majority viewpoint is shown, that is just as much a POV violation.

I think this nomination is a misrepresentation of what wikipedia is striving to achieve with its NPOV guideline. The list could be cleaned up, but certainly not deleted, on the basis of NPOV. It's removal would make a POV assertion that all scientists agree that global warming is real (Which is certainly not the case). So I ask: What POV is being pushed? That global warming isn't real? Hardly the case. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. While it would be very very easy for a list such as this one to devolve into POV-pushing COATRACKism, and it could, in principle, be an overly blunt classification tool, in this case it skillfully avoids those traps by having a very clear set of inclusion criteria, and carefully documenting how each listed individual meets those criteria. So it's avoids the POV pitfalls that the nominator is concerned about. Also keep per consensus at the prior 3 AfDs--no new issues have been raised in this AfD thusfar. Yilloslime ^T_C 04:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Change to neutral I stand by most of my "keep" reasoning, but the presence of non-scientists, non-practicing (emeritus) scientists, and scientists from fields unrelated to climate change on the list is problematic, and undermines the list's usefulness and neutrality. Yilloslime ^T_C 18:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Nobody has yet answered how this list is not violating WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. This is a major problem. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 04:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment Because the list specifically sets out that it is a list of scientists who have made quotes regarding their stance on the subject. While I'd argue that some or many entries could very well be WP:SYNTH, none of them are WP:OR since they are sourced quotes (at least I'd hope that every single quote has a reference), only the decision to connect those quotes with a set opinion would violate WP:SYNTH, though in many cases the quotes explicitly state the position of the scientist in question. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

      The quote has to explicitly state the opposition, that is the only purpose of it (per WP:V). No position is taken on whether the quote is scientifically valid or not (that would be SYNTH). What the more nuanced view of the scientist is, is something for their biographies, which is the reason that they must be notable and not be red-links. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep The last time, this was a snow keep, and the arguments apply still. DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep If this was merged with another page, then that page would be too large. If this page was simply deleted, useful information would be lost. Claims of POV are nonsense when considered in context with all the other Anthropogenic Global Warming pages. Q Science (talk) 05:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Delete The list's inclusion criteria inherently demands original research and the list is a potential WP:BLP disaster because the editors are charged with defining what exactly "mainstream" "scientific" "assessment" is and who, precisely, is in opposition to it. The IPCC consensus statement, for all that's great about it, is only a proxy for what a "true" "mainstream scientific assessment" is, and Wikipedia is not equipped to figure out the actual mainstream scientific assessment. Additionally, the criteria for what makes one a "scientist" (always a conundrum and essentially a fallacy) who "opposes" a scientific fact is something that Wikipedia editors are not equipped to delineate. Our job is not to interpret a person's entire outlook and complete opinion. As it is, a grand total of zero reliable sources exist for this particular topic. Sure various motivated anti-scientific groups (that are not reliable sources, mind you) publish lists that certain editors may think are evidence that such lists can be made, but attempts to compile these very lists have been so fraught (and, in at least one case, been subject to court orders for libel) that we are essentially opening ourselves up for BLP violations by labeling any person with this stigma. As it currently stands, there are not reliable demarcation lists for this particular idea in the same way that there isn't a reliable way to find a List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of evolution or a List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of the cause of AIDS or a List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of the 9/11 attacks. I think that a better idea is to write articles on the actual published lists of the anti-environmentalist political action committees. Write an article about the The Heartland Institute's controversial list. Document it in the same way other famous published lists of so-called scientists who disbelieve scientific facts have been handled. Just dispense with this attempt at original research and libeling living humans as though Wikipedia can peer into their souls or really evaluate what their "oppositional status" "truly" is. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

well said, i wish id said this.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

*Keep This is a key page that captures an important section of the debate on global warming. It would be inappropriate to delete it. Tom Dietz (talk) 05:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)This user is a confirmed sockpuppet of Scibaby.

• Delete or rename to 'List of scientists by position on climate change' and give WP:DUE weight to all the scientists supporting the "mainstream scientific assessment". I doubt if the latter is practical, the current format gives WP:UNDUE weight to the "tiny minority" of nay-sayers, so I suspect deletion is the most practical alternative. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep It's an inherently NPOV article that fairly and accurately describes what those listed believe. The Squicks (talk) 06:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• What is your view of the WP:SYN and WP:OR problem? -- ChrisO (talk) 07:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 06:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 06:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: Did anything change since the last time? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• The arguments in favour of deletion seem to be different. I don't see anyone in the last discussion making the case that we've seen in this discussion that this article is a piece of synthesis and original research. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment I agree with ChrisO. How is this article not synthesis? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 09:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Why would it be synthesis? What "conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" does it reach? It's a collection of different opinions, not a synthesis. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a quote farm of any scientist who has ever made a statement that doesn't match -a- IPCC consensus statement, irregardless of the current 2007 conclusions, which would be the current mainstream assessment of climate change, and irregardless of whether the person actually opposes the current IPCC consensus statement. Many of these quotes are pre-2007, with no indication of whether the person quoted has revised their opinion in response to that assessment. There's little indication of whether the quotes are actually about the IPCC statement, whether they were speaking directly to the consensus statement, or just commenting about climate change in general. These are not quotes opposing the consensus itself (which would refer directly to the 2007 consensus statement by IPCC), but rather random commentary on climate change from random dates. It is sythesis to take the climate change commentary, attach them to the consensus statement, and then push the original position that these are opposing consensus itself. One may, after all, disagree with various aspects of a consensus without directly opposing the consensus. We see that all the time here at Wikipedia. It's fully WP:SYNTH. It says so in our own article's lede: In judging opposition to the consensus, each scientist's statements are compared to the most recently released IPCC report at the time of the statement. If not OR, some reliable source independent of Wikipedia needs to have made that comparison, not Wikipedia editors. The concept of the article is fundamentally flawed and not compatible with WP policy. That these are scientists who oppose the mainstream assessment of global warming is impossible to verify given pre-assessment quotes that don't actually refer to the current assessment, and given comparisons to assessments performed by Wikipedia editors rather than reliable external sources. This issue is independent of NPOV issues, and a bigger issue I feel. I mention this because NPOV seems to be what the Keeper's arguments have centered around in this, and past, AfD discussions. The article fails a lot more in the five pillars than just NPOV. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 10:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

For brevity: if a quote doesn't refer directly to the consensus statement itself, and doesn't state that it's in opposition of that consensus statement, and here we push it as being opposition to the consensus statement, that's WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 10:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

As a side note: In theory, an ambitious editor may want to write an article titled "List of scientists who have opposed a mainstream scientific assessment of global warming", and list only quotes that directly refer to such an assessment, but that's not this article. It's fundamentally broken because it makes a present-tense assumption that is impossible to support without original research, real-time sourcing, and immediate maintenance. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 10:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

If you can document or rationalize that any of those on the list do not hold that opinion anymore, then please point it out - since then they must be removed (and are). Great care and extreme amounts of discussion and weighting has been applied to each and every scientist on this list. You seem to be of the opinion that this list represents a specific viewpoint, but have failed to notice that the editors of the list are from both sides of this issue. (and its very well weighted as well between those sides - roughly 50:50). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You're asking me to prove a negative. I think the burden of verifiability works the other way. The title says "opposing" (present-tense).--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 17:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

keep - the reasons given for deletion are exactly the same as have been given, and rejected, in previous deletion debates for this article. They are, as they were before, incorrect. As someone who strongly disagrees with the folk listed (has anyone noticed that the people listed are not all scientists?) it is clear to me, and has been explained on talk, and in previous AFD's, that this article *isn't* POV pushing. Those not capable of reading the past are doomed to repeat it, it seems William M. Connolley (talk) 08:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup (for example, remove non-scientists). Per other keeps. Verbal chat 08:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

  Not possible. There have been repeated attempts to remove non-scientists and those working in unrelated fields; all have failed. Skeptical editors are adamant about including astronauts, has-beens and never-weres to make the numbers look bigger. They've even pressed for including dead people. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

  • In light of this huge POV problem of including non-scientists, and considering some of the other "keep" comments (such as "it documents the ongoing debate") I'm changing to weakSTRONG delete. Verbal chat 14:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Inherent violation of POV in structure and format, has had three chances to be cleaned up after previous AfDs, and is still exactly the same POV-pushing list of WP:Original research quotes promoting a fringe theory, with appeal to authority from peacock statements about the qualifications of the people who once said something against Global Warming. A check of the talk page archives will show them going through advocacy lists for the POV this list pushes, selecting the supposed "best" from the list, and then doing original research to find a quote for the page. Violates WP:OR, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, WP:POVFORK, and others. Furthermore, the talk page archives show numerous examples of attempts to find the most extreme quotes possible, instead of allowing any nuance to their views, e.g. Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming/Archive_12#Freeman_Dyson, which makes much of this a probable BLP violation. That the article has attracted enough POV-pushers to vote keep on it before does not mean it should not be deleted. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 213 FCs served} 09:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with other users above that call for this to be delete per the policies they site. I just read this and it doesn't look like a list, it looks more like an article that needs a lot of work done to it. There are way too many quotes made, why? Shouldn't the WP:RS be enough? As has been said above, though this list/article claims to be 'scientist' a lot of them are not scientist. I think if this is to remain then it needs to be rewritten to follow WP:LISTS. With what I checked into, a lot of the entries listed are people who have written books not that they are scientist. I think the policies that are not being followed, (ie. User:Shoemaker's Holiday and User:ScienceApologist. have convinced me that this should be deleted and anything that is useful merged into one of the many articles available. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Neutralize by revising the list to include all scientists who have stated a position on the issue, not just one side. The present list would then be a section of the more inclusive list. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Support the view on violation of WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Additional concerns: (i) Notability. That those scientists are notable in their field and thus have WP articles does not mean they are notable in the global warming area. (ii) The article makes an impression of a vote, i.e. that there are more voices in one section makes it look like that view is more substantiated. (iii) The article is not a list of scientists, but a list of weakly related notes, i.e. it is rather an article than list, a lengthy article without a clear structure. Materialscientist (talk) 12:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - the argument "any list of the style “X's who Oppose/Support Y” is a POV push" is complete nonsense. Our Holocaust denial article contains a list of "Notable Holocaust deniers", but that is certainly not promoting Holocaust denial. List of Ufologists is not promoting ufology. No POV is presented in this article either; it is well-sourced, balanced and well-written. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • It has serious attempts to find the most extreme statement possible for each person, throwing out more neutral views. Check the talk page archives. That's both a POV-push and a BLP violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk • contribs)
    • I see your assertion of that, but the only case you cited was a discussion of Freeman Dyson's position from December 2007. I checked a cross-section of names from the list and found that in each case their main article contains a statement of their position that is consistent with the what this list article says. If there are a few controversial cases then they can be ealt with through normal editing process - AfD is not cleanup. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The nominator's argument isn't the only argument under consideration. The article has many other problems that make it inappropriate for Wikipedia. The real question is: Is this article fundamentally flawed as it is conceived? The answer is yes. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 14:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

From your rhetoric I understand that you don't like the article, but that's not a good argument for deletion either. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

But it's not that I'm arguing. I'm arguing that it fails Wikipedia criteria. There's a huge difference. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 15:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You said "The article has many other problems" but didn't specify what they were, then you asked a rhetorical question and answered it, now you say "it fails Wikipedia criteria" but don't say which criteria or why it fails them. I see rhetoric but no substantive arguments there. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Gandalf, my objections and what criteria are failed have been stated clearly. Please read the entire AfD. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 15:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation, but no, I'm not going to chase round the whole AfD responding to all of your comments elsewhere. That would be a rather obsessive sort of behaviour, wouldn't it ? I am done here. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Hostile much? I meant this thread. Geesh. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 15:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. This article, as conceived, is always going to have serious problems with WP:SYNTH. Moreover, it constitutes a violation of WP:WEIGHT, inasmuch as it attempts to overrepresent the significance of a minority viewpoint contrary to the scientific consensus. ("Anthropogenic climate change isn't real! Look at this long list of scientists who oppose it!") TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I would argue that it is important for people to see who opposes the mainstream science and what their arguments are. It is easier to combat the arguments that way rather than having some nameless bunch of 'scientists' muddying the waters with occasional quotes and half baked research. Wikipedia makes this possible by giving the reader the information rather than hiding it away. Polargeo (talk) 14:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• keep Certainly not a POV reason to delete, the article neither puts forward a viewpoint one way or the other. I appreciate the possibity for an original research aspect but don't think it is really. For original research by synthesis we would have to come to a conclusion different to the individual references. Seeing as no ultimate conclusion is being reached on wikipedia other than this is a list of people who have made statements or done research that places them into this list it does not cross the line (close but not across!). The argument about wikipedia not being a directory is very weak. This goes way beyond a list of losely associated topics or contact details. It is a useful encyclopedic list. Polargeo (talk) 14:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem regarding SYNTH, though, is that our list makes the claim that these are people are opposed to the mainstream consensus, which isn't verifiable. That one might grumble certain conclusions, or voice a disagreement on a particular point, isn't the same as directly opposing a consensus statement (for example, by signing a petition or something similiar). That's why it's SYNTH. We're assuming these people are directly opposed to the stated consensus. That's simply not sourced. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 15:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. It's an inherently POV quote mine, no less than the "Scientists who dissent from Darwinism" list put together by the Discovery Institute. The only purpose of the list is to have something to point to in arguments about climate change, not to present a coherent topic of educational interest. There is no inclusion criterion for "scientists" so all sorts of unqualified people are included, and the whole thing is improper synthesis, as it is Wikipedia editors who are making the judgement on what constitutes the mainstream view on global warming and who opposes it. As others said it also lumps together vastly different views, unreasonably dichotomising scientists into "supports" or "opposes" the mainstream. Material like this should be worked into Climate change denial or Global warming controversy as part of normal editing and giving it due weight, rather than putting in on its own pedestal. Fences&Windows 15:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

  Comment Of course there is an inclusion criteria for the scientists, some of us may not agree with the broad definition - and want a more restrictive one (i'm one) - but to say that there isn't one is to ignore the lede of the article: A) Must be notable (no red-link) B) Must have published at least one peer-reviewed article in the natural sciences (in reality there is also a requirement of an academic background) C) They must disagree with one of the 3 general consensus items. The quotes are not random, nor are they there to provide any form of point (positive or negative) - they are there to verify that the scientist indeed is sceptical (per WP:V) of the very general items of the mainstream opinion. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The article is fundamentally flawed and broken at the outset. The article presupposes that the IPCC statement is the statement of mainstream consensus, then lists off a series of quotes about climate change that are supposedly in opposition to the IPCC statement. That's the concept of the article. However, it is unverifiable that the commentor is even commenting on the consensus stated by the IPCC. It's just a list of comments about climate change, not a list of people verifiably in opposition to the IPCC's statement. The idea that these people are in opposition to the IPCC statement on climate change is completely the invention of Wikipedia editors, versus the conclusions of independent reliable sources, for example a reliable source that identifies these people as signing a petition against the IPCC statement. The list states that "In judging opposition to the consensus, each scientist's statements are compared to the most recently released IPCC report at the time of the statement." Add a "by whom" tag to that analysis. Who did the comparison? The answer is, Wikipedia editors. It's an OR fail. The NPOV discussion goes round in circles while the article is based almost entirely on unverifiable original research. Keepers, please address that. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 15:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Easy. Each group of scientists in the list is categorised by exactly what their research/comments say. For example 'Believe global warming is primarily caused by natural processes' or 'Believe accuracy of IPCC climate projections is questionable' therefore not wikipedia OR to put them into these categories if that is what their research/statements say. Each of these subtitles expresses a view contrary to mainstream scientific opinion on global warming. There is little doubt that the IPCC report is the best guide to mainstream opinion on global warming, it being an intergovernmental body set up by the World Meteorological Organization and the UN! Polargeo (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• The article is not fundamentally flawed. It's a bit innovative in demanding quotes, for instance, which are not part of any policy or guideline, but consensus decisions to do things like that should be OK as long as nothing is violated. It isn't OR to be "judging opposition" or making a comparison -- that's just exercising normal editorial judgment based on research -- which is verifiable. The article is fought over because the subject is fought over, and content disputes should not spill over into disputes over whether there's a violation of some Wikipedia policy or guideline until those violations actually take place. JohnWBarber (talk) 15:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Enough said already. Ignignot (talk) 15:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Nothing about the article violates any Wikipedia rule that justifies deletion. ScienceApologist and others dispute that the IPCC statement should not be equated with mainstream opinion. That isn't a deletion argument because it's best left to the article's talk page where it can be debated whether or not it's OR to come to that conclusion. If it is OR, the problem could be solved by renaming the article to replace "mainstream" with "IPCC" -- no deletion necessary. Another objection is that the necessarily short items on the list don't account for nuances of opinion. But there isn't space for nuances, and it's reasonable to summarize opinions. Nuances are best left to the individual articles on the scientists, but if someone has said something contradictory, conceivably both quotes could be put in the list article. This is not the forum to take content disputes. The solution to a content dispute may be elsewhere or nowhere, but not here. Repeatedly returning here wastes a lot of people's time. JohnWBarber (talk) 15:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Keep If those supporting the consensus about global warming on Wikipedia had been a bit less POV in their attempts to quiet any mention of dissent by knowledgeable scientists, their arguments for deletion would make more sense, but that horse left the barn long ago. Article is entirely composed of otherwise notable figures who have publicly dissented from the claimed "everybody who knows agrees" consensus. htom (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

--The following (down to the "so moved" comment) was moved from the top of the page. Let's all wait our turn in line. I won't edit war over this, but it would be fair to say that sticking comments at the top over the objection of others is disruptive. Admins please take note. JohnWBarber (talk) 15:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

[Addition by Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 213 FCs served}:

Other issues include:

• The talk page archives show numerous examples of attempts to find the most extreme quotes possible, instead of allowing any nuance to their views, e.g. Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming/Archive_12#Freeman_Dyson, which makes much of this a probable BLP violation, WP:SYNTH, and Original research.
• WP:NOTDIRECTORY explicitly forbids lists of quotes
• WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, WP:POVFORK, and others do not allow articles which advocate for the fringe view at the cost of the mainstream. The severely weakened presentation of the mainstream view, with constant references to the dissent from it, misrepresents acceptance.
• This article is typical of advocacy lists. For instance, [1] discusses a creationist quote mine book, [2] is an example of a typical quote-mine in the wild.]

  Objection (your honor :-) ) I find Shoemakers addition here at the top problematic. He is not the nominator, and thus this is an attempt to get his view a preferred spot. Now i have nothing against Shoemaker presenting his argument - but it sets a bad precedence to move comments around this way. I could also answer several of his assertions - but will refrain and prefer that his and my comment be removed - or moved to the correct spot. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

--so moved JohnWBarber (talk) 15:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• It is not at all unusual in an AfD to mention other policies there's problems with for consideration in the debate. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 213 FCs served} 16:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep along with a list of scientists that argue there is a very serious problem. I doubt the sincerity of many of these people but sweeping it under the rug won't make it go away. There should be some way of getting the choice between when in doubt polute or when in doubt don't polute into one of these articles. Even if they don't get the details right this should carry more weight than when in doubt argue. Zacherystaylor (talk) 16:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Huh, bunch of wikipedians interpreting some quotes and categorizing scientists accordingly? Ridiculous. WP:PSTS.--Staberinde (talk) 17:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per ScienceApologist. Sasata (talk) 18:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep The article is very well resourced, so it would pass WP:RS. But the the title is awkward and the contents are repetitive, with multiple versions of the same conclusion. I would sooner fix those problems than throw the whole thing away. Warrah (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Concept of article is fundamentally flawed as explained by others above. Kaldari (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete The inclusion criteria are arbitrary, and whether someone meets those criteria is a judgment call left to the editors. The entire list represents vast amounts of original research. Suggestions to change the scope of the list to include both sides would still be original research. There is nothing in this list that can be salvaged for an article or list that would be appropriate for WP. -Atmoz (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Just to add another argument that the list is absurd, unless you wish to assert that each of the scientists in question presently opposes the present assessment. Speaking as an expert statistician, as of 1997 through 2002 or so, the evidence supported the warming being limited by some unknown mechanism. No climate model came close to modelling the changes, and extrapolation would have rationally shown a limiting effect. Now, the climate models may be mature enough to support a theory as to the amount of warming to be expected, but any statement then by a climate scientist saying that "global warming" is a scientific fact would be fraudulent, whether or not mainstream. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

  comment There is an "unwritten" rule that any scientist on the list must have stated dissent after the previous IPCC report - this means the TAR (third assessment report) or the AR4 here. And in general no inclusions now are made if they aren't fairly recent. (i believe consensus was for <5 years) The statement must be unambiguous as well as not contradicted by other information on that scientist. [this is a close call, since some will (inevitably) call for inclusion, while others will oppose] I just went over the list again - and as far as i can see, all of those on the list are still sceptical (the thorn in the eye is Dyson - who is included within a section with a large caveat). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

That's part of my complaint. If the inclusion criteria involves the IPCC report, how many of these have nothing to do with the report? Looking over the list, I find that some of the quotes directly reference it, but many (most?) are just comments on climate change in general. Which is which? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per ChrisO, Nealparr and others.PelleSmith (talk) 19:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete or rename, seems to be a POV fork, but perhaps if some alternative suggestions can be implemented it can become more neutral. Cocytus [»talk«] 19:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete or rename - Article seems to me to contain a substantial amount of encyclopedic content, but the title and list format seem likely to ensure that it will never be likely to not be a serious, regular, target of well-earned criticism. John Carter (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete or rename to a neutral title like 'Scientists opposed to global warming theory'. Strongly object to the word 'mainstream' in the title. The entire article attempts to obfuscate that there are is a very large body of scientists that have rejected global warming theory, and attempts to portray dissent in only select segments as the only dissent. The topic should have more coverage of the large body of scientists who disagree with the theory of global warming.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep This smacks of sweeping scientific dissent under the carpet, the disruptive use of tags should also be removed. Justin talk 20:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep obvious time waste doing this again. Sure not perfect but adequate --BozMo talk 20:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• weak keep There is a conspicuous under-representation of minority and/or dissenting views on any of the other global warming articles; Keep is conditional upon Renaming the article and changing the format to something more encyclopedic (i.e. not a list) Voiceofreason01 (talk) 01:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep and improve. I don't think it's hopelessly OR, but summarizing the quotes would be good. It's kinda like wikiquote right now. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep There is under-representaion of minority / dissenting views on global warming both within and without WP. Protection of rationally-expressed opinion is important, and even more so when it concerns a minority. Problems with the article can & should be fixed, but that is difficult to do when it is under such consistent attack. I would suggest that if keep is decided, then there should be a longish period before the issue is mooted again. Contributors deserve a chance to cool down, and put in some hard work. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Many of those who want to keep the article seem to argue as follows: Global warming is wrong. Therefore anything that supports the 'fact' that global warming is wrong must be right. Clearly this is not true -- bad arguments can be advanced even for good causes. This list, for reasons clearly spelled out above, is a bad argument. The question of whether global warming is a liberal lie is moot. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep That there are people willing to suppress free speech is frightening enough, that they want to suppress it while screaming they are doing it for the good of mankind is downright scary. The people who are screaming for deletion remind me of the Inquisitors trying to root out heretics. All the scientists quoted in the article are well respected and they have points of views that need to be heard over the clamoring sameness of what people get to hear in the main press outlets. Post the "the objectivity... blah, blah, blah warning and let adults decide for themselves. Say no to censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottca075 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Please mind WP:CIVIL. There is no need to start attacking editors who disagree with you about the deletion of a deeply flawed article. Simonm223 (talk) 15:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep I don't see issues here that can't be fixed by measures short of deletion. For example, there is a valid criticism that scientists change their mind, and someone who denies global warming in 2006 may not currently deny it. That can be fixed with just a bit of rewording here and there. Gruntler (talk) 20:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete This approach fails WP:WEIGHT and WP:OR and can't be fixed. We have articles on climate change and the notable opinions and theories. They should be sourced reliably and give appropriate weight. This per-person list format just allows any Tom, Dick or Harry who claims to be a "scientist" of some kind to have equal weight in the debate as someone who might actually know a thing or two about climate change. It is also extremely fragile as opinions do change yet the format allows the cherry-picking of any disenting quote made in the past without any means to remove them based on a more recent quote (highlighting the WP:OR issues involved -- if sourced to a third-party list, we would have a compilation-date we could mention). As noted by others, it breaks all of our policies in some way, though even if we managed to eliminate the WP:V and WP:NOR issues, the approach just breaks WP:WEIGHT and there's no way to fix that IMO with this format. It is for this reason that it becomes a POV fork. Colin°^Talk 09:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep. It is important to be able to have access to the opposing views on climate change and its causes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.67.164.37 (talk) 16:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

arbitrary break

• Delete. We don't need POV-based lists on Wikipedia. This article is questionable regarding WP:NPOV, because it is an obvious attempt to advocate, not to just provide information, and WP:SYNTH because it is compiled based on the creator's own judgement and interpretation of the scientists' views. It is probably not in a dire breach of the policies, but has way too many problems and potential problems. In addition it is simply not encyclopaedic, because it's based on a POV criteria. Offliner (talk) 21:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• What does the list advocate? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure the list "advocates" anything much. The problem is more with the methodology used to compile it, as Offliner indicates. If its title matched its subject matter, it would have to be called something like List of people with scientific qualifications who have said something at some point in time that contradicts some aspect of climate science in the view of some Wikipedia editors. This is not a sound basis for an article. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• (e/c)I'm not entirely in disagreement on the scientific qualification part, but that is something to discuss on the talk page - the trouble is getting an agreement on what a "scientist" is. I'm open for opening up that discussion again. As for the "said at one time" part, i've just been over the list again, and there are very few where i would be in doubt on their current scepticism, most of them have a long history of stating things contrary to the current consensus. But again - if you are in doubt about any of them, the usual procedure is to remove that person, and start a discussion on the merits of inclusion (here is an example [3] (by random - i didn't check how it went, nor read through it)) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

How can any list be NPOV when the lede starts off outlining inclusion criteria that are, in fact, POV and OR-ish.

• It should not be interpreted as...
• Inclusion is based on specific criteria that do not necessarily reflect skepticism toward climate change...
• In judging opposition to the consensus, each scientist's statements are compared...
• For the purpose of this list a "scientist" is...

