Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 December 2
< 1 December | 3 December > |
---|
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It's snowing. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ACDSee[edit]
- ACDSee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article fails to establish its notability as required by Wikipedia Notability Guideline as this entire article does not cite a single reliable source, let alone citing significant coverage in reliable sources. Fleet Command (talk) 23:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Obvious Keep - The last AFD was a snowball keep, don't renom unless you can justify why that outcome was wrong. Does it need sourcing added? Indeed! So let's do it!--Milowent • talkblp-r 00:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Yes, it was a WP:SNOW close but time proved that the assertion of the presence of reliable sources in that article was a flawed premise: One year has passed since that time and you guys still have failed to cite sources for the assertions of that article. Notability requires verifiable evidence. It you want to keep the article, then cite sources in it. Fleet Command (talk) 11:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Its poor form to renominate without explaining what has changed or why prior close was incorrect. "Time" has proved no such thing, and people have linked to sources to support their view even when not improving the article. I am no techie, and only commented this time and last time because even I knew this was notable.--Milowent • talkblp-r 14:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - A very well-known and popular utility; lots of reviews and references can easily be found. SteveStrummer (talk) 03:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Yes, yes, you guys said the same thing in the first AFD too but never actually managed to add any source to the article itself. Stop showing us Google Search results. If sources really exist, add them to the article. Fleet Command (talk) 11:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Definitely keep. All this article needs is tags that refs are missing. Topic is completely notable. - xpclient Talk 05:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I was surprised to see the name on the list. (It doesn't excuse it from needing references, though!) --Pnm (talk) 09:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me surprise you more: An administrator has been exercising his privileges to blank and redirect the article without a discussion. By bringing this article to AFD, I gave this article another chance of survival. But next year I won't do that. I'll let the article go. (I don't mean to be bludgeoning by repeating what I already said twice above.) Fleet Command (talk) 11:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To be clear, redirection is something anyone can do, and nothing to do with administration privileges. I was being bold with the notability guidelines for products - to contest it, one merely has to revert and add the assertion of notability. I'm not sure why deletion is on the table: this could've been discussed on the talk page. The Maximum PC review above is satisfactory. Marasmusine (talk) 11:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's right. Actually, I did not intend to connect "administrator" and "privileges" in a manner that means "administrative privileges" (and I don't feel that I actually did so.) As for deletion being on the table, AFD attracts more visitors. I have realized that under certain circumstances, it is much more fruitful to bring a problematic article to AFD instead of just crying in the talk page one more time along with other criers; after all, obscure articles have obscure talk pages. Fleet Command (talk) 11:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To be clear, redirection is something anyone can do, and nothing to do with administration privileges. I was being bold with the notability guidelines for products - to contest it, one merely has to revert and add the assertion of notability. I'm not sure why deletion is on the table: this could've been discussed on the talk page. The Maximum PC review above is satisfactory. Marasmusine (talk) 11:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me surprise you more: An administrator has been exercising his privileges to blank and redirect the article without a discussion. By bringing this article to AFD, I gave this article another chance of survival. But next year I won't do that. I'll let the article go. (I don't mean to be bludgeoning by repeating what I already said twice above.) Fleet Command (talk) 11:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The software is notable as evidenced by reviews. AFD is not article cleanup. -- Whpq (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Lots of sources. And I don't remember having nominated the article for cleanup! Fleet Command (talk) 02:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: software reviews seldom get reprinted in the Washington Post and Reuters. I would however wish to see the article contain information about the development history and market prominence of this product, not just a features and versions list. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong comment 19:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Sources are readily available, last AfD was a snow keep. Article requires cleanup only. SnottyWong comment 19:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Repeated nominations Fleet Command (talk) 02:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow Keep WP:BEFORE #9, and the user who redirected it should have brought it up at WP:WikiProject Software or you should have. 64.229.102.230 (talk) 05:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's see, sir: "Keep per WP:BEFORE" and "Delete per violation of WP:GNG, WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:V". Hmmm... Fleet Command (talk) 11:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fix or delete The article at present is barely sourced and reads as an advertisement. If there are sources available, add them and do some rewrites to make it more in line of what an article should read like. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 08:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jump on in Wolfstorm000, its waiting for you!--Milowent • talkblp-r 06:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry guy, I'm looking at multiple people who obviously want to keep this article and are bringing sources to an AfD without adding them to the article first, and then posting here. If you want the article kept, then the relevant questions need to be answered and the relevant objections need to be satisfied. If you Milowent are one of the ones who want the article kept, take your own advice. Have fun! Wolfstorm000 (talk) 07:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You can say that again. Fleet Command (talk) 12:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I spend a great deal of time improving articles. "fix or delete" is a lazy comment that is never acceptable in my opinion. That's what WP:SOFIXIT, a Wikipedia guideline, is all about. This is going to be kept, so stop whining about it and use your obvious smarts and expertise to rectify it!--Milowent • talkblp-r 14:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, yes, I agree. But for an article that people assert to be notable but does not prove its notability per WP:NRVE, I don't think so.