None of those POV statements are sourced to a third-party reliable source. They can't because they are solely the opinion of Wikipedia editors. By comparison, consider the proper Wikipedia statements such as "Dr. Smith argued that this list should not be interpreted as...", "The AAAS stated that the criteria for inclusion to the list is...", "Dr. Smith made a comparison of...", "In the AAAS's list, "scientists" were defined as..."... It's impossible to write these properly written statements when it's original research. We have no one to attribute the statements to. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Bang on. Nealparr hits the nail on the head. Fences&Windows 02:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

No. Every Wikipedia article involves necessary editorial judgments about what to include and how. It's impossible to avoid that. Normally, articles don't discuss that, but WP:LIST strongly urges it: Further, non-obvious characteristics of a list, for instance regarding the list's structure, should be explained in its lead section and gives as a good example [4] Since everything is contested here that has to do with global warming, it's understandable that the criteria here needed to be laid out in detail. Nothing quoted in Nealparr's four-point list implies a POV for or against global warming. The first two quotes in Nealparr's list are caveats meant to avoid misinterpretations of the list; the second two are simply editorial judgments. The fact that they're explicitly laid out also works as a caveat for the reader. User:Staberinde makes a related objection (and a better one), that the list violates WP:PSTS -- in other words, a reliable source should be cited for each name on the list. But not even that means the list needs to be deleted. JohnWBarber (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:LIST does not state that while including a statement of criteria for inclusion, ignore NPOV, and ignore OR. For or against global warming isn't the issue. The list tells people not to misinterpret it, and it makes non-neutral statements about things like what is and isn't global warming skepticism, who is and isn't a scientist, and what is and isn't harmful. Those are all POV issues regardless of the for and against global warming issue. Editorial judgement does not excuse OR, there's no third-party reliable source that compiled the list. The list of compositions by Franz Schubert is referenced to a dictionary of Opera, ie. a third-party source that compiled the list. Ours is an original list, compiled through original research by Wikipedia, and it certainly isn't reliable research (as we're discovering going through the list item by item). The criteria for inclusion fails basic core Wikipedia policy. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 15:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Nealparr - are you arguing that any Wikipedia list is OR unless it has been sourced from a single, specific third-party reference list ?? Really ??? Gandalf61 (talk) 16:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

No. I didn't say that. While most lists do mirror a real-world published list or catalog independent of Wikipedia (list of countries, discography, list of books by an author, etc), a fact-based list doesn't necessarily have to mirror a published list. A list that is inherently opinion-based certainly does, is certainly OR otherwise. This list explicitly states that it doesn't reflect, for example, a petition list published elsewhere. It relies solely on the opinion of Wikipedia editors to decide what does and doesn't constitute opposition to the IPCC consensus statement, who does and doesn't qualify as a scientist, what does and doesn't qualify as global warming skepticism, etc. It's not a fact-based list. It's an opinion-based list. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 16:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

If we assumed that you were right and that the article violates OR, you still haven't shown that the list is so inherently WP:OR that it can't be fixed, therefore you haven't given a deletion argument. You certainly haven't shown that WP:OR or any other policy disallows lists based on the opinions of the people listed. Either each of those opinions can be reliably sourced, using basic editorial judgment, or they cannot. More important, your objection that this is an "opinion-based list" is contradicted by Wikipedia:Content forking#Articles whose subject is a POV, which allows such articles (Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally, and each article cross-references articles on other appropriate points of view.). Nowhere does it say that an article about a POV can't also be a list. JohnWBarber (talk) 17:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

By opinion-based, I don't mean that it is problematic because it is a list of opinions. I don't personally have a problem with that. It's the inclusion criteria that is opinion based, and that inclusion criteria is the basis for this "article". That's why the article itself fails, inherently, and (I feel) should be deleted. Recovery of the article to make it policy-compliant would require formation of neutral inclusion criteria that outlines a solid plan for avoiding original research (for example, requiring a reliable source that states that the opinion is in opposition to the consensus, versus relying on editors to make that judgement), removal of entries that don't meet that criteria, retitling, and so on. I'm not opposed to any of that. A list of dissent to global warming consensus is not by itself flawed. The thing is, with the necessary changes to make it policy-compliant, it would no longer be this article. It'd be a whole new article that barely resembles this article. I don't feel that the concept for this article can be fixed. I feel it's inherently broken, and that the general topic idea from which the concept of the article derived deserves a do-over. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 17:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The WP:PSTS (tertiary sourcing) standard I brought up is not applied when editors add sourced criticism to a regular article (for example, we don't need a third-party source saying Roger Ebert disliked The Adventures of Foo to simply state that in an article with a quote or even just a footnote to the review -- and we do this kind of thing normally, throughout the encyclopedia). So it's debatable whether or not we need that kind of third-party sourcing here. I should have read PSTS more closely. The subject of this article is to list what various scientists believe on certain subjects, and WP:PSTS actually says it allows that kind of sourcing (Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. The "descriptive claim" would be to describe what that subject's opinion is). Editors are normally considered competent enough to identify criticism or (in this case) skepticism when they see it. It doesn't seem like a leap to say that a comment that is skeptical comes from someone tho is therefore skeptical and could be termed a skeptic, at least skeptical about a particular point. And the article tries to make distinctions about what these people are skeptical about. If the article fails in that regard, it doesn't seem too complex a problem that simple editing (no matter how contentious) of individual items can't fix it. So the inclusion criteria used by the article look like a solid-enough plan already. JohnWBarber (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

A primary source is fine as a reliable source if the person is explicitly stating that they are disagreeing with the IPCC consensus statement (like a petition or some other example of expressed disagreement, or them outright saying they are disagreeing, for example). All I said is that the criteria should state that a reliable source needs to demonstrate the opposition rather than relying on editor's judgements. A primary source can do that, sure. It doesn't need to be a third-party. How that contrasts to what is going on in this article, however, is that editors are sourcing "X said this" and originally synthesizing that "it contradicts Y" to form the "conclusion Z" that X is in opposition to Z. None of that is reliably sourced (primary, secondary, or tertiary) and is based on the opinion of the editor. I've stated my opinion that this means the concept for the article is fundamentally flawed, but I'll let everyone come to a consensus on whether that is true, but that is what's going on in the article due to the current inclusion criteria. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

All the scientists on the list have statements that are in contradiction to the basic points of the scientific consensus. Where you go wrong here is to assume that the consensus is only and singularily defined by the IPCC, and thus that any statement must be specifically directed towards the IPCC. Sorry but that is incorrect. The IPCC is an assessment of the scientific consensus - not the definer of it. See Scientific opinion on climate change for this. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Then drop the line "In judging opposition to the consensus, each scientist's statements are compared to the most recently released IPCC report at the time of the statement" from the criteria that the list is based on. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

More problematic: Drop that line and then decide how to justify entries that were made according to that line, entries that are sourced based on the consensus "at the time of the statement" (temporal problem), like sources that are pre-2007 consensus. According to the IPCC, there's stronger evidence in recent years that man is the likely contributor. Earlier comments wouldn't be opposing that consensus. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep or merge: Not seeing any new arguments here in favor of deletion. Criteria for inclusion is very strict, built from prior consensus. Viewpoints and individuals discussed are sourced and noteworthy, and total elimination of any description of AGW dissent would be a disservice to the encyclopedia. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 02:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • COMMENT If it's so strict why are non-scientists included? Verbal chat 10:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Not to be confrontational, but who in the article would you classify as not being a scientist? A large part of the controversy surrounding this article is the question of how we determine who is or is not called a scientist; such as whether the field of one's doctorate prevents them from being classified a "climate scientist." »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 20:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Strong Keep This is a fine article that describes an important part of the debate on global warming. Please keep this article in place. Razor Occam (talk) 04:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC) This user is a confirmed sockpuppet of Scibaby

• Delete: The article from beginning to end is a synthesis of sources, with each quote removed from its original context and used instead merely to justify the scientists' inclusion on this list. Very few of these quotes were intended to self-identify as a "climate change skeptic" so the list really shouldn't be here. Alex Harvey (talk) 16:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Whose positions are being misrepresented? If you can demonstrate that content has been taken out of context in order to change its meaning and synthesize a position for anyone in this article, please do so so that the error can be corrected. If not, then this charge is groundless. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 20:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Given several questionable ones have been found and are being discussed on the article's talk page, at a quick look-through, I think that the burden of proof is that they aren't misrepresented. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 214 FCs served} 20:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly - and the claims are under review, which is what I suggested in the first place. Demanding burden of proof that the positions aren't misrepresented as criteria for inclusion is logically fallacious; WP:RS will have to do unless we intend to personally petition each of the listed individuals for confirmation that they made those statements. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 20:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Excatly wrong. Well, at least "Jc-SOCO" and "Shoemaker's Holiday" mean completely different things. However, because misrepresntation is common in the real world for these views, it should be the burden of the editor adding the material to ensure that the quote really is in opposition to the IPCC consensus, was after the IPCC consensus, and was not taken out of context. Richard Lindzen is a good example; the quote doesn't show opposition. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It is the editors responsibility, as well as the responsibility of the editors that watch the article. You are wrong with regards to Lindzen's quote - it was/is in response to the TAR (which he was an author of), the SPM quoted was accepted Jan 20, 2001 and released right after. Lindzens quote is from April 2001 after the release. And as you can see on the talk page, he still holds that view (with statements from 2009) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep. I find the delete arguments unconvincing. Selecting and classifying the quotes is not OR, but rather normal editorial discretion - we do the exactly the same thing whenever we decide what to include and what to reject for any article. The fact that both proponents and opponents of the AGW consensus claim that the article is (the other) POV and that other opponents and proponents claim that its NPOV is good evidence that it is in fact reasonably neutral. Of course its not perfect, but then what article is? On the positive side, this article gives us a way of properly accounting for extreme minority positions that otherwise would be impossible to integrate without giving them undue weight. It also concentrates the debate in one central place where it can be presented in adequate context. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Random Break

• Keep — This is one of the most pivotal issues to mankind. The list of scientific luminaries opposed to the consensus view is of intense, profound and growing interest to millions of people, and wikipedia is performing a vital function by maintaining it. ► RATEL ◄ 00:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment. There's a lot of editors that claim the IPCC as a concensus statement, and that disagreeing with that statement is opposing mainstream consensus. However, there is, AFAIK, no connection like that in any WP:RS. (It would have to be a sociology of science paper, I'd imagine.) ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 00:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• You might want to take a look at Scientific opinion on climate change#Scientific consensus and the linkes statement. The IPCC position has been explictly endorsed as the consensus by joint statements from the major national academies of science, and by several individually. They are definitely WP:RS for this. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete The good-faith intentions of the article are not achievable without extreme WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. First, a Wikipedian editor has selected a quote that they think justifies inclusion in this list; no secondary source may be known with an analysis of the scientist's beliefs and with a conclusion justifying inclusion in this list. Second, there is no verification that the scientist has not later repudiated the statement (people change their mind, particularly scientists upon viewing new data). Third, the lead claims that the list shows scientists who have opposed one of three principle conclusions; however, many of the quotations appear to have no connection with the particular IPCC conclusion (the scientist may very well oppose the conclusion, but it is up to the reader to infer that without verification). Johnuniq (talk) 02:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• First: We do actually check whether or not these scientists have changed their minds, the addition of a scientist is usually a very thorough process (see archives), where the quote (and its context) is turned and discussed between the pro and contra editors. Second if the quotes do not have a connection to either of the criteria (which isn't just the IPCC, see: Scientific opinion on climate change) then the scientist should and isn't included in the article. There is a rather large number of editors and admins who watch this list, so its not just a "drop in, and hope noone notices article". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• It is still fundamentally original synthesis. The argument seems to be, 'yeah, but it's really good original synthesis'. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 10:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep This article is needed to maintain NPOV balance, amongst the current crop of global warming related article. It serves a necessary function. Green Stoole (talk) 03:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Green Stoole is indef blocked as another Scibaby sock)--BozMo talk 08:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)— Green Stoole (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete per Science Apologist ATren (talk) 03:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - unlike previous AfDs, history of the article has shown this to be in fact a POV and soapbox magnet; pardon the mixed metaphors. Bearian (talk) 18:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

  How? And what has changed in the article/list to make it so? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. This article is inherently non-neutral, and no amount of editing can fix that. Kevin (talk) 22:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per ScienceApologist. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - I do believe that this article has POV and OR issues, but I don't believe that those issues are inherent in the subject matter; they can be fixed. I don't see why this page is any more WP:POV or WP:UNDUE than any number of lists of controversial subject matter, as noted above. Overall, I find the deletion arguments to be unconvincing and I don't see what has changed since the previous AfDs. Oren0 (talk) 00:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - How is the argument presented in this AFD any different than that which was posed in the first AFD? What conditions in the article have changed since that first AFD resulted in a decision to Keep that justify re-examination? Rather than offering a new perspective w/supporting evidence, this AFD seems to be the latest round in a perpetual effort to keep re-nominating the article for deletion until the desired outcome is achieved. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 02:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. It is quite a stretch to apply a single stereotypical "List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming" to a group who holds a wide variety of opinions on a wide spectrum of "opposition" (as opposed to disagreement--a quite different issue [even the title is blatantly WP:OR ]) with certain scientific assessments. Many of the scientists support "other" mainstream and peer-reviewed scientific assessments. Claiming it's a majority-held scientific viewpoint might be debated (and is in separate WP articles, but that's not the phrase the title uses. It is useless to try to stuff a cadre of scientists into a one-size-fits-all title like this one. What I think the current discussion will illustrate is how it is impossible to delete articles once inserted regardless of how tenuous the proposition it purports to try to address. Might as well call it "List of scientists supporting different scientific assessments of global warming"--at least that one doesn't require an OR/POV personal definition of terms. --John G. Miles (talk) 09:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. The article is factual, accurate and a useful source of reference. Clearly a lot of work has gone into it. It should only be deleted if there are convincing arguments to delete it, and there are none. Nothing has changed since the earlier unsuccessful attempt to get the page deleted. Poujeaux (talk) 10:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. As currently structured, this article is an inherent violation of WP:NOR, especially the WP:SYNTH provision. It takes a large number of scientists with a wide variety of different opinions and puts them into this list and subcategories thereof based on Wikipedians' own interpretations of their views. I see it as unlikely that this issue can or will be fixed, so deletion is the most appropriate solution to this violation of Wikipedia core policy. *** Crotalus *** 13:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Not a BLP problem, useful and encyclopedic. I see no OR problem. The synth problem is pretty much the same problem we have with most lists and categories--what to include and not is rarely published elsewhere. So a list of Jewish Inventors (for example) can require some editorial thought, but not so far as to be a violation of WP:SYNTH. Hobit (talk) 18:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment when an article is tagged so badly, and it's detractors edit war over the removal of tags that are strictly false, the article must be worth keeping and they must know it. Call it Hobit's Law. Hobit (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Is your argument anything more than WP:ILIKEIT? ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 19:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
      • The first comment is (about synth etc.) is that there is no policy/guideline based problem with the article. As deletion requires a problem, that's a darn strong keep argument. The second one is that people are acting poorly in an attempt to delete an article and that usually implies a real underlying problem (IMO). Not ILIKEIT as much as DONTREWARDBADBEHAVIOR. Not a good reason to keep (that's the first part), but worth stating. Hobit (talk) 21:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
      • WP:SYN is among the real Wikipedia policy real problems with this article. Among items not yet discussed, as far as I can tell, there's the implication that the scientists in each section agree on where they disagree with the IPCC consensus. That implication is clearly false in some cases. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
        • I see nothing in the article that claims or indicates that they agree on where they disagree. Could you show such an example? In any case, that would be an argument to improve, not delete unless you claim such an issue can't possibly be avoided. Hobit (talk) 03:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
          • Let me explain it like this: The article may list person X as believing that A is true and B is false, and list person Y as believing that A is false and B is true (the "true" beliefs are by implication because they are not listed as believed to be false). What is the purpose of the article? Is it a list of contradictory stuff? Is it a list of factoids to prove a POV? Does the list show only confused people who fail to understand the IPCC report? Or does it show clever people who have seen the faults in the IPCC report (yet, for some mysterious reason, they fail to agree on what they disagree with)? Are there any secondary sources that have analysed any of the statements expressed? Who compiled this list? Johnuniq (talk) 09:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
            • The purpose of the list is for navigation. If you are interested in opposition to the mainstream scientific opinion on climate change, this is one place to start. The reason that some of the scientists are saying contradictory things, is that the opposition is on the fringes, which is made clear in the lede, thus no two scientists are holding exactly the same opinion. There are clever people on this list, and there are some very confused people on it as well, the list itself takes no stand with regards to who is who. (that would be POV), or if any of the opinions are valid or not. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep and change name. The article should be titled "List of scientists who disagree with one or more tenets of the IPCC's view of climate change". Cla68 (talk) 00:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

  This would equate to "List of scientists," period, because I don't know of anyone who agrees with everything in the reports. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

  Actually, given the weak definition of "Scientist" used, it would just be "List". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Almost impossible to keep BLP, SYNTH and NPOV violations at bay. If no consensus for delete then listify (yes I know it is currently entitled "List" but I mean make it a proper list and not a quotefarm). Itsmejudith (talk) 10:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Without the quotes (the verification for inclusion), how will we ensure that WP:BLP violations aren't going on? As a "pure" list, no reader or editor will be able verify whether a scientist merits inclusion on the list or not. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• That is something to consider. If this list can't meet WP:V and WP:BLP if made into a proper list, then why should we have it? This just proves the point, this list needs those quotes in order to support the results it synthesizes. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 21:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Erm? That would make all article inclusions that need a citation original research and a synthesis. When one is looking for references/material for an article, the editor is making the exact same original research and synthesis that this list is accused of. Whenever a {{cn}} tag is placed in an article, we might as well give up. Since it would be original research/synthesis to look and insert a reference for the requested citation needed. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Source A + Source B = Unsourced C is original synthesis. Providing sources that state C directly is not. It's entirely possible to write a list that uses C sources without running afoul of the original research policy. Sourcing C directly is just research. Combining sources that don't say C directly and concluding C anyway is original research. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, some of the sources in the list do directly state C. What's wrong with just using those and having a shorter list? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Very Strong Delete and salt With issues centered around WP:NPOV, WP:RS (there have been concerns that the list of "scientists" is mostly made up of non-climate scientists and that credentials have been inflated), WP:DUE, WP:NOT (it's a directory, wikipedia articles should not be) there is absolutely no way to salvage this article. Would have commented sooner but just noticed the AfD now. Simonm223 (talk) 12:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Can you please expand, which POV is this list catering to? The rather wide definition of scientist is purely a content issue, subject to changes of consensus. What exactly are the problems with sourcing? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. This list is just a quotefarm used to fuel talk page soapboxing; it's not here for encyclopedic purposes. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. WVBluefield (talk) 19:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Violation of WP:POV, WP:PSTS, WP:SYNTH, and WP:UNDUE. This also misrepresents who these people actually are, as many are not climatologists. It wrongly synthesizes people with a veriety of opinions into this catch-all conglomeration. Per Johnuniq (talk · contribs), this is only WP:OR in taking a single quote from these people and does not take recent changes into account. Reywas92^Talk 20:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Firstly, the article never claims that it is a list of climatologists. It is a list of scientists. Secondly, many diverse scientists such as geologists, oceanographers, meteorologists, and many others are qualified to comment on the subject. Also, recent changes have been handled very well on the talk page. I challenge you to find any example, now or in the past, where an individual's current position (at the time, of course) was misrepresented on the page for any significant amount of time. Oren0 (talk) 04:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Overall the list is clearly original research. The classification of scientists into categories based on bullet points in the IPCC is not supported by any reliable source. The characterization of "scientist" is arbitrary and runs afoul of original-research concerns as well; there is no particular reason, for example, why one would expect an emeritus professor of nuclear physics to be more of an expert about global warming than anybody else. I don't see any way that this sort of partisan list can be constructed from individual quotes without conducting original research. Eubulides (talk) 22:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I can't decide on the deletion of this list. But as one of the first few editors to heavily push on BLP on the list and someone who has some occasional involvement in it, I can agree BLP issues come up all the time and there is a push by some editors to include people without sufficient sourcing to demonstrate they are opposed to the mainstream assessement. However on the whole I feel we do achieve a resonable job in keeping that out. On the other hand, perhaps the list is fundamentally flawed as some claim. I think issues like 'what is a list' and 'what sort of lists do we have on wikipedia' are important here, I've never really see any good discussion and I think a number of the issues raised here apply to many lists on wikipedia. One final thing, it's clear to me both from this discussion and my experience with the article that people on both sides (i.e. editors who support the mainstream assessement and those who oppose it) want it gone and want to keep it. I don't know if there's a clear distinction between the two. This shouldn't matter but I think it's important to say to avoid any claims of some sort of conspiracy from either side. Yet there will be some editors and some external parties who are glad when/if it's gone because they've 'removed propaganda by climate change denialists' and some editors and some external parties who say we're 'engaging in more suppresion of the real science as part of the climate change conspiracy' if we delete it and of course some editors/external parties who think 'oh no, we've removed a good list which demonstrated the claims of a conspiracy are nonsense and those actually opposed are a tiny minority' and some editors/external parties who think 'yes we've removed another attempt by the climate change conspiracy to smear good scientists because they dared speak out against the conspiracy/non-science' and some editors/esternal parties who think 'yes we've removed another attempt by the climate change conspiracy to mislead people into thinking there isn't a lot of scientific dispute about their conspiracy'. Again this shouldn't influence the outcome in any way, but I think it's important to understand. Nil Einne (talk) 00:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree completely, and as a sidenote, i will also add that i believe that the push for inclusion of the more fringe views on the main articles about climate change will be increased if this article is removed, since we now won't have any navigational aids to these. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:BHTT --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep per Gandalf61, Hobit, Stephan Schulz, JohnWBarber et al. As they demonstrate, the "problems" are ordinary ones encountered in compiling any list or writing any article. None of our policies are being materially violated here. Perhaps it could be titled better, perhaps some normal editing is necessary, but something which is essentially this list is a real and positive contribution to wikipedia, and is well within our rules and practices. Many deletes amount to saying neutrality is impossible, understanding what the majority view is is impossible, understanding what A says and whether it disagrees with B is impossible, and that we must have a third source to tell us as to what these sources really say (and why don't we need a fourth one to tell us what the third one said ...?). Well we do that, and overall do a decent job, everywhere and all the time. Wikipedia works in practice, although perhaps not in some people's theories.John Z (talk) 01:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. This isn't the kind of AfD I'd normally comment on, but some of the editing on that page seems inappropriate, particularly the addition of four warning tags defacing the article, and immediate reverting when I tried to remove them. The list seems useful, and the fervour surrounding it seems suspicious. It needs to be well-sourced, preferably with secondary sources, but so long as it is, there's no reason within policy to remove it. Because the idea of man-made global warming is a contentious issue, a list of scientists who oppose it would seem ipso facto to be notable. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

  Yes, such lists are compiled by participants in the climate change debate, so it is a notable issue; however, isn't the task of Wikipedia is to report on such lists rather than compiling original ones?? (I think of Scientific Dissent from Darwinism as a good example on how to report on a list, explaining its role in the debate without becoming an active participant by publishing one's own list.) The underlying assumption, POV if you will, advocated by such lists is that scientific opinion is best measured through an opinion poll of scientists. The alternative might be to have a list of papers in high-quality journals that dispute the mainstream assessment on climate change. That kind of list is advocating other assumptions about how to assess the state of scientific research. The point is that Wikipedia should certainly report on lists of dissenters, but it should refrain from actively validating the assumptions that such lists are based on by creating its very own lists of dissenters. 77.4.79.151 (talk) 01:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, or change editing rules Unlike what many uninitiated editors think of this article, rather than being a POV mine for the skeptical side, this article is actually a cleverly designed POV mine for the believer/alarmist side. Over time, it has been twisted in a way to create the illusion that opposition to the IPCC consensus is restrained to a few 30-40ish crackpots. In this context, no matter what I think of the climate change debate, this article is good for the trash.

This being said, there is basically nothing wrong with having an article documenting a certain notable POV if that POV is not covered in a more general article (that is another debate). But the POV that is supposed to be documented here is not documented at all, thanks to ad hoc rules created by a group of activist editors who have all voted 'keep' I see (for instance, some rule not to include scientists who happen to not be the subject of a specific Wikipedia article about them - a rule with no relationship whatsoever with the Wikipedia editing rules - or a rule not to include scientists who have made their position public through a letter signed by other scientists - same comment).

If this article is fixed in order to make of it what it pretends to be, it has a legitimate purpose. Concerns such as BLP and SYNTH are really secondary issues because they are easily manageable. --Childhood's End (talk) 20:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Agree with the very first !vote cast (by User:Mercurywoodrose). 72.83.205.80 (talk) 23:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Obviously. A very notable subject. The POV pushing from both sides is similar to other hotly debated political issues. A rename or merger might be a good idea. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete WP:OR was needed to create the list. An encyclopedia is to give facts. The fact of each person's views should be mentioned in his or her biography. Notable views should be mentioned in articles on the climate change debate. No reason to bring them together in this list which, to me anyway, has the feel of an enemies list. Steve Dufour (talk) 23:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep And wince. Likely to be a perpetual NPOV issue as long as the political wars on this subject continues. That said, overall benefit to the public debate is likely to arise from maintenance of such a list, provided it's carefully sourced. Ray^Talk 01:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep but please change the title. That the authors have created specific inclusion criteria and made it backed up by sourced data clinches that this is acceptable. I would encourage hearty discussion of individual entries and individual sources on the talk page by those skeptical. Miami33139 (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't know if the article was updated since this afd was initiated, but some of the concerns raised by editors no longer exist. For one, the list includes clearly demarcated sections for the varied reasons out there that "oppose the mainstream." Although the mainstream may be hard to define, if sources say that "so and so opposes the mainstream...." that wouls suffice for inclusion.--Pink Bull (talk) 18:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

  I agree with you that we could include a person if reliable, independent, third-party sources actually stated up-front that "so-and-so is a scientist that opposes the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming" or even a synonym to this, but though I've asked for these, I've yet to see one produced. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Geography of Cornwall. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 01:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

List of foreign-language names for Cornwall

List of foreign-language names for Cornwall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

An article dedicated solely to various translations of a cities name does not belong on Wikipedia. A translating dictionary maybe? listcruft. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 22:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete per nom. I do believe Cornwall was once a nation, though, and we have a page at List of country names in various languages, so maybe there could be somewhere to merge this to rather than simply deleting it. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 22:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. This is not encyclopedicWildHorsesPulled (talk) 23:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - Cornwall is not a city. It is a county of England. It is also one of the six ancient Celtic nations with its own (technically extinct) language and cultural history. Guest9999 (talk) 00:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Please take time to read the start of the article, explaining why it is notable. Do to its unique history, it has something that normally only nations have, that being its own name given to it by various groups. A notable aspect for a notable geographic location. Dream Focus 10:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to Geography of Cornwall in a more concise form. Interesting information, but not enough to merit its own article. I think the variations of England, Anglaterre, Inglaterra, Англия, etc. are interesting as well, but not enough that we should have a table on the subject, let alone a separate page. Mandsford (talk) 13:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete No source is provided that states Cornwall has foreign-language names independent of transliteration, and since nearly all of them look transliterated, I don't see a reason to believe this is so. If a reliable source is cited in the article for this, then Merge a concise form of this into Geography of Cornwall as Mandsford suggests. That the Asturian name is Cornualles doesn't strike me as more than a WP:DIRECTORY listing. As WP:SALAT says, If you create a list like the "list of shades of colors of apple sauce", be prepared to explain why you feel this list contributes to the state of human knowledge. Looks like an apple sauce list to me. JohnWBarber (talk) 16:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Merge per Mandsfold. Bearian (talk) 18:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Wiktionary already gives lists of translations, including for Cornwall.[5] At most, the Cornwall article should have a link to wiktionary. Wikipedia is simply not the appropriate venue for such lists.YobMod 20:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, bizarre relisting discounted.  Skomorokh, barbarian  00:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

THUDD

THUDD (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 spoof of THX from 1 episode of Tiny Toon Adventures. No links. No Refs. No notability. Blargh29 (talk) 22:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete You've got to be freaking kidding me. A parody from just one ep of TTA? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - I was going to say Merge but I don't think it's notable even within the context of Tiny Toon Adventures; I certainly don't know where you'd put it on that page. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete It was a 10-second joke! Yet, judging from the lack of edits (the majority by correction and grammar bots) and that it was created by an IP during the early era of the site four years ago I'm just going to say this was a test article that has done a great job eluding AfD until now. Nate • (chatter) 11:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a joke book. This is a leftover from those early days when they were taking any random thought that popped into someone's head. Mandsford (talk) 13:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Seriously, an article about something that lasted 10s that isn't the men's 100m sprint in an athletics tournament? DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Mind you, it's got to win an award for the longest time that an article has had a tag on it - it was tagged as being an orphaned article way back in November 2006. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom.--Karljoos (talk) 14:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, one-off joke, no secondary coverage that would indicate notability or importance. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC).
• Keep for the lulz. • Anakin ^(talk) 13:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete No notability asserted. Aiken ♫ 15:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Blargh29 (talk) 04:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Argh! Okay, then I suggest cleanup and promotion to featured, and nomination of 69.137.188.39 to adminship for his four stellar contributions (and no history of problems). • Anakin ^(talk) 13:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Then I predict that 69.137.188.39 will soon be an administrator. You convinced an administrator to relist this for further debate, simply by saying "Keep for the lulz". Mandsford (talk) 13:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that's not an admin. That was a user relist. I left a message asking why. -moritheil^Talk 17:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it was just a joke, seeing as he nominated it for deletion in the first place. • Anakin ^(talk) 18:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

But since he did it, we have to be clear, so I've asked him. -moritheil^Talk 19:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• I don't know what's worse, that someone thinks we'd get a laugh out of that, or that a non-administrator can post the relist message in the first place. So, if we've gone seven days and I don't like the way the discussion is going, I can just extend the time? To try that, I'd have to have some big ones, and they'd have to be gold plated. Mandsford (talk) 20:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Why has this been relisted? There are surely enough comments here. Aiken ♫ 15:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Blargh29 responded to say he has not actually relisted it. He has not offered further explanation. -moritheil^Talk 04:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

LOL! Better tell him to change his password. Mandsford (talk) 12:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: It is difficult to know where to start. No references, not even an assertion of notability. As for the relisting it seems redundant since the consensus appears to be clear enough, although it still has not had a full seven days yet. As a side note, blargh29 does not appear to be an admin. CrispMuncher (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete and if need be, merge one sentence into the Tiny Toons main article mentioning it. -moritheil^Talk 17:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: If the scope if really only that small and someone wants to argue keep for humor, even then I'd say it should be kicked per general consensus on 1-shot pop culture eventsy qualifying as notability. Only stuff that snowballs like crazy can get through that... like this classic and the AfD here[6] ♪ DaTheisen(talk) 13:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. There are a number of claims on the Keep side that this topic is discussed heavily in a wide range of third party sources. There were however, no such sources when this AfD began, and far more importantly there still aren't. Subtract the primary sources, and one is left with a very large amount of synthesis and original research. Black Kite 13:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Differences in versions of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Differences in versions of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
• Articles for deletion/Differences in versions of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (2nd nomination)

Differences in versions of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Pure trivia, fan-cruft listing of the minute differences between adaptations. Unencyclopedic and unnecessary. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 22:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• • There are a whole list of references listed in the article.  BRIANTIST  (talk) 15:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. article provides no argument for why this material is notable. no references to reliable third party sources mentioning the differences and why they matter to anyone other than fans (or even why they matter to fans, if published in a nonfan source). the whole article seems to be original research, as this is not published elsewhere (no references to such publications given after 3 years), and required the authors of the article to watch and read and listen to each version meticulously, and record all these differences. thats different than simply quoting a single primary source, which is obviously not original research. this is really at the far end of the OR spectrum. As a fan (but not a fanatic), i would care about any differences that either changed the tone/style, character behavior, or story arc, esp. if not specifically approved by Mr. Adams. Im not sure there are any, from my recollections of the material. if someone can provide refs showing an active discussion among film/literature/radio critics of the differences, or published works describing the differences, i would bow to it being included in WP. and i will leave it to defenders of the article to find sources, and hopefully not simply say "notable" or "referenced" (it really would need page refs for text passages)or (god forbid) "interesting" or "useful". of course, this is being offered for discussion on a Thursday, and maybe im just having trouble getting the hang of ths day...Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Mostly harmless. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this may also be an in joke, so DON'T PANIC.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete the material seems to be sourced to the works themselves, in my opinion going through them and making the comparisons/ noting differences in this way constitutes original thought. I cannot find any evidence that the differences between the versions have been the topic of independent reliable sources which would allow for an article based on a neutral, verifiable framework - not one based on original research. Being harmless is not a good reason for keeping an article, travel guides, directories and myspace pages are all pretty harmless - it does not mean Wikipedia should host them or that they belong as part of a high-quality, free encyclopaedia. Guest9999 (talk) 00:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • In addition - the page in its current form is not an article about the Differences in versions of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. It is a list of every difference various editors have been able to come up with. Even if the topic was notable and the claimed third party sources do exist this list would not be the encyclopaedic way to present the information. An article on the topic based on verifiable information from reliable sources would cover why the differences occurred (limitations of medium, evolution of material, etc.), how they were received and other material that made it more than sections of plot summary bound together by original research. Guest9999 (talk) 01:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Keep and cleanup. A notable topic which has been the topic of multiple articles and books, and has significant coverage in books abut individual versions, in books, articles, TV and radio shows about the Hitch-Hikers guide in general, and biogrphies of Douglas Adams himself. Sources are easy to find. Note the differences aren't all minor, and some are referred to in different versions. This article has plenty of potential. Verbal chat 08:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

If the sources are easy to find, then why aren't they in the article? I would reconsider my delete if there were any non-primary sources provided. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep I agree with Verbal. It has plenty of coverage, and is a notable enough topic. Dream Focus 10:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Merge into The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. TomCat4680 (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Keep I guess the referecnes need cleaning up a bit, but I also agree with Verbal.  BRIANTIST  (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• The references are almost exclusively the source material itself - the books, cassettes, etc. Without coverage by secondary sources any two things could be compared in this way and the article could be said to have sources. For example for "Differences between The Beatles and The Spice Girls" it could easily be sourced that all five of one group was female and all four of the other were male, that they were formed in different locations and have different styles of music. The key thing is that nobody - to my knowledge - has ever put all this information together before. From Wikipedia:Original Research "you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.". The sources do not support that there are differences between versions, they simply support what each version says. Guest9999 (talk) 10:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Differences between The Beatles and The Spice Girls

• False analogy. This isn't The Beatles versus The Spice Girls, it's Hitchhiker's Guide vs Hitchhiker's Guide. — goethean ॐ 23:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The fact that all the references are primary sources is enough to make them ineligible. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I'd like to see much more sources to show this is notable before further discussion. Bearian (talk) 19:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as there are no reliable, third party sources, but willing reconsider should that change. WFCforLife (talk) 14:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. There is much discussion of the differences within the articles for Douglas Adams and The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and it is useful to have a summary of these differences. Unusually the books were written after the intial radio series and while being based on the radio series the books have significant differences in plot and order of events, so there is an argument as to which is the definite version of the story. There is a video clip of Adams himself discussing in an TV interview why the differences occur on this BBC page. Cjc13 (talk) 18:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. I'm not sure whether linking to other WP articles that do have reliable, third-party sources satisfies that requirement, but the WP articles for those multiple versions that are compared here are comprehensive and could be good references for this article. Either way, I suggest someone archive this list to put on a popular or semi-official HHGG site and put a link to it from one of the HHSS WP articles. Resident alian (talk) 17:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, I'm not seeing any secondary sources, in spite of the article rescue tag. Abductive (reasoning) 01:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Well-intentioned but basically a monolithic violation of WP:NOR, specifically WP:SYNTH. No secondary sources as mentioned above. Shereth 15:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete All of the references cited are the original texts, and therefore primary sources and ineligible for Wikipedia. Once they are removed the article is completely unreferenced. That merely highlights that this is obviously a huge piece of original research. There is certainly a place on the web for this work, but Wikipedia is not it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete A mess of trivia and original research. Triplestop x3 00:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete WP:SYNTH. A list of primary sources wont help this article. It needs independent reliable sources that discuss the differences in versions as the title suggests. Sarilox (talk) 13:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep The first time I read this series, almost two decades ago, the foreword to the collected edition discussed how the story changed between different radio versions, tv, and the first novel. The documentation to the text adventure from the 80s also mentioned that the story in the game did not scrupulously follow the radio or books either. Adams enjoyed these inconsistencies. There can't be any synthesis or OR if the author himself started pointing out the subject matter twenty years before Wikipedia existed. Miami33139 (talk) 17:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, but the author's own comments in the foreword to his own work can hardly be considered an independent source. Abductive (reasoning) 20:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• • • Agreed, but by size this material would not be merged back to HHG2G. Miami33139 (talk) 21:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Comparison of pumps

Comparison of pumps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Seems like a marketing brochure; "Which pump is right for you?" Non-encyclopedic, and unnecessary comparison \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Jesus Christ, it shouldn't hurt to just make a grouped AfD? FunnyDuckIsFunny (talk) 21:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

  Group AfDs don't work when the articles are so different, and each one may have individual merit. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 22:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

  Still we don't need a new AfD relating to comparisions every ten seconds. FunnyDuckIsFunny (talk) 22:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Non encyclopedic, far too subjective in terms of comparing one week's product catalogue with another, and I see no way in which this could be fixed. A prose description of the relative merits of each sort (and leaving comparisons or application choice to the reader) might have some value, but this isn't it. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep -- are we looking at the same article? There is no 'marketing' information here, no links to commercial pump suppliers, merely a list of different pump types with parameters. Aren't there articles on some of these other pump types? Only 6 or 7 are linked currently, but if these are all distinctive types (which they are, looking at the reference used) presumably there is scope for them being described in WP in the future. Since the list doesn't specifically mention a suitable purpose for each pump, it cannot be considered a "Which pump is right for you?" selection guide. To help counteract this, I have adjusted the lede to suit. However, I also agree with Andy that there should be more prose description of each type, possibly losing some of existing the columns (such as 'Difficulty of repair' (very subjective) and 'hazard to fish' (which column contains no useful info.) EdJogg (talk) 00:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I must say that I have the same feeling as User:EdJogg above: are we actually looking at the same article? Because I simply cannot see this as a "marketing brochure". The different pumps are listed only by their types, such as "Archimedean screw", "Chain and washer pump", "Coil and spiral pump", "Diaphragm pump" and so on. None of these types are tied to a particular company, and I simply cannot see this table as a marketing attempt (nor do I see it as "comparing one week's product catalogue with another", per User:Andy Dingley above).

I was somewhat worried about possible commercial references/external links, but the only reference is to a page from Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, and you can hardly accuse that of being a commerical (or "marketing") link.

Having said that, I should point out that I have no opinion on whether this table, as it stands, is worthwhile as a separate Wikipedia article. The nominator's arguments that this is "[n]on-encyclopedic, and unnecessary comparison" are possibly valid; all I wanted is to say that I do not see any marketing attempt here.

-- Ekjon Lok (talk) 01:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep- per the above. Btw regarding EddJogg's comment, aldough it isn't quite stated that a specific type is more useful for a certain purpose, due to the pumping height, we can get an overall idea; eg if it states that it is 100m or more, it could eg be used as a potable water pump, lower lift heights typically refer to irrigation pumps. As for the discarting of columns, indeed some could be removed, but some (such as the "hazard to fish") are best kept. reason for this is that pumps are also used in national installations on rivers (eg locks, flood protection, ...). Some (even in developed countries) still use pumps very hazardous to fish (actually more than hazardous as it kills the fish anyhow).

KVDP (talk) 08:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

An article that described different pump mechanisms would be useful. Comparisons between them though becomes subjective and run foul of WP:OR. This article, as it stands, isn't good enough as a description to warrant inclusion. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It isn't original research to list stats like that. And the perceived quality level of the article is not a valid reason to delete it. Dream Focus 10:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Which "stats" are listed? Production costs of "medium-high" are too vague to convey useful information and even when these are quantitative, delivery heights that range "10m-100m" aren't much better, let alone a column of question marks. "Medium-high" isn't useful because it's not precise enough (not enough increments) and it's also unclear what budget we're judging it by. What's an expensive way to pump water for a village's irrigation is cheap for nuclear reactor coolant. These broad values are also unclear because "plunger pumps" work over a huge range, but don't become meaningful for comparison until we know which plunger pump (i.e. size, drive power) we're talking about.

I don't know what a "Progressive cavity (mono)" type of pump is. This article doesn't tell me, nor does it offer even a redlink that suggests it might try to in the future.

The article, as it stands, has two distinct problems. It doesn't convey enough useful information to be an objective list of descriptions - this might be fixable in a similar article, but this article isn't it and is currently no more than a list of names. Secondly a comparison in this sense becomes subjective: "high cost" only exists when you assume the budget available. Subjective judgements like that are inherently WP:OR, because they introduce that assumption for budget or manufacturing capabilities.

At risk of censure for WP:OWN, I'd compare this article to the (incomplete) List of boiler types, by manufacturer. That's a similar article in some ways: it takes a core technology with many different approaches within it then tries to enumerate the possible options and tie them into some organised taxonomy. It doesn't make comparisons between them though.

"quality level of the article is not a valid reason to delete it." Opinions vary on that. If someone fixes it now, then great. Otherwise it can be best to delete poor articles and re-create them again later. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep A valid encyclopedia entry, listing the types of pumps, and information about them, plus linking to various Wikipedia articles about pumps that have already had articles made about them. Dream Focus 10:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Merge to pump The main article has no real list of types, which is after all what this article really is. Mangoe (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. This is an indiscriminate collection of information drawn from primary sources (two failings in one). Guy (Help!) 18:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete this indiscriminate collection of stuff. It isn't an encyclopedia article and i can't see how it could be made to be one.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep An article comparing, or even just listing, types of pump is valid. This article needs to be greatly improved to be of much use, but the potential is probably there. A tag such as Cleanup or Notability would be a better temporary solution than deletion. Globbet (talk) 22:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep The topic has great notability as pumps are commonly required to perform continuously for long periods, like the heart, and so their characteristics have been extensively studied and compared. The nomination seems disruptive, as it appears to be part of a drive-by deletion spree contrary to our deletion policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep As per previous comments. If there's actually a violation of Wikipedia guidelines, it would be welcomed at Appropedia:, but I don't think there's any reason to delete. --Chriswaterguy talk 08:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep the article needing improvement is never a reason to delete. Could be greatly expanded to provide a useful comparison and certainly has the notability to meet inclusion criteria. Too much information to merge into the pump article. The Seeker 4 Talk 13:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep and make articles on each significant type that does not already have an article of its own. This should properly be regarded as a summary or navigation article. When there are factual things to compare, the comparison is not OR. DGG ( talk ) 01:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 11:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Comparison of the 12-hour and 24-hour clocks

Comparison of the 12-hour and 24-hour clocks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Comparison of the various advantages of different times. Content forks from the respective methods pages, and and uncited unencyclopedic comparison. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as this is largely original research. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 23:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as OR, redundant to 24-hour clock. I guess you can make an overly complex description of just about anything simple, although the difference between the two clocks is fairly obvious to any person who ever learned how to tell time. Beyond that, one can compare anything to anything. Imagine how much one could write about the differences between shoes with laces and shoes with velcro straps. Mandsford (talk) 13:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as just somebody's essay. Mangoe (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - subject non-relevant--Karljoos (talk) 14:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete since it looks like someone's homework. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 19:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Let we explain why it was made to begin with. It was made following discussions [7], [8] on the inconsistencies between the two articles. The artilces were also being overrun with with comparisons instead of talking about the topics. This article was therefore made to work this out. Also there is significant content in this article that has never been and would be inappropriate to out in one of its two "parent" artilces. Zginder 2009-10-27T13:54Z (UTC)
• Merge to 24-hour clock, then merge 12-hour clock and rename the joined article. Miami33139 (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete unless a rescuer can come up with sufficient reliable sources for the comparison as its own subject. While I sympathize with the problem of keeping unwanted material out of the individual clock-type articles, a separate article for the comparison seems inconsistent with WP:FORK unless it can sustain itself as a notable subject in its own right. With nary a sign of a source anywhere in the article, this comes across as pure original research. --RL0919 (talk) 17:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 11:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Comparison of cricket bowlers

Comparison of cricket bowlers (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-encyclopedic sporting cruft, inclusion in the list is purely subjective and none has any encyclopedic value. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 04:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Appears to be useful enough. -- ISLANDERS27 09:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. The creator appears to have put a great deal of effort into the table, but it's not clear what the criteria for inclusion are or what the table is intended to show. JH (talk page) 09:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Query - a number of past cricket bowlers - is there any criterion by which the bowlers were chosen (the all-time leading wicket takers, or something?) or is it just a random selection of "former greats"? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• It's a random selection, Jim Laker is the 57th leading Test wicket-taker and amongst 149 bowlers with 100 Test wickets Sobers is 128th in term of averages. Sobers also played one One Day International so his place on that table is very questionable. --Jpeeling (talk • contribs) 10:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I'm reluctant to delete something that someone has worked hard on putting together, but it's an analysis of 16 athletes who, I am presuming, excelled as bowlers in cricket. The American equivalent would be a comparison of the statistics of 16 great pitchers, or 16 great quarterbacks. I'm willing to listen politely, and without any discouraging comment, to any description of what the purpose of the table would be. As an alternative to this, I'd encourage the author to make rankings for bowling average, strike rate, economy rate, etc., similar to ones like this. Looking over Category: Cricket lists, I see that there's room for this, and Wikipedia is pretty generous when it comes to sports articles. Mandsford (talk) 13:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete A well developed list but it is an indiscriminate list with no inclusion criteria. I'm struggling to understand why Srinath would be in, but not Kumble (for India); why pigeon isn't in the list etc etc. -SpacemanSpiff 15:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, indiscriminate list. I'm surprised how you could make a list like this and not include Glenn McGrath, for instance. Until some concrete criteria are drawn up for inclusion, this is inherently WP:OR. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC).
• Comment - I agree this list appear indiscriminate, although I don't know much about cricket, and so appears to be delete-worthy. But the creator appears to be a new editor who may not be familiar with all the Wikirules, and it sounds from the discussion above that the article may be salvageable if it is reorganized in a more appropriate fashion (including replacing some members of the list with others). It seems like it may be more productive to keep for now, but for someone who is more familiar than I with the content to explain the deletion concerns with the editor and how he might be able to bring it up to standards. Rlendog (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep but expand and explain. The list is not indiscriminate, as it applies to notable bowlers with a Wikipedia article only, not evertyone who has ever played a game somewhere. But since it does not include all of them, there hneeds to be some specidic basis for the choi=ce of whom to include. DGG ( talk ) 01:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you here DDG. I'm not sure how familiar you are with cricket, but it's a notoriously statistics-bound game, much more so than conceptually similar games like baseball. Merely defining what makes a "good" bowler is a matter of oftentimes heated debate amongst cricket statisticians and fans; it could be someone who takes a lot of wickets (Brett Lee, Shane Warne), it could be someone who concedes very few runs (Glenn McGrath), or it could be players who have a good balance between the two (Heath Streak). There are also statistical aberrations like Charles Marriott and Wilf Barber to consider. Even allowing for the rather haphazard inclusion standards on the article at the moment, any standard you come up with under this title is going to be inherently WP:POV and WP:OR. I could see articles like Comparison of cricket bowlers with 100 test wickets possibly not falling afoul of this problem, but then again, we are talking about this article, not some other hypothetical list. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC).
• Delete. As much as it pains me due to the work put in (I can respect and sympathize) the criteria for inclusion into the list strikes me as too random. I defer to WP:NOT#STATS. While there may be some guidelines for this particular list, I think in order to keep it some really specific rules would need to be put in place (even then, I'm not sure how notable it really is). I'm open to that possibility--but as it currently is, I must vote delete. Cocytus [»talk«] 04:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was withdrawn. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Søren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche

Søren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

An article dedicated solely to a meeting that may or may not have happened, and also how similar the two men were. Unnecessary content fork. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Strong keep There is vast scholarly literature investigating the philosophical relationship between these two thinkers. This topic is beyond question notable, and the content of the article would be undue weight if merged into either of the individual articles or philosophy sub-articles (Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche and Philosophy of Søren Kierkegaard). For an example of how an article like this might develop, see Relationship between Friedrich Nietzsche and Max Stirner.  Skomorokh, barbarian  22:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Strong keep: The IP nominator on the talk page said this article is uncited, but there are four inline references and five extra references, which is sufficient for an article that size. Also agree with the potential for growth and development. Poor Yorick (talk) 22:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Strong keep - valid and notable subject. See http://www.amazon.com/Either-Kierkegaard-Nietzsche-Intersections-Continental/dp/0754654745#reader_0754654745. The Transhumanist 22:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and ameliorate concerns through regular editing.  Skomorokh, barbarian  00:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Comparison of MD and DO in the United States

Comparison of MD and DO in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unnecessary comparison, US-centricism and a topic that can be easily dealt with in the respected articles. The precedent this article sets is also worrying. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep I believe that comparison articles should be kept when they provide content that would not easily fit into any existing single article, and where the comparison itself is of interest. Comparison between Roman and Han Empires is a good example of this. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 22:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. This is a widely discussed topic. With numerous journal articles published on the comparison of the two degrees. Bryan Hopping ^T 02:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Precedents don't exist in Wikipedia. There are plenty of references in the article. And what's this US centricism nonsense? The Wikipedia has articles about things all over the world. No one would complain that the list of presidents in a country is centric to that nation and thus shouldn't be allowed, or an article about someone only notable in their nation. Dream Focus 10:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Strong keep very well researched article with many medical journals cited. Ikip (talk) 11:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. This is an interesting article, maybe. It's also a research paper, so it's WP:OR. But even beyond that, is such a narrowly defined comparison even a notable topic? I say Delete. Mangoe 13:58, October 23, 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Very interesting and well sourced article. I've often wondered the difference between an M.D. and a D.O. myself. TomCat4680 (talk) 14:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Merge to Health care in the United States. An interesting article, but "interesting" is not a criterion that's very useful when determining notability. Many of the "keep" arguments here boil down to WP:ILIKEIT, which isn't very helpful. SDY (talk) 15:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure the AfD suggestion was made in good faith, but this is a frivolous AfD. The article is a very notable topic. The "comparison of MD and DO" is discussed in numerous books, scholarly journals, and media articles. Even a casual glance at the sources listed for this article would reveal that. The idea that this article should be deleted because it is "US-centric" is ridiclous. It's an article about a topic that exists in the United States. It is no more US-centric than the article about the Grand Canyon. There is no reason whatsoever to delete or merge this article. Bryan Hopping ^T 17:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep I can't find anything wrong with the article. Just because it centers on a U.S. medical debate doesn't mean it is not encyclopedic. Warrah (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It'd almost make sense to have a "medical practitioners in the United States" article that would cover MDs, DOs, NPs, PAs, and such, but I'm very reticent about the term "comparison" as part of the title of any Wikipedia article: it implies analysis and evaluation rather than a presentation of facts. Even just renaming the article might be a good first step. "MD and DO in the United States" maybe. That it's US-biased is irrelevant, it clearly states that in the title and the distinction is important since the DO degree in the US is different from foreign degrees with the same name. SDY (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I haven't yet formed an opinion on keeping or deleting, but I must say that I am sure that any similar article about, say, India or Brazil would end up as a unanimous "delete". Please let's judge this by the same standards that we would use for articles about other large countries. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

If there were noteworthy comparisons from India or Brazil on similar topics, they would not be deleted. Please, look at the sources before you judge. This is a noteworthy topic, as the numerous sources for this article clearly indicate. There are many articles on this exact topic, the "Comparison of MD and DO in the United States" or as the article was originally titled "Comparison of allopathic and osteopathic medicine in the United States." Let's judge this article by the same standards as every other article. This topic is widely discussed by reliable sources. Isn't that the end of the debate? Bryan Hopping ^T 20:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

So long as it's clear that it's not "Wikipedia's opinion" since we are the mirror, not the lamp. Calling it a "comparison" is problematic. Whether it's the US or India or Brazil or Uzbekistan is irrelevant. SDY (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, I hope that, as with all articles, RS will guide us. In this case, those sources are listed in the references section of the article. Reprinting the sources listed in the article seems pedantic to me, but I will do so. Bryan Hopping ^T 03:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Wood, D. L.; Hahn, M. B. (2009). "Accreditation Standards of Osteopathic and Allopathic Medical Schools: Could They Affect Educational Quality?". Academic Medicine. 84 (6): 724–8. doi:10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181a8c296. PMID 19474546.

• Johnson, S.; Kurtz, M. E. (Dec 2002). "Perceptions of philosophic and practice differences between US osteopathic physicians and their allopathic counterparts". Social Science & Medicine (1982). 55 (12): 2141–2148. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(01)00357-4. ISSN 0277-9536. PMID 12409127.

• Peters, A. S.; Clark-Chiarelli, N.; Block, S. D. (1999). "Comparison of Osteopathic and Allopathic Medical Schools' Support for Primary Care". Journal of General Internal Medicine. 14 (12): 730–739. doi:10.1046/j.1525-1497.1999.03179.x. PMC 1496864. PMID 10632817.

• Licciardone, J. C. (Jan 2007). "A comparison of patient visits to osteopathic and allopathic general and family medicine physicians: results from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, 2003–2004". Osteopathic Medicine and Primary Care. 1: 2–22. doi:10.1186/1750-4732-1-2. PMC 1805772. PMID 17371578.

• Phil Galewitz. MD or DO—does it matter to you? Palm Beach Post. 6 Nov 2007
• Licciardone, J. C.; Clearfield, M. B.; Guillory, V. J. (2009). "Clinical Practice Characteristics of Osteopathic and Allopathic Primary Care Physicians at Academic Health Centers: Results from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey". Academic Medicine. 84 (6): 744–50. doi:10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181a424fc. PMID 19474550. S2CID 913556.

Uh... OK. None of this tells me this article wouldn't be better titled without the "comparison of." Comparing things vs. documenting differences isn't a huge difference, and this is mostly a question of easy fixes rather than outright deletion. I never challenged that the article was unsourced, rather that it presented the information in a way that is not compatible with the expectations of an encyclopedia. SDY (talk) 06:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Rename to 'Comparison of Osteopathic and Allopathic medical practice' or similar. The topic appears to be notable and have significant coverage, but the title appears to both make unnecessary use of acronyms & to unnecessarily restrict the topic to the medical qualifications, and to the US. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The DO degree and osteopathy are significantly different in the US than they are elsewhere, so restricting it to the US isn't inappropriate. See my comments above on why "comparison" articles are dubious by construction. SDY (talk) 07:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

"The DO degree" is only 1 of 13 disambiguations of DO, so using that acronym in the title is uninformative. (ii) if they are "significantly different in the US than they are elsewhere" then giving the US comparison in isolation is misleading. (iii) The article does not discuss either qualification (or either discipline) generally, but only the difference between the two. Thus 'Osteopathic and Allopathic medical practice' misrepresents the scope. The alternatives would appear to be 'Comparison of Osteopathic and Allopathic medical practice', 'Differences between Osteopathic and Allopathic medical practice' or 'Osteopathic versus Allopathic medical practice'. The former would appear to be the more encyclopaedic phrasing. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the acronyms are not ideal. "Versus" is clearly not the phrasing we're looking for. "Comparison" I'm not too happy with, as it implies review and analysis rather than presentation of information. "Difference" is probably a good choice. "Osteopathic medicine" is extremely light on the osteopathy, and this article is very much about "what's the difference between a doctor with an MD as opposed to a doctor with a DO." (answer: not too much) SDY (talk) 10:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. This is a AfD. If there is consensus not to delete the article, let's close the AfD. Many editors will have an opinion on renaming the article, especially using the word "allopathic" in the title. They should be able to be involved in that discussion, held in the appropriate forum: the article's talk page. Bryan Hopping ^T 03:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The article has some problems, but deletion is not the solution. SDY (talk) 08:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Focus or merge I will address some of the points raised above. Though the topic may seem banal, it is actually quite contentious. Certainly, the historical difference between MD and DO in the US is both vast and fascinating. Is the comparison between the two, at present, encyclopedic? Perhaps, but the scope should be clear. The article as it stands suffers in that, for those familiar with the topic, it cherry-picks evidence and carries a bias in favor of one side. Regarding concerns about the US-centrism of this article, the article's name appropriately cues the reader to the fact that this is going to be a US-centric article. The rest of the world has DOs, but they are fundamentally different in that they do not confer the same legal privilege as an MD, whereas a US DO degree does in nearly every way. Finally, retitling to avoid acronyms would be appropriate but difficult: saying "Comparison of medicinae doctorae and doctor of osteopathy" is the literal expansion of the acronym, but is too "jargony." Perhaps, "Comparison of medical doctors and osteopathic physicians" would work, but the DOs would probably not favor this phrasing of the distinction. Finally, "Comparison of allopathic and osteopathic physicians" is an inaccurate characterization of the scope of MDs' practice, and is considered a pejorative term by the few MDs in the US who have even heard the term. This article could use a clean up, especially by someone who is not involved as a DO (Bryan Hopping) or MD (myself). Antelan 15:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Antelan as above, with one correction. In the United States in 2009, "DO" (D.O.) currently signifies the degree "Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine." There is currently some debate about changing the post-nominal letters to make the acronym proper. See http://www.do-online.org/pdf/pub_do0208dodegree.pdf Outside the US, "D.O." (DO) is an acronym for "Doctor of Osteopathy." Bryan Hopping ^T 03:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep, this topic is well-debated among med-school applicants, and has sourcing. Also, it gets viewed 3000 to 6000 times a month. Abductive (reasoning) 01:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. There may be all sorts of problems with this article, including its precise title. But the topic is still notable: "Like a well-worn comic book plot, the practice of medicine most Americans are familiar with has an alternate universe—a parallel world with its own history and philosophy. It is a world where physicians train in alternate institutions, belong to alternate professional organizations and sport an alternate degree: D.O. (doctor of osteopathy) rather than M.D." Thus starts one of our sources, a scholarly article entitled "Inside osteopathic medicine’s parallel world". This may not be our most necessary article, it doesn't have global scope (and cannot, since DOs are a phenomenon restricted to the US, osteopathy elsewhere being something much more "alternative"), and it may (or may not) be biased or focused on the wrong things. But given a considerable number of reliable sources focusing on osteopathic medicine / regular medicine comparisons, I believe the topic is notable.

This doesn't mean that we can't adjust the focus of this article, or that we must preserve it as a separate article. Since osteopathic medicine is a minority thing, it's natural for the osteopathic medicine articles to cover the differences to regular medicine. Whether they can do so exhaustively, or whether there should be an exhaustive article on the differences which those articles can then summarise, is a matter for a pragmatic decision rather than an AfD. Hans Adler 12:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Best regarded as a summary article. We may need a specific statement somewhere to clarify that these sort of articles are acceptable--sincethey are frequently cha;lenged, but usually sustained. DGG ( talk ) 01:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• I don't know if that is needed. All it takes is a few sources saying, "...unlike an MD, DOs are..." to justify this sort of article. But an article on Comparison of Oak trees and Avalanches should not be allowed. Where the line show be drawn can be determined by sources. Abductive (reasoning) 01:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• This AfD is frivolous. The number of reliable sources explicitly justifying the article AND its title is large.

• Rothman, M. D.; Gugliucci, M. R. (2008). "End-of-Life Care Curricula in Undergraduate Medical Education: A Comparison of Allopathic and Osteopathic Medical Schools". American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. 25 (5): 354–360. doi:10.1177/1049909108319263. PMID 18812619. S2CID 38408427.
• Stockard; Allen, T. (2006). "Competence levels in musculoskeletal medicine: comparison of osteopathic and allopathic medical graduates". The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association. 106 (6): 350–355. PMID 16790542.
• Sinay, T. (2005). "Cost structure of osteopathic hospitals and their local counterparts in the USA: Are they any different?". Social Science & Medicine. 60 (8): 1805–1814. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.08.042. PMID 15686811.
• Still (2000). "Comparison of osteopathic and allopathic results in dementia praecox. 1933". The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association. 100 (8): 501–2. PMID 10979258.
• Hooper; Cox, C. C.; Cambre, K.; Wilburn, D.; Webster, M.; Wolf, T. (1999). "Comparison of the scope of allopathic and osteopathic medical school health promotion programs for students". American Journal of Health Promotion : AJHP. 13 (3): 171–179. doi:10.4278/0890-1171-13.3.171. PMID 10351544. S2CID 3278114.
• Stachnik; Simons, R. (1977). "A comparison of D.O. And M.D. Student performance". Journal of Medical Education. 52 (11): 920–925. doi:10.1097/00001888-197711000-00008. PMID 578816.

No one is challenging WP:N. This is mostly about WP:NOT. SDY (talk) 08:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The topic of the article is "Comparison of MD&DO in US." That exact topic has many reliable sources. You are saying the topic is notable. We have a notable topic with reliable sources. What then is the problem? Bryan Hopping ^T 09:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Are we to delete all the articles in Category:Comparisons? Bryan Hopping ^T 09:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

When one of the first things I see when I look at that category is Comparison of Star Trek and Star Wars, I'm starting to think that's not such a bad idea. SDY (talk) 09:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

That's too bad, cause that article has great sources and is a VERY notable topic. Possibly the most discussed topic in modern film science fiction.Bryan Hopping ^T 09:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Look's someone already tried. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Comparison_of_Star_Trek_and_Star_Wars Bryan Hopping ^T 09:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but notability and sourcing is not the concern for comparison articles, original research is, especially cherry picking from primary sources. WP:V is not the only criterion for articles. (as a side point, I've never seen a comparison of ST and SW outside of purely, umm... technical experts, so VERY notable is a bit of a stretch). Frankly, I think this particular AfD should be closed as keep at this point, since it doesn't have much in the way of original research issues. SDY (talk) 09:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

To address concern of "Cherry picking": If there's ANY reliable, published source that anyone feels needs to be added to this article, please do so! The more reliable sources the better IMO. Bryan Hopping ^T 10:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep per near-unanimity of respondents.  Skomorokh, barbarian  00:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Comparison of birth control methods

Comparison of birth control methods (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 how to page on how not to get knocked up, any strengths and weaknesses of a particular method belongs on the page of the method itself. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: It does read very much like a medical instruction manual / advice column. Cheers, Ut Libet ヽ(;・_・)/ (talk) 23:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: I disagree that this is in a how-to style. There's no list of instructions, no use of the second-person, and the statements aren't worded as advice. Instead there's a discussion of the various criteria commonly used to evaluate birth control methods; that's an encyclopedic topic. Moreover, whatever stylistic changes need to be made to the criteria sections, the list itself contains all the information I'd expect in a list of birth-control methods. With some work, I could easily see this becoming a featured list. --Chris Johnson (talk) 00:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Strong keep nothing instructing anyone. The whole point about contraception methods (well nearly so, except for a few medical indications) is that it is about choice for the woman (occasionally the man too), and whilst info on any one method is in the relevant articles, a comparison of effectiveness (perfect-use and typical-use) with consideration of other pros & cons factors is the very essence of an encyclopaedia distilling down information. Summary-articles is done all the time (take Diabetes as a top level article for type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, diabetes management etc), but equally this comparative data is far too long for inclusion in contraception and so is valid as a sub-topic article. Finally from the practical editorial management: the topics of contraception are heavily edited with tendency for editors to disagree over effectiveness rates, perfect vs. typical rates, and the acceptable sources to use. This article, with its past discussions/edits over these issues, is now relatively stable and so is the de facto consensus amongst editors. As such it both gives a localised focus for any disagreements over such matters, and may also help direct a new editor unwittingly refighting old ground in any single contraceptive article. David Ruben ^Talk 03:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Its a good comparison list, in a properly referenced article. Dream Focus 11:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Contraception is an encyclopedic topic, and, oddly enough, scientific studies have been made on what the nominator describes as "how not to get knocked up". This is rather well-sourced. Perhaps the most effective method of birth control is "Not right now, I'm on working on Wikipedia!" Mandsford (talk) 13:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I'm not keen on "comparison of" articles, but in this case as an adjunct to the main articles, this one is almost necessary. Mangoe (talk) 14:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Strong keep Since there are many methods of contraception/birth control, with a common goal but different characteristics, it is important to have an overview that compares the methods. The comparison is too large to include in Birth control. To include this information in the articles on specific methods (to show how method x compares to others) would mean a lot of duplication (reader looking at several articles would have the same material to skim multiple times, harder to maintain, etc.). Factoring the comparison information into one article makes sense.

I don't see much of anything that is how to in the article either in terms of content (e.g. it does not cover how to select a method), or style. Perhaps you could raise specific concerns in the articles talk page? Zodon (talk) 05:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep a good summary article. This is the appropriate way to present the material--the individual articles will expand on the details. DGG ( talk ) 01:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Rhode Island Routes/Comparison of sources for numbered routes in Rhode Island, a subpage of the related WikiProject. I left the title in its original state, although I assume others may move it to a shorter title if needed. JamieS93 00:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Comparison of sources for numbered routes in Rhode Island

Comparison of sources for numbered routes in Rhode Island (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 analyses the differences between sources. While possibly helpful for a Wikipedia namespace page, aren't we meant to be acting as a source here, not telling everyone the differences between others? \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Move to Wikipedia namespace. This information should be preserved as part of WikiProject Rhode Island Routes. --Polaron | Talk 21:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Merge into Numbered routes in Rhode Island. This information belongs in the State Highways page. --Triadian (talk) 21:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Triadian (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: Just so everyone knows, User:SPUI hasn't edited in a long time. --Triadian (talk) 00:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Move to Wikipedia namespace. While some of the information contained may be appropriate for various articles including Numbered routes in Rhode Island and articles about the individual roads, organisations and places named/discussed, the page is not an article. An encyclopaedic article might be able to be written about these discrepancies, and the information here might be useful for such an article or section, but it would need a fundamental rewrite to become encyclopaedic. Additionally, turning this into an article would stop it being a useful project page. I'll leave a note about this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads. Thryduulf (talk) 08:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Wikipediafy. --Rschen7754 (T C) 09:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. This is not encyclopedic. If absolutely necessary, this content could be moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Rhode Island Routes or a subpage thereof. However, I am of the opinion that the cases where sources differ are better left to be sorted out by the editor and mentioned appropriately in the article pertaining to the route in question. --LJ (talk) 09:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Move to Wikipedia namespace. I agree with Thryduulf. --Fredddie™ 12:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as unmitigated roadnerdery. I can see no way to take this beyond fancrufty speculation. Mangoe (talk) 14:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete this reads like someone's notes or defense of using a given source in an FAC or similar review. I have no clue why someone would put this in an encyclopedia article. Dave (talk) 14:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Move to Wikipedia space as a subpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject Rhode Island Routes. Looking at the history, the creator suggested this. --NE2 15:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Move to Wikipedia space (subpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject Rhode Island Routes) as a resource for editors. It should be noted that it's a fairly unusual situation for a state DOT (the key source defining what is and isn't a state route) to conflict with itself with regard to route designations. Include any specific examples of conflict in the articles on the pertinent routes. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
• Move to Wikipedia space within Wikipedia:WikiProject Rhode Island Routes. This information is not appropriate for an article, but is appropriate as a resource for the WikiProject. Dough4872 (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
• Merge -- If there is genuine confusion over the correct numbering of roads, it should appear in the article. However, I presume that the official numbering is the responsibility of State department, whose records will provide the definitive answer. Other sources will not be derivative, and quite possibly inaccurate, and I presume that the source of the confusion comes at that level; if so, a brief statement in the article would be appropriate and the rest (or rather the whole) converted to a project sub-page. No personal knowledge - I am in England. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
• merge into the article on the routes, or into Wikipedia space DGG ( talk ) 01:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Skomorokh, barbarian  00:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Comparison of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Comparison of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unnecessary list, another example of US-centricism by focusing on what is a dominantly American church, bad precedent etc. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep The content cannot really be merged anywhere, so I would like to see an argument that would satisfy deletion of the page if it existed in isolation. We cannot delete a page for being Americentric, and "unnecessary" seems highly subjective to me. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 22:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep It doesn't matter what country it is in. You can have a list of all the churches of any religion in any nation. Dream Focus 11:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm not aware of any policy that says we have to delete articles in order to maintain balance between U.S. topics and those of other countries. – jaksmata 13:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I'd add that there are less than 150 such temples in the world. So what if it's a "dominantly American church"? We have an entire Category:Lists of religious buildings and structures out there. If one of them takes the form of a table, more power to it. Mandsford (talk) 13:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints These are differently formatted versions of data which all belongs together. I would add that the UScentric assertion is deeply ignorant, as simply looking at the list would show. Mangoe (talk) 14:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Clarification: By "merge" in this case I mean essentially replacing the "list" article with the "comparison" article and adding images as one of the columns. Mangoe (talk) 14:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Merge as suggested by Mangoe. SDY (talk) 15:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep and Oppose Merge - The information in this article is sortable, unlike the other list. It serves a different purpose in that it allows the information to be grouped and compared. I don't know what to say about the nominators reasons. Although started in the United States, the Church is very international with deep history in England, Denmark, Latin America, South America...and the list itself has many temples listed that are located in various parts of the world. I really don't see how it is an example of US-centricism. --Trödel 22:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

In general it seems to me that the "list" article is inferior to the "comparison" article. There's no reason that the sorting tabular features of the latter cannot be applied to the former. Mangoe (talk) 23:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I can see how the information on the two pages seems to overlap, but I agree with Trödel that a merge would be inappropriate. The two pages have distinct purposes: The "list" article has less info, and it's purpose isn't to give a large amount of info on each temple, but to list articles on each individual temple. The "comparison" article would be unwieldy in that sense, but its many sortable columns are ideal for comparing different aspects of temples. You could use it to determine how many temples were dedicated by a particular individual, for example. – jaksmata 13:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the need to keep the list article in some state of purity by keeping this other data away from it. Also, the list article is actually the larger of the two (22,737 at present vs. 16,308 for the "comparison" article) and it is also much longer on the screen, due to the images and the non-tabular format. Depending on how you balance room counts against photographs, it doesn't really give significantly less information either. Mangoe (talk) 14:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The list article got its current format as a result of recommendations during the featured list nomination, and I'm not inclined to make any changes that would put its featured status at risk. --Trödel 11:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep I dont see it as us centric, any more than required by the fact that the religion is US in origin. a good summary article. This is the appropriate way to present the material--the individual articles will expand on the details. Essentially, it's a list, and a very good one at that. How the articles should be edited is not a question to be dealt with at AfD. DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC) .

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Rick Boland

Rick Boland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Searches for this actor's name only find passing mentions in the local press. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Not every person who's name has appeared in the credits is entitled to an article. Wikipedia is not the imdb. Mandsford (talk) 14:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, he seems to just barely fail WP:ENTERTAINER, since I wouldn't call his roles necessarily "significant" nor the films/series themselves as notable enough to qualify him. Points 2 and 3 of WP:ENT are definitely not met. It's quite possible that in the future he would meet notability, but as per WP:CRYSTAL I think, at the moment, it should be deleted. It would be nice if someone (perhaps the author) could hold onto the information here for a possible recreate in the future, in the event he passes the WP:ENTERTAINER threshold. Cocytus [»talk«] 21:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 History of wikis. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Information annealing

Information annealing (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 topic appears to be a neologism, and the article should be deleted per WP:NEO. The term doesn't appear in Websters, Oxford, or American Heritage, or even in the Dictionary for Library and Information Science. Neither LISA: Library and Information Science Abstracts, nor WorldCat turned up anything on the term. The Transhumanist 21:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• probably Delete It seems to be a proprietary term connected to the MaxThink software package. Mangoe (talk) 14:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Merge or redirect to History of wikis. As a phrase, it never caught on. Mandsford (talk) 14:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect, agree with Mandsford. It is a phrase with a non-obvious meaning, that if encountered might give rise to a search. But it apparently is not often encountered. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Quite a few of the usual "it's notable" non-votes which are ignored as usual, and the nominator has a fair point, but no consensus to delete. A merge might be useful to create one slightly useful article rather than three pointless ones. Black Kite 13:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Comparison between U.S. states and countries nominal GDP

Comparison between U.S. states and countries nominal GDP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Comparison between U.S. states and countries by per capita GDP (nominal) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Comparison between U.S. states and countries by GDP (PPP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unnecessary list which furthers our US-centricism and would set a precedent for other countries. The United States is not a special case. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Once again, Wikipedia has no precedent. Just because something else exist, is not a reason for other things to exist. The United States has all 50 of its states on its own, producing more output than many other nations. The US is the wealthiest nation on the planet, and has been for quite some time. Sure, the European Union is listed up top, but that's only because a lot of nations poor than the US decided to stick together, and since they are still independent nations, I'm not sure why that counts at all. Dream Focus 10:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Weak keep Nominator is correct that these are US-centric. I think it would be ideal to add other economically powerful regions, like North Rhine-Westphalia, to a list of this nature (it would rank at #19 on this list). These are supposedly the figures for the last available year (2008), although the sources are all for 2006. Mandsford (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I'm a little tired of the assertion in these AFDs that because something might be primarily of interest to American readers, it should be excluded. On the other hand I'm not convinced of the notability of the comparison; it smacks of trivia. Mangoe (talk) 14:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. There may well be a justification for an article the compares the GDPs of sovereign countries with those of sub-national units, but I don't see any justification for restricting the sub-national units to US states. I'm sure that there are Indian states, Chinese provinces, Russian federal subjects and German länder whose GDPs stand comparison with many independent countries and US states, so it would be better to have a list that incorporates all of these. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Comparisons of this sort are quite common,, for example, If California were a country... and so the matter is notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - where someone has had something relevant to say about such a comparison, let it be said in the appropriate venue. For instance, the point about California is already beaten to death here. Otherwise, this is just a game played by a bored Wikipedian, not to mention unmaintainable. No one has compared the GDP of, say, Kentucky to that of sovereign nations, and neither should we. Oh, and it's a slippery slope: see Comparison between Argentine provinces and countries by GDP (PPP) per capita for what I mean. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Insightful and interesting article. List contains valuable information that is difficult to find in a condensed form elsewhere. bosoxrock88 (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep but possibly combine in some manner. Other regions can be added also, as suggested above. . DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn with no "delete" opinions (non-admin closure). Phil Bridger (talk) 19:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Bodil Mårtensson

Bodil Mårtensson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

There are a few Google news hits for this author, but I'm not convinced (with my admittedly minimal knowledge of Swedish) that they amount to significant coverage in reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. GameOn (talk) 05:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Keep It is not easy to find an information in English language. I've found a review at the website of the Pontas Agency, an interesting article about stolen manuscript, Swedish review, and German profile at the Verlagsgruppe Random House website. Swedish editors could find out more about her. --Vejvančický (talk) 21:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Per Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals, she has released several books. GameOn (talk) 05:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep She has an entry in Nationalencyklopedin, the swedish equivalent of Britannica. That should prove NOTABILITY and be a god enough source. Translation: Mårtensson, Bodil, born 1952, author. Mårtensson have written a suit of detective stories about officer Joakim Hill from Helsingborgs police force: En chans för mycket (1999), Torpeden (2001), Rebeccas blod (2008) etc. She have also published youth books and easy to read detective stories. – Married 1971–2005 to Bertil Mårtensson. Will add the reference later, if no one else beats me to it. --Stefan ^talk 07:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Nomination withdrawn. An entry in Nationalencyklopedin is enough for me. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

1st Street (Tampa, Florida)

1st Street (Tampa, Florida) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Short, non-notable side street [9]. Dough4872 (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (highways).  Btilm  21:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. Notwithstanding the nauseating prospect of having little stub articles about every street in the world, this one runs for five blocks [10]. Click on street view and tell me what's notable about this residential neighborhood. I'll admit that 304 First Street has a nice carport. Mandsford (talk) 14:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable residential street, and only five blocks long at that. I couldn't even find the carport. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 05:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete yawn. Miami33139 (talk) 18:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Michael shortino

Michael shortino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Despite the claim of "east coast fame" I can't find anything about this Michael Shortino via any of the Google resources. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete No substantial coverage in reliable sources. Subject fails WP:CREATIVE. --Vejvančický (talk) 21:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - cannot find any sources about this artist. -- Whpq (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - non-notable BLP. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 08:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stylistic issues such as excessive linking can be addressed through editing, and don't usually merit deletion. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

List of radio stations in Venezuela

List of radio stations in Venezuela (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Linkfarm. Damiens.rf 20:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. -- Eastmain (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Eastmain (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a perfectly encyclopedia topic. Nobody would suggest deleting List of radio stations in New Jersey. -- Eastmain (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep but remove external links. Appropriate topic. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: Appropiate list. Joe Chill (talk) 01:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep but clean up the excessive external links. (Why was this never tagged for cleanup or simply cleaned up before dragging it to AfD?) - Dravecky (talk) 06:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I agree it would look nicer if the entries with no article of their own were black instead of red, but the links serve a purpose in the meantime. If you're ever in Charallave, tune in to Sigma 105.1 Mandsford (talk) 14:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep encyclopedic topic, article needs a bit of work, namely the external links, RadioFan (talk) 01:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Valid list topic that just needs more attention and better conformity with WP:EL. --RL0919 (talk) 18:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no credible assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Gabriel Liotta

Gabriel Liotta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Performed a google check on Gabriel Liotta and came up with very little. Person is either fake or lacks notability. Calling for deletion in compliance with wiki standards IndulgentReader (talk) 19:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete Absolutely not notable, cited sources are either trivial or don't mention him. --Vejvančický (talk) 21:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Roderick Miranda

Roderick Miranda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Hasn't made a professional appearance and fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG Spiderone 19:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 19:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 20:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. The club's website confirms he has yet to play a competitive match for them. This page can be easily recreated if and when he makes his competitive first team debut. Bettia (talk) 11:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 06:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - fails both WP:ATH and WP:GNG, Recreate if plays first team game Steve-Ho (talk) 12:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. There is consensus here that this topic merits an article, and that end is not served by deleting the existing content.  Skomorokh, barbarian  00:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Sungdong Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering

Sungdong Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unenyclopedic lists of 'history'; there is absolutely no information to be found about the companies themselves. Would need a fundamental rewrite to be encyclopedic. Additionally, the only reference is a primary one, and that is definitely not sufficient when the article boasts claims of "ranked x in the world". GraYoshi2x►^talk 19:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep needs a ton of work, but can be done. 1 NY Times article maritime news and results from all kinds of languages speak of the notability of that company. --President of Internets (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Would need a fundamental rewrite to be encyclopedic - nothing is salvageable in the current article and it would arguably even fail CSD criteria; Additionally, I'm finding it a bit suspicious that some of your first contribs were to AfD discussions. GraYoshi2x►^talk 19:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• delete. An encyclopaedic article about this company would summarise the history of these (component? predecessor?) organisations in two-three sentences at most and use nothing from this article. The content here belongs on the company website, not Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 21:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep but start from scratch. This article needs a full rewrite, but there exists enough info MAYBE to make an article. Anyone want to embark on this task? --Triadian (talk) 22:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Starting from scratch would better be done as a delete-then-recreate situation, to make sure none of the rewritten info is influenced by the prior biased "history" content. You've got my point spot-on; just not the keep part. GraYoshi2x►^talk 02:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. I added the New York Times reference mentioned by another editor to the page. -- Eastmain (talk) 01:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It's obvious enough that the shipbuilding company exists and is notable, but I don't see how adding a single reference is going to fix everything. It's just covering up (not patching) one of the many, many holes in the wall; doesn't really do much else. I'm more for the "tear down the poorly-made wall and build a better one" type of thing. GraYoshi2x►^talk 02:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Deletion policy does not support the "tear down the poorly-made wall and build a better one" option ("if the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion"). This can be fixed without having to trouble an administrator with pushing the "delete" button, so that is what anyone concerned with the current state of this article should do. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't specifically say that. It's actually part of the process of speedy deletion. GraYoshi2x►^talk 01:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I've added a source that shows that this company operates one of the world's top twenty shipyards (as of 2007), and I note that the subject has received coverage in a source that stakes a 275-year reputation on its reliability.[11][12][13] Phil Bridger (talk) 20:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

TBA (Third M.I.A album)

TBA (Third M.I.A 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)

Another for the HAMMER - no title, no track-list, no source, no release date, nothing. Fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:CRYSTAL. JohnCD (talk) 19:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. M.I.A. is a hugely popular and influential performer so it would not be inappropriate to discuss an upcoming album if it was confirmed and had good coverage in secondary sources, but I'm not finding any reportage at all. Two years ago she said she had "no idea about the third [album]. I’m not even sure if I’m making a third one at this moment." Apparently, as the "TBA" article says, M.I.A. has been working with Christina Aguilera, but according to this that's likely something for Aguilera's next album. Pretty clear WP:CRYSTAL situation here. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:HAMMER, way too soon, no sources, etc. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 21:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, concur with Bigtimepeace. talkingbirds 22:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per above: another WP:CRYSTALBALL to be smashed by the WP:CRYSTALHAMMER. Cliff smith ^talk 06:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete until such time as anything at all is actually known about the album -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete with a crystal hammer. I'm not going to even get into the fact that the article's creator got the artist's genre wrong. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 17:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - First of all, there's almost nothing on the page. Secondly, she does electronica music, not hip hop. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 19:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SNOW close as suggested--clearly madeup, clearly nonnotable. DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Stalin (Card Game)

Stalin (Card 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)

This is original research - the first version referred to "we, the creators" - and cites no sources to demonstrate notability. PROD removed by author, saying I am under the impression that wikipedia is a great way to give a message to multiple people, this card game does exist but is not mainstream, surely by putting it on wikipedia I am nulifying this"; but Wikipedia is not for games made up one day. JohnCD (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Delete I thought you could call for G3, but this is still WP:MADEUP violation. --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 19:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete not a G3, but definitely falls afoul of WP:MADEUP. No objection to a SNOW close, as this is a pretty obvious outcome. GlassCobra 19:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete He he. What is this? at least I got a laugh. At least the agenda is admitted... Wait let me think up some card game and make it famos by sticking it here.. Delete per WP:MADEUP. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 23:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Apparently someone's variant of Mao (card game), which I've never heard of either, but that article is well-sourced. I'm waiting for a Karl Marx card game, where one person is the dealer and makes a collective of all the money. Mandsford (talk) 14:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Do people really play this? If not, then WP:MADEUP applies. Warrah (talk) 19:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. There is rough consensus here that the coverage of this topic does not meet the threshold for notability.  Skomorokh, barbarian  00:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

LinkedNow.com

LinkedNow.com (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. Insufficient evidence of notability given -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 17:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 17:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Depending on the definition of "multiple", the website may meet Wikipedia:Notability (web) as it has been "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". If 2 sources (the multiple reprints of the NBC article notwithstanding) meets the definition of "multiple", then weak keep per WP:WEB –xeno^talk 18:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - got brief shallow attention at the time it came out of beta (no, the few items is not substantial coverage of the sort needed to meet WP:WEB, IMHO); nothing much since. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

*Keep: I agree with Xeno. The press meets the criteria of "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself."

I'm affiliated with NBC, and I looked at LinkedNow's NBC coverage and I can assure you, it is not trivial. We have many companies competing for news spread. Further, the TechNow award is a big deal. The show has significant coverage and has a large following in the bay area as well as throughout California. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlaswire (talk • contribs) 19:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC) — Atlaswire (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete Fails WP:WEB - 2 references does not equal multiple as far as I am concerned. Sometimes an article creator just has to accept that the subject of their article does not meet our notability requirements. ukexpat (talk) 21:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• I'm the author of this article. Once again, Ukexpat, is incorrect. Per wikipedia, multiple "Having more than one element, part". Ukexpat pls familiarize ur self with the definitions. The sources are multiple. --Suzan.nguyen (talk) 22:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Suzan.nguyen (talk • contribs) 21:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Being selected by another website as "Website of the Week" does not get past the "trivial" hurdle in my opinion. Not enough to save what's essentially a press release from a website operated as a commercial enterprise. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Xeno and Phantomsteve, did you read the last response? This is why non-US residents can't fully understand the importance of TechNow show. TechNow show is not another website, [Smerdis of Tlön, "another website as "Website of the Week"] For those who are from UK, if I wrote that say...http://www.bbc.co.uk/dragonsden/ selected LinkedNow as the website of the week would you still consider this as a vanity advertising? TechNow show is very very reputable and discuses the newest developments in technology such as bing.com, Wii, and other... Many, even very mature businesses of the Silicon Valley would have given anything even for a small air slot, not to mention 2 minute coverage.--Suzan.nguyen (talk) 01:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I am a U.S. resident. I see that whatever TechNow is, it doesn't even have an article in Wikipedia. If it is so important, why haven't you created an article about it? What is your connection with LinkedNow, Susan? Do you have an undisclosed conflict of interest? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 11:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

SmarteScript

SmarteScript (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. Fails WP:N and no WP:RS are given. Basket of Puppies 17:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 21:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 21:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. This is a GUI-driven software test automation tool for automating the testing of software applications; a tool for computer programmers, apparently, and as such falling within the skewed-towards side of Wikipedia's inherent bias. Mentioning the Gartner "magic quadrants" in the article's text and making a plea for its importance ("a recognition given only to those with significant market presence") suggests clutching at straws on the notability front. Note also that this is yet another article that sprung full blown, complete with infobox, at its creation. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 00:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. This software is one of the viable candidates for test automation. The Test Automation list contains entries of equal or less importance. For consistency, one either ought to remove all vendors or keep them as long as the article does not smell of advertisment. I added the entry and I do NOT work for SmarteSoft, but was missing the tool from the list of candidates... Petter Graff —Preceding undated comment added 00:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC).
  • Comment presenting an argument of all or nothing does not make for a compelling case to keep the article. What is needed is coverage in reliable sources.
• Weak Keep - The software has been covered here, and more importantly in Dr. Dobb's which is a well recognized magazine for software development. Also [14], and [15] which are somewhat press releasish so I'd tend to not put a lot of weight to them for notability but in support of the Dr. Dobb's review, I'd put this over the notability bar. -- Whpq (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Looking at sources above by whpq, the ITJunge is a press release reprint. Dr. Dobbs is a two paragraph review. Neither of these are significant. Miami33139 (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep The sources provided by Whpq establish notability. The Dr. Dobbs source provides a lengthy two paragraph discussion that is solely about SmartScript; then, it compares SmartScript with another software. The depth of coverage in this article qualifies as "significant" coverage. Furthermore, this article from SV Times provides some basic information about SmartScript. This article does not read like a press release (it does not contain promotional language) and is published by SD Times, a reliable source. Cunard (talk) 08:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 single keep argument has been effectively refuted Kevin (talk) 21:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

MaryAnn Johanson

MaryAnn Johanson (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 blogger who self-published a book through the LULU vanity press. All but one of the references are links to her work. The one real reference, to Time Magazine, consists of two sentences inside of a two page article, and it doesn't even mention Johanson by name. Warrah (talk) 16:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete As per the nom --President of Internets (talk) 17:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Who again? --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. Likely a vanity page. Bourne (talk) 08:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, or possibly Rename to FlickFilosopher.com: Hear me out here. I'd never heard of her; I thought from the article she didn't sound notable; and I was all set to vote "Delete"... but decided to do a little searching first. Turns out her site, flickfilosopher.com, was listed as a reference or external link in a lot of Wikipedia articles. Well, OK, I thought, that doesn't mean anything; those references were probably added by the same person who wrote the article. But they weren't—those I checked out were all done by different users and IPs. Well, okay, so a number of different Wikipedians have used her site as a reference in articles; that in and of itself isn't enough to establish notability. But I figured it was enough to make it worth looking into... and after some Googling, I now think her site seems to be notable after all. I may not have heard of it before myself, but it's mentioned and linked all over the place. Now, granted, most online links aren't reliable sources, but the Time magazine mention listed in the article definitely qualifies (it doesn't mention her by name, granted, but it does mention her website by name), and she's also had significant mention in the Los Angeles Times, Newsday, USA Today, and several other respected newspapers... unfortunately, those last few links apparently require payment to see the full article, but just put "flickfilosopher" into a Google News Archive search and you'll see the references.

All that being said, she seems to be notable really only for her website—the fact that she self-published a book through Lulu is completely non-notable. So I could see the article being renamed to flickfilosopher.com (with "MaryAnn Johanson" as a redirect) instead of kept at her name. (After all, for instance, it is her website that Time mentions, not her directly.) Also, if the article is kept, it definitely needs a rewrite—the bit about her self-published book doesn't belong (unless someone can turn up some independent reliable sources referring specifically to the book), and that last paragraph about how she's "not afraid to pan popular and critically acclaimed movies" has got to go (or at least be reworded to not sound so fannish). Still, her website seems to be well known enough and to have garnered enough attention in reliable sources to merit a Wikipedia article. —Smeazel (talk) 23:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment It also appears that Johanson also self-publishes her web site and is the sole contributor to its contents. The press citations mentioned by Smeazel are all in passing. Johanson and her site have never been the sole subject of important media coverage. Warrah (talk) 13:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

W Ketchup

W Ketchup (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. The jokes over, and this fails the notability test. Sorry. JBsupreme (talk) 16:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. What joke? It's a real brand, it's still being made, and it gained plenty of notability when it was launched. Does a brand have to keep making a quota of press appearances every year in order to remain notable? -- Zsero (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep BBC articles mean you are being important. --President of Internets (talk) 17:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Received only incidental coverage after its introduction, never received any other coverage. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete No. This was a one off product from a one off election. Not notable --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 19:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

  That is simply false. It was not a one-off product; it's still in production five years later. -- Zsero (talk) 20:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per WngLdr34. Not notable meaning it received spartan coverage when it was first introduced and then never again. It was not really notable in the beginning and it doesn't appear to be notable now, either. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. wow, i missed this product entirely. aside from problems with the article (mentioning the W is also bushes middle initial without reference would have to be removed, no matter how obvious it is, and reiterating the companies press material without also quoting the heinz press release directly is unbalanced), the references dont support notability. yes, it did get media coverage upon its release, and inspired a press release from heinz. and if its initial notability had any impact, it would deserve an article, as notability, once its established as more than News, doesnt fade with time, only public awareness fades with time. but i really dont see this product having left a mark of historic notability. the election didnt turn on it, it didnt enter the public lexicon, the product doesnt stand out in the market significantly, it didnt change corporate policy towards manufacturing in the US. A lot of news stories tied to elections get more coverage than they deserve, often for the fun of it or to fill news cycles. and press releases are easy enough to create. I would be swayed if someone could find sources showing their lasting legacy as a UNIQUE product, not just another ketchup.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete WP:Recentism article that slipped through the cracks. Theserialcomma (talk) 04:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete May have been notable at one time, but as time passes there is no coverage or other commentray. Thus it fails WP:N Transmissionelement (talk) 14:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Apparently a real product for people who want to order a minimum of four bottles of ketchup online for $17.95 plus shipping and handling, and a portion of the profits go to charity. Or, you could donate twenty dollars to the charity. About as trendy as spinning hubcaps, and this one's 15 minutes of fame ended five years ago. Mandsford (talk) 15:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, unambiguous advertising and linkfarming. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Optimax

Optimax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Appears to be an advert (started by Optimaxlev who only edited this acticle). Badly written. Two not very important companies plus a trivia section. Tresiden (talk) 16:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Away with it. Clearly Spam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by President of Internets (talk • contribs) 17:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete: Spam. Joe Chill (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as the tagged G1 nonsense, but also a bit of G3 Hoax (Religion followed worldwide?). UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Tinny for the road

Tinny for the road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:MADEUP. nuff said. [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 16:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• delete madeup variation of one for the road. Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete -Drdisque (talk) 16:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per nom. -  Dspradau → talk  16:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JamieS93 00:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Analog and Power for C6455

Analog and Power for C6455 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Appears to be a mere list of "Complimentary Analog and Power Devices that can be paired with the C6455 devices". Fails WP:NOTLINK. Unencyclopedic and is a copy of this which is licensed under CCA-SA 3.0 (as per MuffledThud - thank you)[Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 16:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - actually it's a copy of http://wiki.davincidsp.com/index.php/Analog_and_Power_for_AM35x which, although licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 license and therefore not a copyvio, seems not to be suitable material for a general encyclopedia. The article's creator may be planning to use it as a template for something better, but in its present state I'd have to say delete. MuffledThud (talk) 16:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Right now I am the creator of the page and am only using the current page as a template. I am will be adjusting the information throughout the next two days so it will not be a copy of the Analog and Power for AM35x page (which I also was a primary creator). Thanks for the concern though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stacy.Cavanagh (talk • contribs) 18:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - wikiipedia is not a directory or parts catalogue. -- Whpq (talk) 16:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - A first draft of an article should at least look something like a first draft of an encyclopedia article (this isn't Wikpedia ₂₀₀₄ where any random scribble was soon transformed into brilliant prose). This is a laundry-list of components whose coherence is not significant to an encyclopedia user. Promotes the TI web site, with many "See TI" links, forsooth! And posted by what appears to be a TI IP address. I know a little about semiconductors and I'm baffled as to what any general-encyclopedia user would do with this. The title doesn't even make sense -"analog and power" WHAT? What's a C6455? At first I thought this was someone's course lecture notes. Then I thought it was some kind of Japanese transistor. Take it out. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Snowball keep Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

ACDSee

ACDSee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Deprodded with explanation: "seems like a case of WP:IDONTKNOWIT". Well, I actually used it in the past, but cannot find enough coverage by reliable sources. M4gnum0n (talk) 15:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —M4gnum0n (talk) 15:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Must Keep: This is a historically very popular program. Google news searches tosses out lots of pay and non-pay cite possibilities.pcworld, PC world review in Washington Post, mobile version review for zdnet, 1998 review in st. pete times, etc, etc. --Milowent (talk) 15:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - A well known and widely used program... the article could use some work (expansion, refimprove, cleanup the slightly more spammy bits), but should not be deleted... Milowent has also shown reliable verifiability... - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per Milowent, there are ample sources available in the non-trivial/reliable category. JBsupreme (talk) 16:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy keep As above. GameOn (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Fairly popular piece of software -Drdisque (talk) 16:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Milowent. --  Dspradau → talk  16:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep! as per Milowent; it's well-known software which has likely gained considerable competition over it's years but it's still around as far as I know, and like Milowent said, it's covered in many verifiable sources! [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 17:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. This sort of software has a fairly wide user base, and the references uncovered above show that it meets current notability guidelines. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JamieS93 00:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Simon City Royals

Simon City Royals (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 as a non-notable criminal organization. Google News archives returns 0 matches and I suspect for good reason. JBsupreme (talk) 15:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Google News Archive finds 135results. Seems notable enough.--President of Internets (talk) 17:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. The article needs tons of work but plenty of GNews and GBooks hits. Location (talk) 19:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep The Newsweek article convinces me.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Lianne Farbes

Lianne Farbes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Self-promoting autobiography of non-notable person. Trivial coverage in secondary sources: fails WP:GNG --Rrburke^(talk) 15:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment I declined the speedy deletion for the technical reason that several editors are looking carefully at the article, and I want to encourage rather than discourage discussion, but speedy deletion wouldn't bother me if that's the consensus at this AfD. - Dank (push to talk) 15:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I tagged it for speedy, but you're right, AFD is probably a better idea. MuffledThud (talk) 15:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, self promotion. JBsupreme (talk) 15:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there any way to stop deletion? User:jeromeparsons

• Yes—otherwise it would just have been deleted instead of being listed here. It's listed on AfD to give people a chance to discuss its possible deletion. If you want to stop the article from being deleted, explain why it shouldn't be. What makes this person notable? What reliable sources back this up? If you (or other editors) can make a convincing case for this person really being verifiably notable enough to merit an article, the article will stay. Otherwise, it's probably going to go. —Smeazel (talk) 23:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete No significant independent sources ("Industry PROFiles", "About.com", etc are not independent sources). Her main claim to fame appears to be that she writes a blog. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus in this discussion is to delete, as there are insufficient sources to show notability. As this is a decision of the lowest level court of record, only in the rarest of instances would I expect its decision to be notable. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Wilkes v Jessop

Wilkes v Jessop (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 WP:GNG. While it was reported in a law report, this does not make notability: firstly, law reports regularly report unimportant cases and miss important ones, secondly it's a primary source rather than a secondary one, and thirdly it's a single source, which isn't the standard set by WP:GNG.

I have looked at multiple contract textbooks, all published after the case:

• Elliott, Catherine; Frances Quinn (2007). Contract Law (6th ed.). Pearson Education. ISBN 9781405846714.
• McKendrick, Ewan (2007). Contract Law (7th ed.). Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 0230018831.
• Treitel, Guenter (2003). Law of Contract (11th ed.). Sweet & Maxwell. ISBN 042178850X.

None of them give this case as either an example nor something that set precedent. It's also worth noting that this is a County Court case.. and county courts cannot, under any circumstance, set binding precedent. Ironholds (talk) 14:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Ironholds beat me to it; I had said to the article's primary contributor when he contested the prod that I would bring it to AfD sometime this week when time permitted. It's a decision of a Deputy District Judge (the lowest level of judges in the County Courts of England and Wales), it does not change or extend the law but is merely an example of the application of the law to existing facts, it has not been mentioned or followed in any other cases that I can find, it does not bind any court hearing any similar case. And, as Ironholds said, it's drawn from a single source and has received no coverage in secondary sources. Bencherlite^Talk 15:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. The above users say three things: (1) it's not in textbooks (2) the case is not a binding precedent (3) it's only covered in no secondary sources.

People reading this may be baffled by why they want to delete a perfectly informative contract law case page. But to answer their claims (1) it's not in those books that Ironholds lists because his books precede the case (he doesn't seem to have read the page) and even if he hadn't got his dates wrong, casebooks could include it later (2) the case is a binding precedent, as Bencherlite inadvertently gave us a [the Practice Direction on Citation of Authorities link for on my userpage; that a county court judgment can be cited...

“ in order to demonstrate current authority at that level on an issue in respect of which no decision at a higher level of authority is available. ”

So Bencherlite is wrong (embarrassingly, I think). (3) Actually, there is a secondary source, which is the Current Law Yearbook (that's CLY, which you see under 'citation' - the primary source, of course, is the official report). There will probably be more, and when this important case has been around for a little longer, it may prove of some use. So, these two guys are wrong on all three counts, and I remain baffled why they care in the first place. Wikidea 15:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Embarrassingly wrong, am I? I beg to differ. It's a decision on its own facts, not a new principle of law - it follows and applies principles of law laid down by higher cases, which can and would be cited in later decision. It's exactly the type of decision that the Practice Direction is designed to prevent being tossed around in court. In any case, even if it could be cited in case, that wouldn't make it notable. Bencherlite^Talk 16:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Read 6(2)(b) once more. On the contrary, it seems to depart from what other cases suggest. You're right though, I'm wrong about you being embarrassed. Wikidea 16:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The question is binding precedent. County Court cases can be cited, yes; so can obiter. It doesn't mean it's precedent. The books were all published one or two years after the case, so the books do not precede the case. Ironholds (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It's really unfortunate that you're trying to argue that this isn't precedent. What can I say? To the other readers, please trust me. The case was in 2007. Nobody had heard of it because it was not reported. Wikidea 18:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Trust is bollocks. Here you're another anonymous editor with no authority to comment. Bring up multiple, reliable, secondary sources and we'll talk. Ironholds (talk) 18:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Keep, but rename and work some more on it. I think this is something readers want to know about. Law precedant cases explained to laymen are important. I am a layman on the topic, but I want to know that if a photo studio butchers and/or destroys my pictures there are protections and consequences. Turqoise127 (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a how to guide to explain legal rights to people. Bencherlite^Talk 16:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
    • No, it's an informative encyclopedia, which just so happens to help explain legal rights to people as a side-effect of being informative. That's not a reason to automatically keep, but your reason is no reason to automatically delete either. Elm-39 - T/C/N 16:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Articles are expected to fulfil WP:GNG - this one does not. Ironholds (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Would appear to be no WP:Reliable Sources on the topic, and as such fails WP:GNG. Not prejudiced against recreating when (if) reliable sources actually appear. Wikipedia is not a Crystal ball, however, and I don't think it should exist as an article at this moment in time. Skinny87 (talk) 16:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • How is there no 'reliable source'??? What is the Current Law Yearbook? What does this have to do with cystal balls? This case is not about predictions, it lays down a clear principle based on the concrete facts before the judge. Wikidea 16:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I apologize, I forgot to add the 'WP' before the WP:CRYSTAL shortcut, a policy which states that 'Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred.' Now, although it does state that it is okay to add articles about future events, the lack of reliable sources (the report itself, while reliable, is not a secondary source) means that we have no idea of the importance of this court case. Hence, per WP:GNG it should be deleted, though I see no harm in it being placed in your sandbox until such time as more reliable sources appear to cite the article properly. Skinny87 (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
      • But it's not a future event, this happened back in 2007. Has anyone read this article before slamming down deletes, really? Elm-39 - T/C/N 17:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
        • Skinny87, I'm afraid you might misunderstand - cases will be recorded by an official recorder, who produces an official transcript. The report - the Current Law Yearbook, is a secondary source, not related to the court, which chooses cases which it thinks are important. Ironholds seems to think that he's better at telling which reported cases are significant than the reporters, but I disagree. It's important, because it lays down a binding precedent, and an important application of law where there had been no similar case before. That's why I went to the trouble of writing up the page to begin with.
          • I realize it occurred two years ago, but CRYSTAL still applies as it is at the moment a low-level court decision, which would appear not to have made it to a higher legal level. Until it does so, it would appear to be non-notabe. But, most importantly, there are no more reliable sources on the decision, other than the Yearbook, which means it fails WP:GNG, as I have said and that's the real crux of my argument. Until they exist, it can't really be verified as notable, doesn't meet general notability guidelines, and therefore can't be included in my opinion. Skinny87 (talk) 17:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
            • • Where does it say in WP:GNG that the CLY is not enough? Again the decision has two sources: the official report and CLY. I expect you won't agree now, but it is a legal precedent in England. That is notable. It will mean that when your photos are wrecked, you cannot get damages for disappointment. Wikidea 17:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
                • "Ironholds seems to think that he's better.." - no, what I'm saying is that the yearbooks constantly give cases that are later found by academia to be unimportant, and misses ones that are vital. Since academia has, in the two years since the case, given absolutely no coverage to it, this implies that the law reporters indeed slipped up. Treitel is the contract writer, and he's said nothing. McKendrick is the contract writer for simpletons, and he's said nothing. So far nobody has been able to cite anything outside a law report - and thus, the article fails WP:GNG. Ironholds (talk) 17:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
                • Wikidea, it requires two secondary sources. A verbatim transcript is primary, not secondary. Ironholds (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
                  • Exactly my point. I apologize for not being clearer. Skinny87 (talk) 17:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
                    • Ironholds, check your dates again, as I said above. And once more there is no requirement for two secondary sources. In fact, isn't the law (in abstract) the primary source and both the official report, and the CLY a secondary source? Once again, it's a binding precedent, it's reported, and that's why this deletion page still baffles me. Wikidea 18:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
                      • Who does it bind? Nobody. No other judge is obliged to follow any principle of law created by a deputy district judge in a county court. Your insistence that this is a binding precedent baffles me. Bencherlite^Talk 18:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
                        • The citation for the case is 2007; my books are 2008-9. WP:GNG has a stated requirement for multiple secondary sources; that's, ooh.. more than one. The report is a primary source - it's a recorded, verbatim account of the obiter and ratio. It is not binding precedent - it's from the county court! It can be cited to demonstrate "current authority", but that certainly isn't the same as binding precedent. Case in the High Court "well what do the courts say about this?" "it's relatively new, but this county court decision says X" "very well, but I disagree, and think the principal should be like so" - it has been cited, can be cited, but does not bind. County Court decisions, even in new areas of law, are never binding on future decisions from higher or similar courts. Ironholds (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
                        • Edit: just noticed I've been citing the wrong copy of Treitel, sorry. The copy I've been using is the 08/09 one. Ironholds (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Please try not to portray your biased view. The central problem here is that it fails WP:GNG; you've not been able to show that it doesn't. The fact that it doesn't appear in any of the leading case books is good evidence that it is not a significant case. And County Court decisions are never binding - show me a textbook or practice manual that says that they are? The fact that they can be cited in court doesn't make them binding - obiter can be cited, after all. Ironholds (talk) 16:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh shit, I'm wrong about precedent. Please forgive my comments. Well, I still think you should keep the page. Even if my precedent argument is wrong, it was good enough for the CLY. Wikidea 16:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

...which doesn't constitute multiple sources, as per WP:GNG. Different things set different standards - the fact that the CLY chooses to include it does not oblige us to. Ironholds (talk) 17:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's an example of another case which was in the Industrial Relations Law Reports recently, and is a County Court decision, which I wouldn't be able to put up if Wilkes cannot be put up: Spackman v London Metropolitan University [2007] IRLR 741

If you wouldn't be able to put it up, you wouldn't be able to put it up. "you must include non-notable case X because otherwise non-notable case Y won't be included". Did either X or Y set anything important? By definition not, because they're county cases. When X and Y pass WP:GNG, they can be included. When the High Court makes a decision based on X, then the HC decision can be included. Ironholds (talk) 23:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Decisions of courts of first instance are rarely significant. This case might have been notable had it gone the other way, but it merely confirms existing law. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete In the US something like this would be about as trivbial as it gets, and it seems the situation is the same in the UK. DGG ( talk ) 02:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Santexq

Santexq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Advertising article for non-notable software. Going straight to AfD with this one; maintenance tags have been repeatedly removed without addressing issues. This is:

1. Unambiguous advertising: about all the article contains is a features list and general puffery about the concept of "project management" generally.
2. Non-notable software or business. The references supplied are to press releases or texts on the general concept of "project management". Google News Archive yields nothing but press releases. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Clearly Spam --President of Internets (talk) 14:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete spam -Drdisque (talk) 16:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 21:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Ilario Vannucchi

Ilario Vannucchi (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 real notability shown. no independent reliable sources. no coverage from touring, no indication of releases being on important labels. search finds no coverage in independent reliable sources (language may be an issue). Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. UltraMagnus^speak 13:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom --President of Internets (talk) 14:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -Drdisque (talk) 16:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --  Dspradau → talk  16:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. As mentioned in the discussion, please add the sources uncovered to the article. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Japan (Eiji Ōtsuka manga)

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Japan (Eiji Ōtsuka manga)
• Articles for deletion/Japan (Eiji Ōtsuka manga) (2nd nomination)

Japan (Eiji Ōtsuka manga) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Wikipedia is not a duplicate of Anime News Network. A short run series with no coverage by reliable sources outside of directories and catalog entries. Fails WP:NOTE and WP:BK. —Farix (t | c) 14:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Merge Merge into Eiji Ōtsuka and be done with this one sentence article. --President of Internets (talk) 14:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 14:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment The earlier AFD was opened on 19 October, but the article was either improperly tagged or the tag was removed. I have closed that debate. The nominator's statement is posted below, for reference. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

  Notability not established in the article, no sources, even no content.-- deerstop. 22:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)Copied from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japan (Eiji Ōtsuka manga). UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

  The other debate was still open, so I have closed it now. Hopefully I closed it correctly, as I haven't closed an AfD before. Calathan (talk) 04:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep My rationales is that series received enough third party coverage in France but could also "userfy" on me as i am not in the mood to salvage that article right now. --KrebMarkt 15:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  1. ActuaBD a generalist comics website who also review manga. Two of their editors are actually qualified members of the French ACBD (Association of Comics critics & journalists) [16] which happens to award the "prix de la critique" at the Angoulême International Comics Festival and the "prix Asie-BD" during the Japan Expo.
  2. SF mag a paper monthly magazine in Sci-Fi. I personally don't like that publication but they did review that manga series.
  3. Planete BD not much to say, a modest generalist comics website.
  4. Manga Sanctuary 2nd biggest animanga French website (size & traffic).
• Keep KrebMarkt's sources prove notability. Dream Focus 16:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Per KrebMarkt, it looks like sources are there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Keep: Though those sources and more information will actually need to be added! I know much shouldn't be expected of it with the stub label, but don't we at least have an official website or article for/link to the author? Assuming it gets a third-party perspective summary and sources added it'll be in good shape. Datheisen (talk) 22:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep based on the sources found by KrebMarkt. Edward321 (talk) 04:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 11:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Tomos Software

Tomos Software (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 startup company. Cannot find significant coverage. Article created by a principle of the company (see talk page). Haakon (talk) 13:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Gartner and voke (started by a former Gartner analyst) are reliable and secondary sources independent of the subject. voke's specialty covers Application Lifecycle Management, so it's notable within its field. While the article was started by a principal, it appears to have adhered to NPOV policies. --141.160.5.251 (talk) 14:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Haakon (talk) 14:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, vehemently. Unambiguous advertising for a product with a very small user base: TOMOS ALM is a SaaS-based web 2.0 ALM solution. Targeted at business analysts, developers, testers and project managers, TOMOS ALM provides integrated modules for creating, tracking and measuring the software development process. It is web-based, distributed software that feeds into a centralized database. If you say "web 2.0" and "SaaS" you ought to have your mouth washed out with soap.

Use of language such as "solution" makes this obviously slanted in favor of the wonderful things this software can do for your business.

Heh. I also despise buzzwords, but that doesn't mean the whole article is compromised. This is Wikipedia; change the wording. Deletion is a bit heavy-handed.

Gartner is a consulting firm that produces reports on businesses for investors; their warrant covers all businesses that can be invested in, and as such mention in one of their reports confers no notability whatsoever.

As I mentioned earlier, voke is devoted to the ALM space, and as such represents peer recognition. I say we invite expert industry comment, not CfD.

This is also an article that sprung full blown, complete with categories and infobox, at its initial insertion. I suspect paid insertion for publicity purposes. Note also that the user page of the originating author now redirects to an encyclopedia page for another non notable business. (That redirect isn't kosher, and the user page probably ought to be speedied.) - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

COI is not a reason to delete. We delete when CoI compromises NPOV; this article does not seem to put anything non-NPOV. And since when did user pages get speedied? That's the most outrageous thing I've heard on WP. --141.160.5.251 (talk)

Cross namespace redirects are not at all favored. Redirects from article space into user space are pretty much delete on sight. The other way around is not quite as intolerable, but may be seen as a claim of ownership if a user adopts an encyclopedia article as a user page. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 22:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the terms SaaS and Web 2.0 that offend you. I assure you my mouth has been washed with soap. I have also cleaned up any terminology that in any way be interpreted as advertising. The Gartner report is not a standard one but an award to the company, singling TOMOS out for high praise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhayduk (talk • contribs) 19:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep TOMOS is a notable company. I am familiar with the marketplace and know users of the software. It may have been written by someone who doesn’t have thorough knowledge of the rules, but it can be cleaned up to remove words such as “solution”. Many other companies use the terms “SaaS” and Web 2.0” and Wikipedia has pages on both topics. --68.237.204.77 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC).

• Comment--Smerdis raises an interesting dilemma: if an article is sketchy on first appearance, it very often gets deleted as having no significant content and we tell them to write off-line. If if someone does that, and submits a complete article, it is suggested it be judged negatively as showing a suspicious knowledge of Wikipedia. Our COI rules right permit COI people to write articles, if they do it right. Gartner's reports are fairly reliable, but I do not know its contents, nor the significance of its deisgnation as "Cool Vendor" DGG ( talk ) 21:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. You;re right in pointing out an apparent Catch-22. But I think common sense comes to the rescue. The critical distinction between the sketchy article that doesn't make a strong case for inclusion, and the article that comes off amazingly polished at its first appearance, sprung fully grown like Athena from the head of Zeus, is the presence or absence of a possible profit motive. Regrettably, there are now consultants out there that offer businesses advice on how to insert spam articles into Wikipedia to manipulate search engine results, and how to build them to pass initial scrutiny and game the system to avoid deletion. It probably would help if the user who wrote these articles had at least a couple edits on unrelated articles; the editor who started this article does not. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Spam, spurious referencing that doesn't actually demonstrate what makes this company any more interesting than some other company. Miami33139 (talk) 18:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment. If it were spam, the article would have been db-spam'med ages ago. The article describes a corporation, and does not advertise, nor host spam links. +

Spurious referencing in the article? Could you specify? If it's spurious, it can be eliminated. --141.160.5.251 (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I am curious as to teh relationship between Tomos Software and RTTS. It appears both companies are related to User:Bhayduk. The ADF for RTTS also makes an appeal to Garner as a source, and I've added a note there about my thoughts on Gartner as a source for notability versus verifiability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

the articles spell out the relationship between them. One is a spin-off of the other. --141.160.5.251 (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Rebel Boat Rocker

Rebel Boat Rocker (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 company notability as per WP:CORP: this company only existed for 18 months and never had a product that saw the light of day. How could they be notable if they had no sales, no revenue, no products, no track record... -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Delete: Even the company website isn't actually a website. Not a good sign. The article practically lists a good reason for its exclusion of notability; It openly admits it dissolved without accomplishing or releasing a single thing. Company article with no resources sited, its one game mentioned is a red link in the article... has no any third-party sources or perspective, or discussion of reception/impact or broader culture statement. Delete. Do we have a category for "notable for strong feeling of being unremarkable"? WP:MISSEDTRAIN? If this were a new company I'd say it could be incubated and improved, but odds of there being any new sources or events for it are zero. Datheisen (talk) 21:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - no notability, no released games, no website = no article. --Teancum (talk) 18:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Common or garden delete - Article links to Gamasutra, but a site search unearths no mention of this team. Official website empty. Makes me wonder where the contributor got his information from? Marasmusine (talk) 14:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • RBR did exist.[17][18] I've seen the company mentioned in recent Pitchford interviews he's been doing to promote Borderlands. - hahnchen 19:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Rainbow Lodge

Rainbow Lodge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

fishing lodge, and no longer exists Fremte (talk) 01:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - A fishing lodge, as with any place, can be notable. In this fishing lodge's case it has received significant coverage from multiple independent sources. [19][20][21][22] (these are only a few of what I found with a 2 second g-search). According to The Guardian, it had become "the most popular camping lodge west of the Rockies." That it no longer exists is not grounds for deletion (I dare the nom to put the Hanging Gardens of Babylon up for AfD).--Oakshade (talk) 04:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: Don't dare the nom to put the Hanging Gardens of Babylon up for AFD...Stranger things have happened! In any event you won me over. - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• the first major building in the Alta Lake (whistler) area is not significant? someone needs to re-read their history —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.240.212 (talk) 07:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC) -Preceding comment copied from article talk page by Thryduulf (talk) 08:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep per Oakshade. Doc Quintana (talk) 14:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment it would be great if the sources were added into the article so someone doesn't mistakenly renominate this two years later down the road. (Yes, that does happen.) JBsupreme (talk) 15:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Oakshade et al, sources are present and need to be added. Oh well, as usual it's always someone else's problem. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep per above discussion. Add the sources, please. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per dennis the 2 et al. Bearian (talk) 00:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, and I added two of the references to the article, slackers.--Milowent (talk) 05:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No arguments to keep - and I see little reason to merge Kevin (talk) 22:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Dan Richardson

Dan Richardson (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 author. Also an autobiography. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to Stella Gibbons. Notability is not inherited; published authors are not inherently notable and at this stage (and on the evidence provided) the only thing that elevates him above WP:MILL is his parentage. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Work in Rough Guides questionable as basis for notability. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Graham Richardson (journalist)

Graham Richardson (journalist) (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 the criteria detailed at WP:CREATIVE (which includes journalists), hasn't been widely cited by peers or successors, no new concepts/techniques/major roles/critical attention or significant contributions. (WP:ENTERTAINER does not apply here, per discussion here.) [23][24][25][26] (N.B. Not to be confused with Graham Richardson, politician) ƒ(Δ)² 18:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: per WP:BIO..South Bay (talk) 00:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep as meeting the qualifications of WP:ENTERTAINER which specifically includes "Actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities". This was brought out in the above referenced discussion. The guidelines of WP:CREATIVE and WP:ENTERTAINER are not mutually exclusive as both fall under the guiding principles of WP:BIO and WP:GNG. If a journalist is also a television journalist, he becomes a television personality and/or opinion-maker and may be judged by both or either subordinate criteria, or we may simply swim back upstream to BIO or GNG. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:05, 15 October 2009

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Delete, I think WP:CREATIVE is more applicable than WP:ENTERTAINER, and I don't think his work so far is sufficient to meet the notability guideline. That said, he is a national TV correspondent and generally, people in such roles have articles. PKT(alk) 18:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment As subsets of WP:BIO, the two are not mutually exclusive and often overlap. While certainly most sources available are CTV reporting about CTV, Graham is also covered in other sources. For instance, as far back as 2002 he received international coverage when London's Sunday Mirror reported on him. And just this year alone, The Hill Times had several articles dealing with Graham and his work... evidencing coverage over a 7-year span that shows notability through meeting WP:GNG. He is even written of in that other minor encyclopedia... Britannica [27]. Why would he good enough for them and not us? I believe the stub can properly grow and be sourced... but that would seem a matter for tagging and cleanup, not deletion. Best, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I realize I'm preaching to the choir, but the article needs the additional references to which you refer. PKT(alk) 12:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Aw shucks... now I have homework. I'll add some when I have time after work today. Best regards, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 15:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Agree, he meets WP:ENTERTAINER requirements. Dream Focus 14:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

  Article is still undergoing improvements. It now shows meeting BIO and BLP, but I'll keep at it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep He was awarded twice, thus should have an independent article.--RekishiEJ (talk) 22:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Weak keep. He seems to just barely qualify under WP:ENTERTAINER and/or WP:CREATIVE. I think it's reasonable to consider him under the Entertainer rubric due to his television status, and under creative rubric due to his journalist position. I feel that the awards he has received, as well as perhaps (though maybe this is stretching it) a significant following due to the news. Just barely crossing the threshold, I think, but crossing it nonetheless in my opinion. Cocytus [»talk«] 03:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Genetic Native Americans

Genetic Native Americans (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, the premise of this article is flawed and the content makes very little sense. The concept of "genetic Native Americans" is not one found in WP:RS literature. The article seems more intent on making some kind of WP:POINT. Its statements, where they are not contradictory, are either unsupported orig research ("fabled to have a significant amount of native blood" etc) or WP:SYN (none of the cites given actually address the statements being made). Several cites make no mention at all of genetic markers typifying or identifying Native American ancestry, it's simply not addressed. There is no basis to have an article here, we already have substantial articles on indigenous peoples of the Americas, Native Americans in the United States, Aboriginal peoples in Canada, etc. I don't see there's any useful, non-redundant info here that needs merging into those others. cjllw ʘ TALK 12:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —cjllw ʘ TALK 13:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. —cjllw ʘ TALK 13:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Clear WP:Point Violation, Original Research, and WP:SYN --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 13:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Definitely OR, don't really see the POINT though -Drdisque (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment It was one of those "native americans are superior" hit and run pieces that get brought up in ultra left wing circles --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 19:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per reasons given here. here's the "tell": using the word "blood" to refer to genetic ancestry in an article about a presumably scientific idea. "blood" is a colloquialism with no scientific meaning. unsalvageable, unnecessary.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Possibly WP:FRINGE but certainly not something that needs its own article outside Native American. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I don't think that we have an article about what are described as the Indigenous American mtDNA haplogroups but perhaps one can be written by someone with a working knowledge of genetics. Mandsford (talk) 15:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as everybody else said. CynofGavuf 07:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy deleted (A7) by Anthony.bradbury (talk · contribs). –Katerenka ^☆ 22:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Khan, Joseph

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Khan, Joseph

Khan, Joseph (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

NN Lampman (talk) 11:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete many, many people fought & died in the Spanish Civil War, nothing notable about this guy to say why he deserves his own article. GiantSnowman 15:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per GiantSnowman. --  Dspradau → talk  16:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia shouldn't have separate articles for people who have died in wars.  Ilyushka88  talk  20:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A9 JForget 20:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Electric Ecstasy (song)

Electric Ecstasy (song) (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 on a non-topic. "Electric Ecstasy" by a Mizz Electronica was apparently rumored to be a song on Rated R (Rihanna album). Said Mizz Electronica now explicitly denied any collaboration between her and Rihanna. Noting the complete absence of reliable sources on that song, this doesn't even need to be mentioned in the album. Wikipedia is not a collection of rumors.
Previously PRODded and IAR-speedied, so I'm bringing it here. Amalthea 10:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Well explained, delete it --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 13:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• A9 since the artist doesn't have an article and the only other "source" is based on unfounded rumors and twitter. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete'. As usual, Ten Pound Hammer has expressed this better than I would have done. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Substantial changes in article pursuade several editors to change their positions. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Aaron Krach

Aaron Krach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Aaron Krach, whose article has had considerable input from User:Aaronkrach, is an editor, writer, photographer and curator (or so we are told). "He is the former editor of Empire magazine in New York and senior editor at Cargo Magazine." Wikipedia's "Empire magazine" is not in NY; this is a different magazine. Cargo magazine is an unsourced article. He's put out two books: Half-Life (an unsourced article, kicked off by User:Aaronkrach) and the self-published (via lulu.com) 100 New York Mysteries. His work has been exhibited in a number of cities (galleries and sources unspecified). This month he's curating an exhibition that runs for a few hours on each of two days somewhere or other, according to his own website. Krach's article has been flagged as unsourced since May 2007; the article on Half-Life (an article that's recycled publicity material) has been flagged as unsourced since December 2008. That's more than enough unsourcedness, especially in view of the frequent presence of User:Aaronkrach who might be expected to know of citably reliable sources. Hoary (talk) 10:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related page because it too is chronically unsourced and about a book that lacks obvious notability:

Half-Life (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 10:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 10:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 10:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

*Delete WP:COI, and no sources, I think we should give it the boot. --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 13:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment If something in either article seems particularly silly when you happen to see it, check in the history to see if it has recently been dehanced by some Telstra IP. -- Hoary (talk) 15:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• DeleteNow Keep, as improved; seems notable as writer. Not notable as an artist or journalist. Not sure about the novel - I'll go with consensus on that. Johnbod (talk) 16:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• I don't believe it is possible to make an informed decision on this matter until you have actually read the novel. Before taking any drastic measures, it is imperative that we know all of the facts involved. I have ordered my copy of "Half-Life", and will register my vote after having read it. I would urge all of you who have voted to retract your vote, order a copy of the book, and register an informed vote once you have read it. Thank you. Murrarie (talk) 23:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

  The nomination has nothing to do with the quality of Krach's work in general, or the quality of his novel. ¶ Let's suppose that Cleave and Smite, Johnbod and I quickly order our copies of the book from this or that online oligopolist, quickly receive them and read them, and realize that the work is a masterpiece. What impact should that have on the article? ¶ There are plenty of superb books about which it would be hard or impossible to create articles that satisfy Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and -- passing through mediocrity, mere bollocks (astrology and the like), diet quackery and so forth all the way to literary hell -- there are plenty of books (Mein Kampf, The Turner Diaries, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, etc ad nauseam) that are noxious garbage and about which articles can be created that do satisfy them (at least until vandalized by halfwits). -- Hoary (talk) 01:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Delete Apparently it is not notable, but perhaps more notability can be added to prevent deletion, if possible (significance of work, etc.). Olivemountain (talk) 02:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete – Article lacks Attribution to Verify WP:BIO or WP:BLP notability criteria … Delete the book as well (WP:COI). — 141.156.161.245 (talk) 03:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Violates numerous policies, as per nom, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 19:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep both articles as eminently salvagable, and send to WP:CLEANUP for a major sandblasting and proper sourcing. COI aside as the article now belongs to Wikipedia (and hopefully the author is now aware of Wikipedia's concerns with such), I have found that he was a frequent colomnist for IndieWire [28], is quoted by such diverse papers as Los Angeles Times and Chicago Tribune, and has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject [29]. No one looked? And though not yet sourced, his book has received accolades such as being called a "striking debut novel" in a lengthy interview of the author by Pride Source and being well reviewed in multiple sources [30]. Not too difficult to find. Seems they both meet the WP:GNG criteria for inclusion... and the articles might well serve the project. Simply put, they are fixable. That they have not been in a reasonable time is not a reason to delete... it's a reason to fix them. Sources are available... even if no one is putting them to use. Better to give them proper atention rather than simply deciding not to do so by deleting. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

  Here as always with an AfD, anyone, including yourself, is most welcome to improve the articles. I'm quite prepared to change my mind about both. In the meantime, your Google list doesn't impress me as much as it seems to impress you: although it does indeed link to a page of a website called "Pride Source", much of it is typified by Hair-raising trend ; Are mullets back? Pay-Per-View - Chicago Tribune - ProQuest Archiver - Mar 29, 2005 "Mullet is just the fun name for a trend that is actually out there right now," says Aaron Krach, senior editor at Cargo, the men's fashion magazine based ... But all the best improving both articles. -- Hoary (talk) 07:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I hate judging an article upon how it looks now and try looking at what it could become. Anyone looking at the page and history will see that I have begun then to improve it myself. Unfortunately for Krach, I will be not be able to get back to it until after work today. I'll hapily report back once its been brought into line with policy and guideline. It'll meet the GNG. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 15:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep MichaelQSchmidt's find that he has been mentioned in major news sources, proves him notable. Dream Focus 14:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

  No. Nobody's find that a person has been mentioned in major news sources (or anywhere else) would prove that that person was notable. What WP:GNG says (after markup-stripping) is: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. / "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. -- Hoary (talk) 14:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

  More than mere "mentions"... the article now includes cites to several in-depth interviews of the subject. It is not the same as when it first arrived at AfD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Nobody hasn't commented here, just MichaelQSchmidt. And I check Google news search and the first thing is an interview the guy did about his book for a notable gay news source. [31] Google news shows many other hits as well for the guy. He is clearly notable. Dream Focus 15:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

  I don't claim to know which gay news sources are more notable than others, but I did notice when I wrote the comment above that there was no en:WP article on Pridesource, PrideSource, Pride Source or Pridesource.com (each of which is still red as I write this). -- Hoary (talk) 23:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

  That lack of an article does not mean PrideSource is not notable... it only means it is yet to be written. HOWEVER... PrideSource IS published by the same folks who publish Between The Lines and the article being cited is a reprint of an earlier aricle in that newspaper (properly atributed in the cite). See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#PrideSource.com. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

  Lack of an article indeed does not mean that a subject is available, but it also does not, of itself, mean that a worthwhile article has yet to be written. I've looked at your link, in which you asked whether it was OK to cite something from the site, and got one answer saying yes. What you didn't ask was whether this is, as you claim above, "a notable gay news source", or indeed whether a short interview in it, together with odds and sods elsewhere, constitutes "significant coverage in reliable sources" (WP:GNG). Yes, there is indeed an article on Between the Lines (newspaper): it consists of two unsourced sentences. (Incidentally, the "Front page of a typical issue" makes it look less like an literary/arts magazine than a softcore porn magazine.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. “Half-Life” was covered by Publishers Weekly and three major LGBT publications: Out Magazine, Bay Windows and the Lambda Book Report [32]. Krach has been extensively quoted as a male grooming expert [33]. Warrah (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep well sourced article. May need some clean up and scrutiny about the sources. I commend the nominator for bringing these issues to everyone's attention, but couldn't these issues been addressed on the talk page instead of in an adversarial AFD? Ikip (talk) 07:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

  The issues have been raised in templates in the article itself. I suppose this AfD is adversarial in that (for example) you and I disagree and are expressing contrary opinions within it, but it doesn't strike me as particularly hostile. Incidentally, an earlier AfD dispatched a relevant article quickly and painlessly: although AfDs are often tiresome, they often aren't. -- Hoary (talk) 13:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Meets three core content policies and is notable since his début novel was twice nominated for award and he wrote articles for several publications. --RekishiEJ (talk) 11:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep See, this worked. At first it read like a horrible advert for the man, now it is a more encyclopedic page on an author. It has places he has written for, some awards, and generally basic stuff. I could see this in one of my old "Current Writers of New York" school pieces which I see now and again. --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 17:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

  Perhaps we're looking at different versions of the article, or perhaps one of us is hallucinating somewhat. ¶ "It has [...] some awards", you say. I see nominations for two awards, the Lambda Literary Award (incidentally, an article in which the "controversies" alone seem to be sourced) and the Violet Quill Award. ¶ It was the stuff about photography that first brought him to my attention; this is subsumed within "Artist", a section that reads in full: His work has been exhibited in Olympia, Washington, New York City, St. Petersburg, Florida, and Copenhagen, Denmark.[unsourced (although the NYC claim is sourced shortly thereafter)] In 2006, his solo exhibition titled "100 New York Mysteries" was presented at DCKT Contemporary in Chelsea, New York.[sourced to DCKT] In 2007, new photographs and sculpture have been exhibited at 3rd Ward in Greenpoint, Jack The Pelican Presents in Brooklyn, Gallery 312 Online in Nova Scotia, Canada, and Massachusetts's College of Liberal Arts.[unsourced] In 2009, "Longer Periods of Happiness," appeared at DCKT in Manhattan.[sourced to DCKT] So the majority of this remains completely unsourced, and while two of the discrete claims are sourced and fully credible, no evidence is yet presented of critical attention paid to these exhibitions. ¶ If this is an encyclopedic page, I worry about the state of the encyclopedia. -- Hoary (talk) 00:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep -(changing from delete) article seems to have been thoroughly salvaged, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 17:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete If his book had won a lambda award, he would be notable. But it didn't. DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kingdom of Galicia. There is little support in this discussion for keeping this article, but after that things become a bit more murky. A strong minority favors outright deletion, a larger plurality favors redirecting, but is split on the appropriate target, while a single editor favors keeping the article. I believe that the proper reading of consensus is to redirect, as the option that is best supported, while coming closest to effecting the desire of those favoring delete. I have pointed to redirect to Kingdom of Galicia as being the best supported by a slight margin, but editors should feel free to re-target the article in there is agreement to do so. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Kingdom of Galicia and Portugal

Kingdom of Galicia and Portugal (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 such kingdom existed. The article claims on no authority that one ruler, Garcia II, had the title "King of Galicia and Portugal". The county of Portugal did form part of Garcia's Galician kingdom, but reliable sources don't refer to it like this, and it is unclear why they would. Even if it turns out that some primary source says he used this title, I'd suspect it is probably an inaccuracy based on the emergence of a Kingdom of Portugal in the following century, and at any rate this wouldn't justify a separate wiki article. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• No reliable sources to indicate notability, or even if it existed. [34]. Aiken ♫ 09:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep Your search was for the exact phrase "Kingdom of Galicia and Portugal", so the return you got was higher than my expectations would have been. A search of a few keywords [35] turns up this from the Cambridge University Press, and this and this and those are just three examples. If there are reliable sources that suggest that "no such kingdom existed", we need to add them to the article. Mandsford (talk) 13:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Mandsford, no-one is denying that the Galician monarch ruled the county of Portugal for a time, but that doesn't mean there was such a kingdom as the Kingdom of Galicia and Portugal ... no more than there was a Kingdom of England and Northumbria after Northumbria was annexed in 954. Please double-check your links, and you'll see only what I've already said and no more. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Well perhaps the name is no more appropriate than William the Conqueror being ruler of the "Kingdom of Normandy and England", but couldn't there be an article about that brief period in the 11th century when the King of Galicia expanded his holdings on a takeover from the Count of Portugal? I agree with you that if the state wasn't called "The Kingdom of Galicia and Portugal" (from what I can tell, it was the original "Kingdom of Portugal") then it should be described as something else. Technically, there was no such country as Austria-Hungary, yet that was the name bestowed by historians on the Empire of Austria and the Kingdom of Hungary. From what I gather, Garcia didn't stay a doubleking for very long. Mandsford (talk) 16:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

He didn't stay a king for long, and one king doesn't make a kingdom any more than one swallow makes a summer. There's not really any here here. Apart from Garcia's share, there doesn't seem to have been much of an Iberian kingdom of Galicia to write about. See my comment here and it's interesting to consider the Google books results if you exclude Garcia from a search for either "king of Galicia" or "kingdom of Galicia" in modern (post-1990) books. Anything worth saying, which may not be much, is probably best said somewhere else. A history-only merge with Galicia (Spain) or something relevant about Portuguese history would be best. But not kingdom of Galicia, because that may want merging too. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Merge with García II of Galicia. I see no reason to have an article on an alleged kingdom that only ever had one king. It does not even seem clear whether he regarded it as one kingdom or two kingships. CErtainly the article needs to be pruned of some of the excessively large templates which are cluttering it up (if kept). Peterkingiron (talk) 00:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect to Kingdom of Galicia, which is in need of major work, especially in light of a recent edit dispute regarding content. Whether that article stays at that title or is moved to Medieval history of Galicia or Galicia in the Middle Ages doesn't matter to me. (For those interested in the origin of the title "king of Galicia and Portugal", it is the from García's epitaph from the Panteón de los Reyes. It originally read "rex Portugalliae et Galleciae", but it was destroyed by Napoleonic troops in 1808. Cf. George Tyler Northrup, "The Imprisonment of King García," Modern Philology 17 (1919): 391–413. It cannot now be ascertained whether this inscription was the original, for it was first recorded by Prudencio de Sandoval. I'm not sure why a Leonese tomb would have sported such a reference to Portugal after 1139, and it should be noted that García's power lay mostly in Portugal, not Galicia. That said, distinguishing a "Kingdom of Galicia and Portugal" from the Kingdom of Galicia is like distinguishing the "Kingdom of the French" from the Kingdom of France.) Srnec (talk) 01:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment I do not favor a separate page for this, but the fate is problematic for some of the reasons above. The most important reason for not having a page of this name is that the majority of English-language sources referring to the division of the kingdom refer to Garcia as simply receiving Galicia (with Portugal being a county within that polity). That he may (or may not - some of the inscriptions in the royal pantheon are clearly anachronistic) have called himself King of Portugal and Galicia need not mean we should - he may simply have used this to memorialize his suppression of the rebel count. Kings do have a habit of claiming elaborate titles, but we don't call Henry VIII King of France, even if he claimed it for himself. Sancho el Mayor called himself "King in Castile", but no English-language writers follow this usage, and neither should we. The problem is what to do with it. I think a strong argument could be made that Garcia's lands were intended to represent the same polity created in the previous partition in the early 10th century as the kingdom of Galicia. That, though, only brings us to the other problem mentioned above. There was only one previous king of Galicia, plus a few generations later a king who was recognized in Galicia as anti-king of Asturias/Leon a couple of years before he was able to take the entire kingdom. It only existed during two, or perhaps three, transient windows. However, one of the warring versions of Kingdom of Galicia treats every king who ruled a kingdom that included the region of Galicia as a King of Galicia. To use an analogy, it would be as if an article on the Presidents of Texas would describe the Kings of Spain, the Presidents of Mexico, the Presidents of the United States and of the Confederate States all as holders of the title, President of Texas; or in the Iberian theatre, calling the Al-Andalus wali of the Upper March and the subsequent kings of Navarre and/or Aragon all "Kings of Viguera". That version represents a POV that is almost non-existent outside of Portugal, where there has been a politically-influenced nationalistic tradition of placing Portugal as simply the latest manifestation of a continuum that includes this supposed longstanding Kingdom of Galicia. Still I would vaguely lean in favor of redirecting there, as long as the less-POV version wins out. Agricolae (talk) 04:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. The fairly complicated history of Portugal, Galicia, and the Iberian peninsula in general during this period is better handled without using this confusing and essentially unattested terminology. The information can be dealt with in Kingdom of Galicia, History of Portugal, and elsewhere where it is relevant.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • But a redirect is easier and, most importantly, it prevents anyone having to fix redlinks. Srnec (talk) 02:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• If it makes any difference, I'd be happy enough to fix the links. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I think there should not be a single page for the Kingdom of Galicia, unless, perhaps, it is used for the Suevi kingdom (and I don't have the expertise to know whether this is authentic or more Galician/Portuguese nationalism at work). The 10th century 'kings' represent one who ruled briefly what was effectively a transient partition state, and several (Alfonso Fruelaz, Sancho Ordonez, Vermudo II) assigned as kings of Galicia in a POV effort to harmonize conflicting royal claims or conflicting sources by making the competitors kings of a separate Galician or Asturian entity, rather than simply alternative claimants to the whole. A 10th century Kingdom of Galicia has received almost no coverage as an independent entity in English sources. For this period, it should probably just redirect to Kingdom of Leon or Kingdom of Asturias (and an argument could be made for merging those as well, as they are usually presented as a single continuum). That's really a different question, but it means the page we are talking about here shouldn't redirect to a questionable Kingdom of Galicia page. Garcia II may be the better destination. Agricolae (talk) 00:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

A late (9th-century) source makes Wittiza a sub-king in Galicia. A contemporary source records that Galicia, created a county for a French nobleman after the demise of the kingdom created for García II, was set aside as a kingdom for said Frenchman's son, the future Alfonso VII upon the remarriage of his mother, who in the interim continued to rule Galicia with titles like Gallaeciae imperatrix. I draw no conclusions, but I think there is more substance to the notion of a kingdom of Galicia than is perhaps being given credit, and I think it might begin with the period during which all Hispania was ruled by the Visigoths save Galicia under the Suevi. (Note that this has nothing to do with Portugal at all.) Srnec (talk) 04:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Closed - resubmitted to Redirects for Deletion (non admin closure) RandomTime 10:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Zensursula

Zensursula (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 mocking name, since it is a play on "Zensur" (German for Censorship) and Ursula von der Leyen's real first name. Rosenkohl (talk) 08:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• This should be at WP:RFD, not WP:AFD because it is a redirect not an article. Aiken ♫ 09:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint. Now there is a section Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 October 22#Zensursula, Greetings --Rosenkohl (talk) 09:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. List certainly appears to be redundant. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

List of gangs active in the midwest United States

List of gangs active in the midwest United States (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. Not only is this mostly redundant with List of gangs in the United States, the majority of what is listed here is either unsourced or patently false.  :-( Kill it with fire. JBsupreme (talk) 08:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Rather pointless - redundant to the other list article mentioned above. It doesn't warrant its own article. Aiken ♫ 09:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Poorly written article, starting with no clue about what the author's definition of the Midwest United States includes. Chicago is usually considered the major city of the Midwest, but I've seen it extended into Nebraska, Minnesota and even Kentucky, which is about as midwest as a bowl of grits. Even at that, do we really need indiscriminate lists of gangs active in vaguely defined areas like "the Deep South", "around New England", or "the Southwest"? Gangs of the U.S. doesn't need spinoffs. Mandsford (talk) 13:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per Mandsford. --  Dspradau → talk  16:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Per the discussion here, there is no showing of notability for the subject of the article as written, nor does it appear that the subject can be made notable. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Jaguar stones

Jaguar stones (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, the "jaguar stones" as described here are not real, instead the description comes largely inspired from the book Middleworld, a work of juvenile fiction by J. & P. Voelkel (supposed to be the first of a trilogy). They have nothing to do with actual Maya artefacts or mythology—while there are of course various sculptures and other iconography depicting jaguars, "jaguar stones" per se is not a meaningful or encountered term in Maya archaeology. The "Indian legend" of Numi the black leopard is completely made up, originating it seems at some New Age gem seller's website but otherwise not to be found in any anthropological record or other WP:RS. The term "leopardskin jasper" appears to be used only within esoteric and crystal healing circles, for one of a myriad variety of rocks with alleged energies etc., and used loosely at that. As such I doubt it's worth an article on its own merits. There was recently a separate article on the book, The Jaguar Stones Trilogy, that just as soon was deleted (via PROD) as failing WP:BK notability. Nothing here or elsewhere I've seen indicates a reason to change that assessment. ps. The article was originally created to be about the book, it seems likely by someone with a connection to the book or its authors, but was changed when the article's validity was questioned. cjllw ʘ TALK 07:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —cjllw ʘ TALK 08:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Other than fictional works, there are no mentions of these on Google Books. I am indifferent to an article on the stories, but I don't believe the stones warrant their own article. Aiken ♫ 09:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete and fast a mass of WP:OR, WP:MADEUP and stuff from a fiction book series. Simonm223 (talk) 15:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment and a WP:COATRACK for a non-notable children's book. Simonm223 (talk) 15:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Too much of a mess. Although grinding-stones in the shape of jaguars are sometimes referred to as jaguar stones, this article is not about them. Johnbod (talk) 15:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Based on the consensus here, prior recreations and confirmed socking, I've protected from recreation for 1 year. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Fortress Linux

Fortress Linux (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 independent reliable sources supporting a neutral and verifiable article, no indication that this passes WP:GNG. Possibly self-promotional article pushed by the coders of the distro looking for broader publicity, borderline WP:SPAM. MLauba (talk) 07:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —MLauba (talk) 07:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete WP:SPAM --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 13:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - I can't find any news coverage and it's not even available for download released yet. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Prior to making this vote I was forced by conscience (no, not you MLauba, my own conscience) to make a report at SPI. I find it worth noting that at least four different accounts [related to the closed SPI] have tried to add or make made positive edits to this article (or its two deleted brethren) in the recent past, the text emanating from these accounts being identical in many cases. My concern with the article is that even once it has risen above about a dozen different concerns (ranging from WP:SPAM to WP:COI and lots in between) it won't hit WP:N or even anywhere in the neighborhood. For this post I'd rather use thumb rules for this vote than citing specific passages of relevant documentation. Much as the simple thumb rule Explodicle uses above, my thumb rule is "Can you make it on to Distrowatch?" Since Distrowatch's standards for notability (whatever those may be) are 'generally somewhat' lower than Wikipedia's, if you can't make on there, you're probably not going to make it on here. Fortress Linux is nowhere to be found on Distrowatch. The notability comparison I'm using (merely as a guideline) is based on List of Linux distributions vs. Linux Distributions - Facts and Figures. Once you make Distrowatch, then maybe you can come back and try to make WP. Because of the assertion fact that multiple accounts that seem to be are the same person copying and pasting the same text from the fortresslinux web site to this article in the recent past, and the article has already been deleted twice this month alone, in addition to a 'delete' vote I also propose a WP:SALT. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 17:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Good call. I agree that we should salt. --Explodicle (T/C) 17:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Minor addendum: The SP Investigation has closed and archived. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 20:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Salt as well, this is some viral marketing nonsense now. --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• For your information, Fortress Linux is availiable for download if you join them. And the reason why it's is not on the Distrowatch list, is because there is a waiting list for at least six months at Distrowatch to even join that list. —Johan82(talk) 22:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as advertising. And per Explodicle, no RS coverage found. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 00:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - relevant checkuser report here - closing admin please note - Alison ^❤ 05:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no real assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Shaner G Yo

Shaner G Yo (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 rap artist appears to be non-notable. Irbisgreif (talk) 06:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• A7 Not even close to asserting notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. No credible assertion of notability; there are no reliable sources and doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this rapper. Joe Chill (talk) 01:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. nomination withdrawn. tedder (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

El-Saddai Christian School

El-Saddai Christian School (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 more of an advertisement than an actual article. The topic is of questionable notability. Irbisgreif (talk) 06:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 06:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep. The article can be cleaned up, and per this, the school is notable. tedder (talk) 06:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep If it runs through 12th grade (or in Colombia, even through the 11th, when the bachillerato degree can be attained), then it would qualify for inherent notability. I agree that it does need to be rewritten without all the superlatives. Mandsford (talk) 13:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. One of only 18 schools in Columbia which currently have Wikipedia. This school offers a unique educational programme for children with special needs and disabilities. It has multiple references from secondary sources, albeit mostly in Spanish. It is clearly notable, and the article just needs to be tidied up. Dahliarose (talk) 17:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Nomination withdrawn. Irbisgreif (talk) 18:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep per the snowball clause. No purpose keeping this open for the last 12 hours. MuZemike 17:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Far Gate

Far Gate (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 a non-notable game. Irbisgreif (talk) 06:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep and improve article gamespot review and And 43,000 other hits seems to be a crap game, but that does not a deleted article make. --President of Internets (talk) 14:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep under promise of improvements (see below). We need a convention somewhere that says having a few big-media video game website reviews counts as "notable" (10+ in this case), because for some reason that always seems to have a psychological impact. The game might be older, have gotten mostly sour reviews, and have a developer sleepwalking around with little activity the past several years, but this should be a keep. The article itself is even mostly polite by wikifying celestial bodies mentioned, and neutrality is pleasantly noted by a lack of an attempted creation of an article for the development studio or other products they've made, so I'm lead to believe this wasn't created with ill intentions of self-publication or similar. Some leeway should also be given with the article creator being a new account and this being his/her first contribution. If nothing has changed by the time the AfD period expires I might suggest it be renewed another week to allow extra improvement time on good faith. Datheisen (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Notice - Just started cleanup/improvement of article; it's significantly changed since nomination. A lot of further work can be done, particularly a rewrite of the plot section and better description of the gameplay. More sources would be great too. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Already looks a thousand times better! I had to actually make sure it was the article of the same name as earlier. It's a good thing. Crossed out the improvements clause of Keep above with my main statement since you've shown fantastically great faith so quickly. No concerns personally; I'll watch the page and see what it looks like after the week AfD period has passed and see if any cleanup tags might still be needed. Datheisen (talk) 04:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - Won a notable games industry award (2000 IGF Audience Choice). Also per President of Internets and improvements above. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Further Notice - Article is now massively expanded, including image, infobox, and tons of cites. Could still use more input in the plot and gameplay sections (I've never actually played it myself so I'm entirely interpolating review sites here for info). - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Improvements have made this deletion request appear moot for now. -- ISLANDERS27 09:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Article also has an IGN review --Teancum (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - I don't see a need to delete this. Avid attempts have been made to make it better and it's a lot better than the original article. businessman332211 (talk) 20:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Significant coverage in mainstream gaming/electronic media publications, and winner of a notable award Gotyear (talk) 23:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Notability has been established, well done DustFormsWords and thank you for the work. Someoneanother 20:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks. With a bit more work we can probably get it to Good Article if anyone's interested in helping. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep It has plenty of references proving its notability. Dream Focus 06:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Recycling symbol. Kevin (talk) 04:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Gary Anderson (Recycling)

Gary Anderson (Recycling) (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 WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO - the person is known only for designing the recycling symbol, and there seems to be no reliable coverage about him that is related to him doing anything else. The article contains no information about anything else, too, and no information is lost if the article is deleted and replaced by a redirect to recycling symbol, as was the case from 2007 to 2009.  Sandstein  06:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the nominator, delete. Irbisgreif (talk) 06:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - and redirect to recycling symbol. (I suspect this article was only created because of a redlink over at that article.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Merged keeping it as redirected does not harm (as it is now). Olivemountain (talk) 02:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The article is not currently redirected to Recycling symbol. The redirect was recently undone. That's why I am nominating the article for deletion.  Sandstein  16:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Strong keep - The international recycling symbol is one of the most recognised symbols in the world. The designer of which is notable by association. It has been used and reproduced many times over. This alone should be sufficient justification to keep the article. As the designer of the symbol is not well known it makes the entry even more of interest to readers, hence should stand.--Alex Marshall (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:N, notability is not inherited. Each topic must be individually notable. Everything there is to be said about the designer can usefully be said in the article Recycling symbol.  Sandstein  16:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Redirect. Is only notable for the symbol, so any mention of him can be covered in that article. I don't know if it is desirable to delete first to prevent the redirect being inappropriately reverted in future. AJCham 22:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete and re-redirect to recycling symbol per WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect to recycling symbol. There isn't much more to say about the subject that isn't already in the recycling symbol article. Brief biography of the subject here: [36]. Location (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Saltine cracker challenge

Saltine cracker challenge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:MADEUP sums this up pretty well. Irbisgreif (talk) 06:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. No cites to indicate that this is a notable cultural phenomenon rather than something made up one day. --JamesAM (talk) 06:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Strike my delete: good werk Melchoir. Food Detectives clinches it for me. Now I'm off to try the cinnamon challenge. Delete. Ditto. Drmies (talk) 06:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Delete. I think I recall this from high school biology as a demonstration of what happens when you don't have enough amylase to dissolve a quantity of starch. It's not notable enough in its own right, though. (At best, find sources and include in an appropriate article.) TheFeds 06:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm pleasantly surprised by the improvements by Melchoir. I just verified several of the Factiva references; no issues there—they're valid. (Amending my previous recommendation to keep.) TheFeds 16:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep I'll add references myself. The fact that new editors often don't add references is one of many reasons why it is inappropriate to AfD an article one minute after it was created! Next time try cleanup tags and/or Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. And please brush up on Wikipedia:New pages patrol#New pages that may require deletion. Melchoir (talk) 06:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• 'Weak Delete, Merge with' Competitive eating. If it goes for a delete consensus, I'll go with the crowd, but I would rather it gets merged --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 13:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• keep and merge needs improvement, but surely it will find its place somewhere with good references. the concept seems feasible and Google provides a multitude of entries 88.71.96.63 (talk) 14:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment This definitely isn't something just made up in school one day. I've heard of this, and a search in google news shows tons of mentions in various news articles. And FWIW if you type "saltine" in google the first thing that autocompletes is "saltine challenge". I'm not sure there's enough sources to add up to significant coverage or whatever the exact threshold is, but it's something that will require a lot of searching to determine one way or another. This is clearly a very popular activity, it's just a matter of whether reliable sources have ever bothered to write about it. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • For another surprise search Google for "saltine". Evil saltine (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Wow. You should monetize that! ;-) Melchoir (talk) 23:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Merge with competitive eating. I forget where I saw this originally on television, probably Tosh.0 or something like that. JBsupreme (talk) 15:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The saltine cracker challenge now stands alone, so keep. JBsupreme (talk) 23:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Don't merge this with Competitive eating. While the saltine challenge is obviously a form of competition involving eating, and it makes appearances at fairs, most of our article on Competitive eating is inapplicable. The timescale and amount of food for saltines is much shorter than than the contests described there. It's a binary challenge, not a "how many" challenge. There are no known governing organizations or professionals. The sections "Training and preparation" and "Criticisms and dangers" would simply mislead; the limiting factor is the amount of saliva, not the amount of stomach capacity. These unique differences mean that there is no good place in Competitive eating to merge this article; one couldn't just add it to the Food list.
  One might add a new top-level section for saltines to both Competitive eating and Saltine cracker. This strategy isn't exclusive with having a separate article for details; it benefits from it. See Wikipedia:Summary style.
  As for whether there is enough detailed, significant coverage to be found in reliable sources, the answer is yes. If the article doesn't convince you yet, then that's because it's still a stub. I'm not done with it. Melchoir (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Update: Although I'm still not quite done with the article, I'm getting close. It's no longer a stub, and I've nominated it for WP:DYK. Melchoir (talk) 09:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Totally inappropriate to merger with competitive eating. See here for evidence. ^Bongo_matic 07:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment So, what I just read was someone complaining about moving a CONTEST for EATING food into the completive eating contest? Ok, besides laughing, this is really not worth a full article, and there are enough random stubs, so just merge it, or if the will of Wiki says delete, purge it.--Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Keep: I've heard about this, so it is culturally relevant, I however don't see this article ever going beyond a stub, but that's not what we're debating here is it. Deathawk (talk) 19:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Meets WP:N fairly easily, with tons of coverage from verifiable sources. As a sort of game and pop culture phenomena, it's no less notable than existing articles like Beer pong and Quarters. Also, agree with Melchoir on the merge being a bad idea, competitive eating is something approaching a sport, while this is simply a sort of game. Geraldk (talk) 13:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• I love changing to keep when an article is improved like this. I'm honestly both surprised and impressed. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 17:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. More than enough sourcing. Evil saltine (talk) 20:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment on previous opinion: Flagrant conflict of interest! ^Bongo_matic 04:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, he is evil. Melchoir (talk) 04:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - Silly, but sourced. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 05:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. I see multiple independent reliable secondary sources. I like it with articles like this when Wikipedia can cover such fun niche topics. :) Cirt (talk) 05:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep This article is improved dramatically, and might actually be a GOOD article now. --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 13:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep based on my failure to pass the challenge 6 years ago. At the time I think it was four crackers (but I could be wrong). I also failed the three litres of chocolate milk in one hour challenge.--kelapstick (talk) 19:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - partly because it meets WP:GNG, and partly because like Kelapstick, I too have failed this challenge in the past. Woe is me! GiantSnowman 12:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Paul E. Reinhold Agricultural Fairgrounds

Paul E. Reinhold Agricultural Fairgrounds (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 has apparently stood unreferenced for about 2 years. I consider it unlikely that this article will ever be referenced. Irbisgreif (talk) 05:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Note to Closer: Article has been moved to Clay County Fairgrounds --Milowent (talk) 13:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions.
• Keep. Long-established fairgrounds are usually the topic of coverage somewhere, even if the coverage is not available on the net. See this search for references to events hosted there. It may also be worthwhile to search Google News' archives for references to individual buildings at the Fairgrounds, as there may have been coverage of renovations to the building where the Green Cove Lions played. Perhaps the buildings were used by the U.S. military during wartime, as happened with other agricultural fairs. -- Eastmain (talk) 07:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Created this article because it was a home venue for a team in a defunct football league. Now that both are gone (likely never to return), I say let's delete it. Tom Danson (talk) 08:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment. Remember the principle of "once notable, always notable". Wikipedia has lots of articles about dead people and defunct organizations and demolished buildings. -- Eastmain (talk) 14:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: I did some work on the article. Its a notable public facility, despite creator's willingness to go along with a delete, there's no good reason to delete.--Milowent (talk) 15:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Keep and retitle. While the grounds may be "officially" called the "The Paul E. Reinhold Agricultural Fairgrounds" because Reinhold donated the land, they have much greater coverage under the more common names of "Clay County fairgrounds, Florida" [37], [38] or "Clay County Agricultural Faigrounds, Florida" [39]. With respects to the author, there's a whole lot more out there that might be used to expand and source this article. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Article has been moved to Clay County Fairgrounds, and added additional redirect for Clay County Agricultural Fairgrounds. Clay County Fairgrounds seems to be most commonly used name. --Milowent (talk) 13:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Glancing through the Google news and the four books mentioning it, it seems notable. Dream Focus 06:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Snow closure, obvious delete. Could have gone speedy. tedder (talk) 07:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Carlsvilleproject

Carlsvilleproject (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete - meaningless drivel. . . Flint McRae (talk) 09:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete there is nothing to save here. No reliable sources even have the ability to pick up on something created in a blog a month ago. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 12:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Agreed, no reliable sources to establish notability. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: The page claims it was started in September of 2009, the article was created within the first part of October by a User with the same user name as said article. The only other editor is an annanymous IP that presume is the same user. Blatant self promotion,nothing more nothing less. Deathawk (talk) 19:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. we have a clear outcome Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Jeff Horowitz

Jeff Horowitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Appears to fail WP:BIO. Article written by subject, and none of the sources are anything more than trivial mentions. Nothing that will clear notability, I'm afraid. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Blatant self-promotion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 06:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Self promotion, non-notable. Yep. ~ Arjun 10:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Keep because of the Chairman position. Flagged for 'rescue'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olivemountain (talk • contribs) 03:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete – Article lacks Attribution to Verify WP:BIO or WP:BLP notability criteria … it's nothing but a link farm for a bunch of NN organizations, i.e., none of them are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles … pure weapons grade vanispamcruftisement. — 141.156.161.245 (talk) 03:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - self-posted resume from former head of two organizations of unknown notability. MuffledThud (talk) 15:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, but Horowitz's current organization, Avoided Deforestation Partners, may be notable enough for inclusion from what I can tell. In any case, Horowitz himself is non-notable and this article is a WP:RESUME. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Self-promotion, fails WP:BIO. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• No Consensus Clearly notable.Hands of gorse, heart of steel (talk) 17:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy redirect to Monster Jam World Finals#World Finals 10 . Bad-faith nom; nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Redirecting as an editorial action per suggestions. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Monster Jam World Finals X

Monster Jam World Finals X (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

It was tagged for 6 months in regards to the notability. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. So shouldn't this article be deleted then? Robert9673 (talk) 04:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. This is a bad-faith nom from a new user. -- ISLANDERS27 09:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you please assume good faith? This is uncivil behavior. I think it's reasonable to nominate the article for AfD. The notability is an issue, which was tagged for 6 months. Perhaps you like to give a reason of why you think it should be kept, as that is required in an AfD. Robert9673 (talk) 15:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• I fail to understand how WP:CRYSTAL is relevant as the event has occurred. I suggest the nominator read guidelines and policy more carefully. There was no need to nominate this for deletion. The material is wholly redundant to Monster Jam World Finals#World Finals 10 (2009) and this should have been handled by a simple redirect to that section. Fences&Windows 22:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect redundant -Ret.Prof (talk) 23:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (NAC) RMHED 23:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Shawn Baldwin

Shawn Baldwin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

AFD was created by IPs, I will add their rationale below. Please WP:AGF with the rationale, but I think they have a point. tedder (talk) 16:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• This article was clearly written by Shawn Baldwin himself. It's all junk! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.106.170.58 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

— 38.106.170.58 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• This article undermines the usefulness of Wikipedia. It was clearly drafted by Baldwin in an attempt to repair his damaged reputation after this dealings with FINRA. The content is all opinion and lacks any factual content. This entry is more appropriate for a Linked-In page than Wikipedia. Baldwin is not relevant in financial or politcal circles (unless a Blackberry commercial qualifies him as significant). Truly successful financiers, which Baldwin is not, do not have the need to post their own articles. I am sure the examiner at FINRA that Baldwin specifically names would have an issue with the description set forth in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.210.97.56 (talk) 23:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

— 63.210.97.56 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep, but rewrite: the references already in the article demonstrate notability, but the article as it stands doesn't come close to satisfying WP:NPOV, and needs some significant editing to make it suitable for Wikipedia. I've tagged it as such, but am unlikely to have time to work on it myself in the next few days. Scog (talk) 19:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Delete It reads like an ad for this Mr. Baldwin fellow, and that isn't what WP is. It needs improvement, badly, but I want to purge it, as it is a stain on wikipedia. --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 13:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep but edit:The page needs editing but Baldwin is clearly significant. Trader 999 and the various unsigned comments seem to be POV pushing their own agenda. The original author placed in references from FINRA and the SEC that were removed when other Wikipedians mentioned relevant facts. Baldwin is notable and relevant. The article should stay. Historylover9 (talk) 22:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

— Historylover9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep but rewrite:The facts are verifiable; the page needs more of an NPOB. Mr. Baldwin has significant accomplishments.Investing In Truth (talk) 22:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

— Investing In Truth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep but Edit: The page needs editing, however should remain. Baldwin's relevancy is clearly evidenced through the multiple references provided. What Baldwin has accomplished is noteworthy, therefore the article should stay.--Marketm5 (talk) 23:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

— Marketm5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep but edit: The page needs continued editing. I believe that the WK:AGF is questionable per the last undisnged post. The unsigned author thinks that Wikipedia is an personal tool for punishment. The purpose is not for airing personal grievances. Greenreader7 (talk) 15:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

— Greenreader7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 04:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• • Comment What is going on with this afd? I think it needs to be canned and started over. What's the normal course of action when things look this, err, strange? Beach drifter (talk) 04:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
    • People vote as normal and votes that were clearly made by socks are simply ignored. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 05:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• This article IS junk I agree, but on its face the notability does appear to be there. Burn it down and start over. JBsupreme (talk) 15:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Now a keeper. The slashing, burning, and regrowth have all happened, and in swift time, too. JBsupreme (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete clear vanity page for somebody with no indication of WP:BLP notability. Simonm223 (talk) 15:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• 'Delete Vanity article, no non-trivial source; ignore the keeps from the socks and I think the consensus is clear now. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Keep per Cunard's rewrite, good work as always. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
• Back to Delete per Hoary's analysis of the sources, not enough. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Heck with it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Although this discussion is filled with many sockpuppets, Shawn Baldwin is notable. See this article from Black Enterprise, this article from Crain Communications, this article from Financial Week, and this article from Money Magazine. These sources prove that Baldwin passes WP:BIO, so this article should be kept. Cleanup and tone issues are not valid reasons for deletion. Cunard (talk) 23:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Addendum: I'll clean up the article within the next few days. Cunard (talk) 23:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• I have cleaned up / rewritten the article. Cunard (talk) 23:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Hang on: two within that list of four articles are actually the same as each other. The longest treatment I noticed was this one, which suggests that our man was, at the time of writing, a kind of faded business sleb notable for looks and one or both of incompetence and bad luck. If he's notable for having screwed up (or for having been screwed), then it's as the boss (or "CEO" or whatever's the current jargon) of a company that, rightly or wrongly, hasn't got its own article in en:WP. Famously, the lack of an article in en:WP on something article-worthy is no reason not to have an article on something less article-worthy. However, there's something odd about all of this: whether or not the article was a puff piece when it was nominated for deletion, it seems very society-pagey now. If this man was/is a businessman, readers should be told about his business; as it is now, there's more emphasis on such matters as who his fair-weather pals were. I'm not "!voting" yet but in the meantime I'll say that I'm unconvinced of his notability; further, I worry that if this survives it will be a magnet for one or other kind of BLP violation. -- Hoary (talk) 02:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• The sources in the article fully establish notability. There is a lengthy article about his meeting with the Emir of Qatar by Anna Owens. The article subsequently discusses a conference that Baldwin held in Qatar when the Emir asked him to get more involved in Qatar's economy. There are six paragraphs of coverage about him in Money Magazine; this article discusses his firm and the other ventures he has undertaken. There are seven paragraphs of coverage in this Black Enterprise article and some history about him and his company in this article from the same publication. He has been named one of the top 40 bankers under 40; see this article from Investment Dealers' Digest.

  The depth of coverage in the above articles prove that Shawn Baldwin passes WP:BIO. The coverage in the above articles do not discuss him as having "screwed up"; these articles discuss his successes in the business world.

  Yes, I know that save for the two paragraph about Baldwin's conference in Qatar, the article does not cover much about business. I am not knowledgeable enough in business to write a decent summary of his business undertakings. Using the sources mentioned in the first paragraph of this response, I ask that you aid in making the article less "society-pagey". The shortfalls of the article should not mean deletion. Everything is sourced, so the article is not a BLP violation. All BLPs are magnets for BLP violations, so that argument does not apply here. The sources provided above prove that Baldwin is notable, not marginally notable, so this article should be kept for fully passing the notability guidelines. Cunard (talk) 06:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• After having to register (which I did with a fake name), I looked at the article that comes via docstoc.com. Actually it appears to be from something titled "NV". This seems to be the business equivalent of a "society" magazine. Sample: Baldwin is now contemplating a new fund, which has [a conveniently vague verb] the three top finance professors from Harvard, Wharton and Oxford [I hadn't realized that these were rated, like pop records or tennis players]. The initial investor is one of the 50 wealthiest families in the world [etc]. Aside from this uncritically recycled and unverifiable boasting, which to me reduces the credibility of the whole thing, the article is shot through with peacocquerie ("struck an emotional chord with", "prominent", "800-year-old Oxford University's Said School of Business"). I realize that much of the "editorial" content of newspaper business pages is little more than recycled press releases, but nevertheless it might be better than this. Does it exist? (Has he been written up in the FT or WSJ or similar?) -- Hoary (talk) 06:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• As far as I know, he hasn't been written up in The Wall Street Journal or Financial Times.

  Even if you were to discount the article on docstoc.com, what do you think about the depth and quality of the other sources I mentioned above? These articles are well-researched and are definitely not recycled press releases. Cunard (talk) 07:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• They don't appear well researched to me; rather, they're gushy or uncritical or both. Still, once the flimflam has been stripped away, there might be enough remaining for the construction of an article. I'm open to persuasion. Good luck working on it. -- Hoary (talk) 07:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• I guess we must disagree on this. I can't see how the articles are "gushy". They objectively present the facts about Shawn Baldwin; they do not promote him. Generally, the vast majority of news articles from reliable news organizations attempt to be — and are successful at being — uncritical - this is the same case here. There is one article that is critical of the subject and is a reliable source that presents significant coverage about the subject. You discounted this source in your initial analysis, but I do not see what is wrong with it.

  This is a valid article; the information that is currently in the article is sourced and encyclopedic. The sources clearly demonstrate notability. Cleanup/expansion issues should not be discussed at an AfD. Cunard (talk) 08:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, there is indeed some content in that FW article. My worry about it wasn't that it was unreliable, it was (and is) that its main point seems to be that Baldwin came a cropper. (Of course plenty of notable businessmen come a cropper and perhaps are now best remembered for this -- Robert Maxwell, the people at Enron, etc.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• True, but the article does call him "handsome", so he hasn't become a complete cropper. ;) Cunard (talk) 08:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep, thanks to good work by Cunard. -- Hoary (talk) 08:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the copyediting work you did on the article. By the way (even though this is not related to the AfD), what should be done when the sources contradict each other? This source says he founded Capital Management Group, while this one says he purchased Capital Management Group. (I think that Capital Management Group = Capital Management Group.) Both sources are from Money Magazine, so this discrepancy is very confusing. Cunard (talk) 08:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• My help was very minor indeed; you should get the credit for resuscitating the article. ¶ Nobody seems to have disputed the claim that Baldwin ran/runs the company, so the question is of whether he founded it as well. The article now doesn't say that he founded it. I'd just bring up the question on the talk page (complete with source for the additional claim), and see if somebody knowledgable pipes up to present either additional, independent confirmatory evidence or clear evidence that he didn't. -- Hoary (talk) 14:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After discarding the duplicate "keep", consensus is that this person does not pass the notability guidelines. Kevin (talk) 02:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Angela Fong

Angela Fong (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 BLP seems to be about someone who doesn't pass our notability guidelines. It contains four references, three of which are unreliable. iMatthew ^talk at 22:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: Top stage by appearing in WWE. Won a title in FCW. OWOW is marginally reliable. Two primary sites, and one I'm not sure of. Needs work, but she is notable enough IMO.--WillC 01:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, just appearing in WWE doesn't mean anything to prove notability. FCW isn't even the "top level" where a title win establishes notability. She hasn't done anything important yet. OWOW has not been proven reliable, but is permitted to be used only when it covers a non-controversial item, not 1/4 of an entire article. iMatthew ^talk at 10:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 18:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete the "top stage" argument doesn't work for interviwers, they're not part of "WP:ATHLETE" after all.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  11:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Still to me, working in WWE makes someone notable. I don't go by athlete much. WP:PW really needs its own notablity rules.--WillC 04:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
    • So according to "WP:WILLC" She's notable for having appeared for the WWE, next we'll have referee articles, camera men, lighting crew and Bobby who worked security at a couple of shows as "Notable". But I'm glad to that you clarified that your "support" was based on nothing more than "I like it".  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  07:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
      • I could care less about this article. I see her as notable. You see her as not, it is opinion. Get over it.--WillC 23:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - She held a "title" in FCW and now appears on the main WWE roster. Even though she's primarily an interviewer, she was recently featured as a lumberjill in a match (a sign that she may continue to become more active). LucyDoo (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Which all means nothing. None of that proves notability. iMatthew ^talk at 19:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep All Divas of the WWE roster are notable as long as they are active. Second of two POV pushes by the nominator (first being Beverley Mullins). !! Justa Punk !! 06:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Once AGAIN, simply appearing in the WWE does not prove her to be notable. If she does something in the WWE to prove her notability, maybe we can consider giving her an article. Can you tell me what she's done to do that already? Just appearing doesn't mean anything. iMatthew ^talk at 10:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I also suggest you strike the POV part of your comment. This is a discussion, not a vote. Questioning poor rationales like yours above is generally welcome. iMatthew ^talk at 10:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
      • What I said on the Beverley Mullins AfD re POV also applies here. !! Justa Punk !! 02:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
        • Well, again: you're wrong. iMatthew ^talk at 02:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
          • I do not believe I am wrong. !! Justa Punk !! 02:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 03:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:ENT, and the article has WP:NOTPLOT problems. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - She's an on-air personality/character for the most prominent wrestling company in the world. She held a title for a fairly prominent organization. It seems to me that champions from FCW have articles. To delete this article would be sharply contrary to precedents about which wrestling personalities have articles. Notability for wrestling personalities shouldn't be treated like its a hall of fame standard any more than that would be done in other fields. Lots of obscure backbenchers from Congress have articles. Even if they are relatively obscure, served only one or two terms, and don't have a major piece of legislation to their credit, their election to Congress conveys a certain level of notability. Similarly, I don't think a WWE personality needs to have several years in WWE, a WWE title, etc. Reaching the WWE itself is pretty significant. The argument that this opens the door for referees to have articles doesn't make sense because several referees were already deemed notable enough to have articles. WWE personalities like refs and interviews have enough notabilit to merit an article. A dispute about a particular cite should lead to a discussion of content rather than total deletion of the article. --JamesAM (talk) 06:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • All incorrect. A fire starting in a home is insignificant. A fire starting in a home that spreads to other homes and burns down ten houses is significant. A person who works in WWE is insignificant. A person who does notable things in the WWE is significant. If you understand my example with the fire compared to the employee, you should understand why she's not notable. iMatthew ^talk at 19:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep: Same as above.--WillC 03:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep Per James Am and Justa Punk. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 07:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

20 Hungry Piggies

20 Hungry Piggies (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. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Appears to be a non-notable book by a redlink author. GlassCobra 15:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: All that I can find is two brief reviews here and here. Joe Chill (talk) 01:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete when the article on a book fails to use the correct grammar for a possessive, all is not well. Josh Parris 03:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Reviews by Publishers Weekly, Kirkus Reviews, and School Library Journal demonstrate to me that this is considered notable. On the "all is not well" rationale for deletion, is that about a missing apostrophe? I suppose that's beyond fixing. Mandsford (talk) 15:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - if there are reliable sources reviewing the publication they can be put into the article. This may then lead to the article being kept. In it's current form I would say Delete as it has not been proven to be notable. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 12:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

---

• Could you please link to such a source Mandsford, or cite it appropriately? Thanks, NW (Talk) 03:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 03:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete since Mandsford hasn't come forth. No reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"...since Mandsford hasn't come forth" LOL. Sorry, 10-lb., I was up on Mount Sinai on an important call, and my BlackBerry was out of range. Without revealing too much, I can say that there will be four new commandments, one of them having to do with government bailouts and executive bonuses. Mandsford (talk) 13:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, the stuff about reviews is on this link [40] that was already in the article. No major research was required on my part. Clickety-click. Mandsford (talk) 15:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Meh. Not enough in my opinion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete No sources, no keep. --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 13:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - no assertion of notability. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - unless the sources are added, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 09:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Elephant. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Olifant

Olifant (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 a good article on a single word, the Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The primary difference between articles in an encyclopedia and in a dictionary is that the latter is about the word, and how it is used, whereas an encyclopedia article is about the thing that the word refers to.

This article is about a word and how it is used and derived and says nothing about the encyclopedic topic, which is the animal. This term is completely synonymous with the term 'elephant', but in the wikipedia synonymous terms are placed in the same article.

Further, it is characteristic of encyclopedia articles that they can be easily translated, as the article topic is not language-specific- whereas the topic here is simply a word in a particular language.

There already is a link to the Wiktionary:Elephant article in elephant which links to many different words for elephant, so it does not seem necessary to make this a soft redirect. Given this, I believe that the article should be merged with elephant and a permanent redirect installed.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 03:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Merge any unique information to elephant, then delete the article and turn it into a redirect. As per nom, Wikipedia is not a dictionary and the term doesn't have notability independent of "elephant". - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Can't merge and delete, that would violate GFDL because it'd be transferring authorship. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect any relevant info. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• transwiki to wikt:olifant as this is an extended dictionary entry one might find in the OED, so can be put into a "Middle English" section on wiktionary complete with an extensive etymology section. 76.66.194.183 (talk) 04:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Worth a mention in "elephant" (if it's okay with Stephen Colbert). I can't see separate articles about archaic spellings of a word. Oddly, even "Oliphant", which could probably be a dab page, redirects here. Mandsford (talk) 13:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge into elephant and redirect this one. De728631 (talk) 18:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Merge content to elephant. This shows how elephant is transliterated into other languages. I suggest creating a section in elephant which will show oliphant.--JL 09 _^q?c 03:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep The article contains more than a definition; this particular spelling has been used in several notable works of literature. See WP:NOT: "Although articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic, they should provide other types of information about that topic as well. Articles that contain nothing more than a definition should be expanded with additional encyclopedic content, if possible", and other content is present in this article. PaulGS (talk) 03:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but while it's been used in severable notable works and the article indicates how it is used, the wikipedia is not a usage guide, so it's inappropriate.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 03:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Listing uses of a word is not a usage guide, which would tell how to use something, not examples of usage.

• Comment I believe I created this page for information about the etymology of the word that seemed extraneous in Mumakil (Oliphaunt). As you can see this leads to Olifant (disambiguation). Uthanc (talk) 14:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: Olifant could either be kept or merged, but Olifant (disambiguation) seems to be in the wrong place. Most of its content is about people called Oliphant, and I should rather have it at Oliphant (disambiguation) or at Oliphant. Does Oliphant need to redirect to elephant? Moonraker2 (talk) 03:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. The information itself seems valuable but I don't believe that it is notable enough to merit its own article. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Cocytus [»talk«] 03:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per all of the above reasons for merging/redirecting. But we need to work out where namespaces titled Oliphant, Oliphaunt and Olifant should go or what they should be. Uthanc (talk) 05:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was G3 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

New Oxford High School

New Oxford High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

It's just a copy of ====Avon Grove High School==== created by vandals who think they are funny. Richiemcintosh (talk) 02:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• G3 as misleading vandalism, no prejudice against recreation. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 02:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Singkamas, Makati City

Singkamas, Makati City (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 pertaining to a village that is not notable.--Scorpion prinz ^{(Talk | contribs)} 23:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep per Wikipedia:Notability (Geographic locations) option one. There's no policy consensus on the notability of geographic locations but I'm inclined to subscribe to the inherent notability of verifiable geographic locations. Google searches reveal plenty of sources verifying its existence; adding them to the article is a cleanup issue, not an AfD issue. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. There are so many pages in Wikipedia that pertains to a barangay. Many of them were brought to AfD and but were kept. Villages are notable, too. It happens that it isn't notable to other people in the world.--JL 09 _^q?c 07:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• But there were others that were deleted as well :P --- Tito Pao (talk) 02:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Many of those barangay AfDs closed with no consensus, which is a keep by default. No consensus is not coterminous with keep. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 03:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Merge to Makati City after deleting the directory-type content (barangay officials). Inherent notability of geographical places is not a sacred cow and was never a policy, and barangays, especially those in Metro Manila, do not have sufficient notability to merit separate articles. --seav (talk) 16:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment, and still keep. Per WP:NPT option 3, places are inherently notable. I nominated this article for speedy partly because it has no context and that the place is not notable (Google hits show nothing but advertisement sites). But an admin declined the speedy saying that it geographic places are notable. We have articles like Whistley Green that was written like Singkamas, Makati except that Whistley Green has an infobox (I guess it is needed for Singkamas, Makati). Being a place in the Philippines especially Metro Manila or a Third World nation does not mean that they are not notable and does not mean to have own article. Stubbing, cleaning up and infoboxes are necessary, but places on the Third World does not mean we need to demerit its notability, something like that.--JL 09 _^q?c 14:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

You're citing a dormant proposal which hasn't been discussed in ages. WP:NPT in this case would probably only have as much impact as an essay does, accepted by some but not by others. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 17:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The Lurking

The Lurking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

None of the entries on this so-called dab page belong here. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Not a proper dab. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep in the absence of an actual article called "the Lurking"; "the Lurking" could be a reasonable redirect to any of the listed entries. (But I'll admit I'm not referencing policy there - if anyone wants to cite the relevant policy on disambiguation pages that'd further my education.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• From WP:DAB#What not to include: "A disambiguation page is not a search index. Do not add a link that merely contains part of the page title, or a link that includes the page title in a longer proper name, where there is no significant risk of confusion[…]Add a link only if the article's subject (or the relevant subtopic thereof) could plausibly be referred to by essentially the same name as the disambiguated term in a sufficiently generic context." I don't think that's the case here, since none of those is called just "The Lurking." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per Ten Pound Hammer's reference to policy above (which he also copied to my talk page). Thanks for improving my grasp of the relevant policies! - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as partial title match lists. They aren't dabs and they aren't valid list articles. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of titles with "Darker" in them, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of placenames containing the word "new", Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of places beginning with Costa, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Designated, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/On wheels, User talk:JHunterJ/Archive 7#In space and In space, User talk:JHunterJ/Archive 2#Breaking and List of phrases including breaking. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per above. No need for this page, where no confusion exists. I'm surprised we don't have something that would go by this title, or something to which this title should be redirected - but nothing jumps out at me. Perhaps it's... Lurking? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Partial title match thing. If all three were called "The Lurking Fear", a disambig might be appropriate, but it only serves to confuse in its present state, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 12:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: The Lurking (film), who's hatnotes this probably was, has been deleted. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-10-27t14:30z

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Rainbow Lounge raid

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Rainbow Lounge raid
• Articles for deletion/Rainbow Lounge raid (2nd nomination)

Rainbow Lounge raid (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 notability of this article is extremely questionable. Seems to dramatize a rather small incident. Jayson (talk) 00:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep for now. This incident has been used by the American gay press as a rallying point and, although not in the article, has enough mention to be notable. In addition, the event has caused changes in the way the law-enforcement at the state level operates. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS but we are too close in time to the event to know if this will be considered encyclopedic a year from now. Consider re-nominating this a year after the event, but only if it becomes clear that, while newsworthy, the subject is not encyclopedic. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Vaults over the GNG as has been reported throughout the US as the news search indicates. The timing of the events propelled it to national attention and as a result of the events investigations were conducted into the police conduct. -- Banjeboi 02:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep The last AFD was in July of this year. I agree with the reasoning of those above. If the event got national attention and resulted in investigations do to that attention, then its a notable event. Dream Focus 08:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep As of now, this is important. National attention, and some argue it could be Stonewall for the 21st century. Who nominated it, I mean again? --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 19:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Event clearly seems notable, covered in secondary sources and led to changes in policing and a grassroots campaign. A second nomination three months after the first one resulted in a strong consensus to keep and where nothing seems to have changed since then was really not necessary. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per the strong consensus established in the last AfD as well as here. This event meets the WP:GNG, and then some. WP:SNOW time? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clear consensus here that the improvements have remedied the problems Kevin (talk) 22:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

José I. Lozano

José I. Lozano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Completing nomination for unregistered user. Reason given on talk is: Fails notability - only citations are a press release and a primary source. PROD removed without improvement. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination - lack of significant coverage. Fails WP:BIO.  JUJUTACULAR | TALK  11:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• I vote Keep because I can provide improved references for this person. I was not finished with this article when it was tagged for proposed deletion.--ACRSM 13:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The arguments against this article are no longer relevant. Request review of the article by those who propose deletion.--ACRSM 16:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep I am satisfied that there is sufficient depth of independent coverage for an article. Please note that the reference 4 is in the way of being a press release, and should be used with caution. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, consider speedy close. Anon nominated the article while still being written and failed to revisit the issue after the article was completed and the defects apparently cured. Bad behavior. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per ACRSM's improvements. CEO of a major LA newspaper would seem notable to me, for his implied ability to shape and influence public debate if nothing else. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that while there are some sources, they are insufficient to prove notability. Kevin (talk) 02:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Guided Chaos

Guided Chaos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Badly referenced, promotional article about a non-notable sport, failing policies at WP:ARTSPAM, WP:VER and WP:N. Googling "Guided chaos" and eliminating blogs, wikis etc yields very few hits, most of which are to online bookstores. I'm sure it's a very fine martial art form but sadly nobody has ever heard of it. andy (talk) 18:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep 6 gnews hits including the new york times, 35 google book hits not all are relevant, but most are, and 14 google scholar hits, although most don't seem relevant although some are.--UltraMagnus^speak 20:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is extremely misleading. You're giving the impression that there's an undercurrent of interest in this subject by mentioning large numbers of hits many of which, by implication, are relevant. In fact the exact opposite is the truth. You mention a total of 55 possibly relevant hits whereas there are actually exactly three, two of which are simply sales pitches.

There's only one relevant gnews hit - four of the hits are about something entirely different and the other two reference the same NYT article.

Having entries in Google Books doesn't show notability, simply that you're trying to sell some books. But in any case most of those 22 hits are irrelevant (not 35 - go to the last results page to see how many hits there really are). I count exactly two that are about the subject of this article, plus one other that seems to be about a rival

And only one of the Google Scholar hits is relevant - and it links to exactly the same site as one of the Google Books hits, namely a look inside the book that the article's author is trying to promote.

andy (talk) 08:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

a new york times article (and video) and an article in Black belt magazine is more than Chuck Norris' style has. They have a reference to his book and some youtube videos. There are many martial arts articles that are more poorly referenced. This is an art that is the basis for the national bestseller for self-defense. That makes it noteworthy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liu_He_Ba_Fa has NO references. Norris' style http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chun_Kuk_Do has as it's references: It's own book, two youtube videos, and a site where you can pay to advertise your school. This article is better referenced than that any day of the week, regardless of what web searches bring up. -Devin

• The fact that other articles are even more badly referenced is no reason why this article should be kept. Why not nominate the others for deletion as well? One article in a worthy newspaper and one in a specialist magazine is pretty borderline for establishing notability (BTW the video is the video of the article, so that's one reference not two). And where's the evidence that the book is the national bestseller or even a national bestseller? andy (talk) 17:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - the article does not assert the notability of this martial art. (See WP:ITEXISTS) A merge to its founder, or to its founder's book, may also be an appropriate option. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Unless improved. Needs some quality sources to back up the article text and assert notability. Beach drifter (talk) 04:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Walter Romney

Walter Romney (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 actor. Limited GHits and no GNEWS. Appears to fail WP:ENT ttonyb (talk) 19:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this actor. Joe Chill (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete No evidence of passing WP:ENT Triplestop x3 00:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. December21st2012Freak ^chat 02:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - falls a long way short of WP:ENT. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom does not meet entertainer notability guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as relying on WP:INHERITED for notability. The article's assertion consists of the one sentence "Walter Romney is an American Actor best known for his work with director Sean Weathers", which kind of says it all. Sorry Walter... we need something more than 2 movies or working with someone who is themselves notable. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Sniff Petrol

Sniff Petrol (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 assertion of the blog's notability; wholly unsourced Karpouzi (talk) 18:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this online magazine. Joe Chill (talk) 21:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - no assertion it meets any criterion under WP:WEB. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB. Warrah (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Reliable Car Transportation

Reliable Car Transportation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Procedural nom for IP. Original nomination statement below, pasted from article's talk page. lifebaka++ 17:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

No indication of notability, severe conflict of interest and NPOV concerns. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 17:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. UltraMagnus^speak 20:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete No indication of notability. I can't find and significant coverage in reliable sources. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 00:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 01:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 argument that references may exist and will be produced have not come to fruition. Kevin (talk) 22:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Jeffrey Allen Smith

Jeffrey Allen Smith (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 person. Citations are either insignificant (mere listings) or do not verify facts in hand. PROD denied. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. It's cool that he worked with these musicians, but neither this nor his ecclesiastical work make him notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The following comment is transcluded from Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Allen Smith.

• I understand the policies, and I have deleted the information (specifically, that Jeffrey Allen Smith has three top-40 hits) that I was unable to find resources for. I also went through the article and found multiple back-up sources for other facts. I am in communication with the staff at Billboard and attempting to find the actual written proof of his three top-40 hits so that the article will contain information that proves that Jeffrey Allen Smith is notable enough to be found on Wikipedia. Providing I can prove the existence of these three top-40 hits, will the article be admissible for Wikipedia, or are there other issues that need to be taken care of? Thanks!

Cityassistant (talk) 22:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment The references included in the article as of this writing are either primary sources (the pastor's church website), or are insignificant mentions of Smith having appeared as part of a singing group, or don't mention Smith at all. A search of "Jeffrey Allen Smith" at Billboard.com lists two artists: one Jeffery Smith (not the same person) and a James Allen Smith (also not the same person). I'm not sure how extensive Billboard's online archive is, but if Smith has 3 top-40 singles under his belt, I would think he would at least be in their database. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I searched the archives as well, and the problem is that for the specific chart that he had Top 40 hits on (Christian music) the Billboard archives don't extend as far back as 1993 and 1994. I am working on getting verifiable proof that the singles were hits. Question - if the proof is not online, but actually like a paper printout sent to me from Billboard, via fax or pdf, how do I cite that? Can i use non electronic resources for a wiki article?71.1.7.146 (talk) 14:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The printout will likely be a copy of the magazine articles which listed the songs, including the publication date, page numbers, etc. This would be a sufficient reference, as it would be verifiable by others who care to search their local libraries for archived Billboard copies. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Party Dark

Party Dark (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 WP:BAND criteria: claim to meet criterion 12 is unreferenced and I can't find any source. Prod was contested and {{inuse}} was added, which I removed after three days with no edits having been made. – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 16:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Weak keep per WP:BAND#6 - Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians. Lugnuts (talk) 16:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd like to point out that, despite being blue-linked in the article, "Randy" and "J-Rock" are piped to Big Brovaz and are not independently notable. (Bradley McIntosh is, though.) Thanks. – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 17:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - while I can understand the rationale whereby bands formed by ex-members of notable bands are themselves notable, I'd say that the resultant band has to have at least been active in some way to earn an article. The sum total of this band's career appears to consist of forming and "hoping for a record deal", which for me doesn't cut it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Freecycle (software)

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Freecycle (software)
• Articles for deletion/Freecycle (software) (2nd nomination)

Freecycle (software) (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 significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 23:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. This would appear to be something with some consumer interest, but if Joe can't find sources I doubt I will either. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom: no publications, no media coverage, no notability. --GreyCat (talk) 15:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After 13 days of discussion, there's a consensus that the subject is notable and nobody besides the nominator is arguing for deletion. Any POV or COI issues can be dealt with through the normal editing process. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Bedeutung

Bedeutung (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:NOT, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Bedeutung. Was speedied previously as Blatant advertising.

• Part of a long history of Spam and promotion on Wikipedia, see also -Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#bedeutung.co.uk_spam

Self-promotion and product placement are WP:NOT the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote bedeutung.co.uk Hu12 (talk) 15:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Leaning keep Judging from the contributors and the Guardian ref, it is vanishingly unlikely that this topic fails to meet our notability guidelines. I appreciate the concerns about editorial motivation and article content, but they are simply besides the point when it comes to non-speedy deletion.  Skomorokh, barbarian  00:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep WP:NOTABILITY: Bedeutung is a print quarterly magazine, published in Britain and distributed worldwide. WP:SPAM: This article does not read like SPAM. It's had enough contributors that even if there were WP:COI in creating the article, that the article now reads WP:NPOV free.  kgrr ^talk 20:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • NPOV free...? Freudian slip, mate? ;o) --Whoosit (talk) 22:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Weak keep. It's still spammy. It lacks a variety of sources. But it seems to pass a bare minimum standard for notability. Let's see how it changes in the coming weeks & months... --Whoosit (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

James DeFrances

James DeFrances (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Seems like a self-promotional article, can't find no google hits, just mirrors, and promotional info, nothing on google news as well Delete Secret ^account 13:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete along with all those happy snaps. NN. Josh Parris 01:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete this rubbish! Some gawky self-publicist, not a musician! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.42.139 (talk) 21:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

---

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, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. His only album is distributed through the digital music equivalent of a vanity press ("Anyone can have their music distributed to iTunes and many other online stores for a small annual fee." according to TuneCore), his accolades are not major awards (the Three Little Bakers Dinner Theatre Idol Search?), and everything else is working as a local opening act or trivia (internship, a "backstage appearance"). Nothing comes close to meeting WP:BAND. — Gwalla | Talk 17:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Pure self-promotion Spiderone 15:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all except The Champion. I'm surprised no-one's noticed, but bar the last one, these are all copyvios of other websites. Deleted and then redirected to the main artist page, can be re-created if they're written properly. Black Kite 13:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Long Time Coming (eLDee album) and others

Long Time Coming (eLDee 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)

Articles (multiple published here) seem to fall more or less afoul of WP:MUSIC. I'm nominating this in tandem with the current nomination of Eldee for deletion. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Also nominated are following:

Return of the King (Eldee album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Big Boy (eLDee album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Champion: The Hits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 08:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. UltraMagnus^speak 13:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

---

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, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep since Eldee is bound to be kept for sources dug up at his afd. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Indian Pentecostal Church of God. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Pentecostal Young People's Association

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Pentecostal Young People's Association

Pentecostal Young People's Association (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 organization, for which I cannot find any significant coverage in Google News, only some passing mentions. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Unreferenced organization, no indication of notability. Simonm223 (talk) 14:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Weak keep - I have found some mentions on a Google search, which may be evidence of some notability. Bearian (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, there are some mentions there--but the ones I looked at which weren't simply from websites (such as this) were only passing mentions, not significant discussion or coverage. Drmies (talk) 18:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Merge to Indian Pentecostal Church of God, unless it is expanded enough to warrant an article of its own during the AFD period. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Merge. The hits on Google that I'm seeing (apart from the first several which are all primary sources and thus not sufficient under WP:GROUP) hint that it's possible to meet notability, but I don't think it's widespread and significant enough to merit its own article. Cocytus [»talk«] 02:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. cleanup would be very helpful here, but there's a consensus this person is notable. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Tyler Yarema

Tyler Yarema (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 advertisement; could have been speedied, but declined by another editor, so taking it here Orange Mike | Talk 02:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment Citing 3 Awards & Recognitions, I think the biggest problem is that the article is very badly written, and yet I cannot bring myself to defend it from a delete. Josh Parris 02:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep 118 google news hits [41] so seems notable UltraMagnus^speak 13:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• keep and improve he is big in Toronto Got nominated for the Maple Leaf Awards, plays at big jazz music festivals. Biggest problem for proper sourcing is that the toronto star requires a subscription fee for older articles. 88.71.96.63 (talk) 14:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Given that I wrote the page, I am curious to know what can be done to inprove it. It's true that you need a subcription to the Toronto Star and other periodicals so you cannot site this information via an online source. Having said that I can source it the old school way... Would that help? Saralarah13 (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I think so. Check WP:BAND, figure out which 1 or more of the 12 criteria it meets, and reflect that with reliable sources. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. I think that his 2 victories in the Maple Blues Awards results in him meeting number 9 of WP:BAND, "Has won or placed in a major music competition." The article needs some serious work formatting-wise, but I think it meets notability. Cocytus [»talk«] 02:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

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