Besides, a very small amount of forceful action is always required to make people comply. Otherwise, people who want to improve things will end up where I did: Once, I proposed a merger of Windows Media Player and Windows Media Player 11. People participated and put a lot of difficult conditions for merger. (You can still see the discussion in the talk page.) But when it came to actual action, I was out there for three months trying to find sources and couldn't. I pleaded for help in finding sources that all of us had took it for granted to exist, but none of those "voters" helped me. They just hanged me to dry. And I couldn't do anything because there was no motivation for them to help.
So, you see, being so civil and assuming good faith does not always work: You need source and people say there is source, but when it comes to action, you'll be surprised how useless those sources were. That's how it is right now: People say Snowball keep; there are a lot of sources. But none of those voters add them to the article because these sources are useless. Only its a case of I Like It and they never admit that these sources are useless. The motivating force of deletion is required: Add good sources (which I don't believe to be in existence) to the article, or we do it by the book; no proof of notability = deletion.
Fleet Command (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Glad to hear your opinion. You were the first one to say "lets fix it" so fix it. Also keep in mind that alluding other editors are lazy and whining would be dangerously close to violating WP:CIVIL. Like I said, If you like the article and think its worthy, fix it. Since this was posted I see I believe 10 votes for keep and the only editing that was done was by the nominator, the same one everyones complaining about, and another editor who put in the rescue tag. Milowent, you have spent a considerable amount of time talking in this AfD to keep the article yet have done nothing to actually address this issue, besides being coming close to being uncivil to another editor, myself. The article was nominated for non- referenced and advert. violations, if anyone wants the article kept, those must be addressed. They have not so at this point in time another admin could technically come around and delete and be within policy. If there are no references included and the advert. issue isnt changed it is deletable. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 19:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I spend a great deal of time improving articles. "fix or delete" is a lazy comment that is never acceptable in my opinion. That's what WP:SOFIXIT, a Wikipedia guideline, is all about. This is going to be kept, so stop whining about it and use your obvious smarts and expertise to rectify it!--Milowent • talkblp-r 14:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You can say that again. Fleet Command (talk) 12:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry guy, I'm looking at multiple people who obviously want to keep this article and are bringing sources to an AfD without adding them to the article first, and then posting here. If you want the article kept, then the relevant questions need to be answered and the relevant objections need to be satisfied. If you Milowent are one of the ones who want the article kept, take your own advice. Have fun! Wolfstorm000 (talk) 07:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jump on in Wolfstorm000, its waiting for you!--Milowent • talkblp-r 06:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Click the Google news archive search at the top of the AFD! [1] Major news organizations write articles reviewing it. Dream Focus 15:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Clearly notable software. How many image organizers get reviews in the Washington Post and Reuters? The GNG requires the existence of RS, not necessarily their immediate inclusion in the article, and AFD is not for cleanup. ----Divebomb is not British 19:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Milowent (you bootybutt!) and the link kindly provided by DreamFocus. Sure, snow would be fine. Drmies (talk) 00:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The subject clearly meets the inclusion guidelines based on significant independent coverage in reliable sources. The sole delete voter demonstrates a lack of familiarity with deletion policy, which states "if the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." Bongomatic 01:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. I don't see a clear decision here, so I suggest the supporters of the article work to improve it. It may be nominated again (but not by me). KrakatoaKatie 01:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Celtic v Aberdeen (6 November 2010)[edit]
- Celtic v Aberdeen (6 November 2010) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Admittedly I'm not terribly familiar with the Scottish Premier League, but as far as I can tell this individual football match fails WP:Sports event as it did not decide a championship, was not an "all-star" type exhibition, and has little to no coverage beyond routine coverage. —KuyaBriBriTalk 23:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This match was a Scottish Premier League record, contributed heavily to the sacking of Mark McGhee, was a record defeat for Aberdeen and was were 'Poppygate' occured. I definitely think that those reasons make it a significant match. Adam4267 (talk) 23:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reasons why this match is significant:
- SPL record victory
- Aberdeen record defeat
- Contributed heavily to the sacking of Mark Mcghee
- This match could decide the title as goals count if teams are level on points, the 02-03 season was decided by one goal
- The match gained significant headlines throughout Britain and 10x the average amount for a normal Celtic match (Google search 'Celtic 9-0 aberdeen' 2.5m hits, 'celtic 2-2 inverness 27 nov' 250k hits, 'Celtic 1-3 Rangers 24 oct' 350k hits)
- This match hosted a political protest which also gained significant headlines throughout Britain ('Celtic poppy banner' 140k hits) Adam4267 (talk) 02:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia is not The Sporting News. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 23:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. per nomination. And not just because I support Aberdeen. Swaddon1903 (talk) 09:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the game itself is non-notable on its own. The only notable fact is that is is a home record win in the Scottish top flight, but it is not enough to establish notability for a separate article; a mention in the Scottish Premier League article as a record win is the best, and only, solution. --Angelo (talk) 10:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - All the things mentioned by Adam4267 are important, but this article is not the answer. We alreay cover all the information in appropriate articles: 1) Scottish league record: already mentioned at 2010–11_Scottish_Premier_League#Events, plenty of space for expansion if there are sufficient sources. 2) The games impact on the sacking of Mark McGhee: already mentioned Aberdeen_F.C.#Recent years (1987–present), plenty of space for more information. 3) "Poppygate", already covered fairly extensively in Green Brigade#"Poppygate" but again if there is more information available it can be added. (had edit conflict) Suicidalhamster (talk) 11:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no decent reason given as to why this match is notable. GiantSnowman 14:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. Record win in the Scottish Premier League. Contributes to the sacking of Mark McGhee, and was Aberdeen's record defeat. Velociraptor888 20:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, a match that sets a league record is notable in itself. It is also Aberdeen's record defeat. There was an article about the match and its historical context (ie Aberdeen's decline since their glory days under Alex Ferguson) in the New York Times, for goodness' sakes [2]. I think this signifies a highly unusual notability of this particular match, per "a game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved (e.g. Pacers-Pistons brawl or the Blood in the Water match)" in WP:Sports event. Also see previous afds about league record matches, ie Manchester United F.C. 9–0 Ipswich Town F.C.. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We could discuss whether the game was widely covered, in addition to the normal coverage any premier league game recieves - but whichever way the pendulum were to swing I think it would be fairly borderline keep or delete. However I think it is more instructive to consider the article in the light of WP:SUMMARY. We have the suitable parent article: History of Aberdeen F.C., which has this to say "Calderwood was replaced by Mark McGhee, who was sacked on 1 December 2010." Thats it! No more detail! Let's add the impact of the 9-0 defeat especially as we can reference the New York Times article. Then if the section covering the 9-0 defeat gets too big we can split it out into its own article. The History of Aberdeen F.C. article is well established, linked to in other articles and probably is easily found by readers. Let's put our effort into that article rather than starting an article which is clearly an offspring of it. Suicidalhamster (talk) 19:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see why you can't have both. The policy says that you need coverage beyond the routine; a detailed report in the New York Times goes way beyond "routine" for a SPL match. You're lucky if you get a full match report for a SPL match in a London newspaper! Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We could discuss whether the game was widely covered, in addition to the normal coverage any premier league game recieves - but whichever way the pendulum were to swing I think it would be fairly borderline keep or delete. However I think it is more instructive to consider the article in the light of WP:SUMMARY. We have the suitable parent article: History of Aberdeen F.C., which has this to say "Calderwood was replaced by Mark McGhee, who was sacked on 1 December 2010." Thats it! No more detail! Let's add the impact of the 9-0 defeat especially as we can reference the New York Times article. Then if the section covering the 9-0 defeat gets too big we can split it out into its own article. The History of Aberdeen F.C. article is well established, linked to in other articles and probably is easily found by readers. Let's put our effort into that article rather than starting an article which is clearly an offspring of it. Suicidalhamster (talk) 19:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article definitely needs improving, but league record victories are certainly notable. J Mo 101 (talk) 11:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment small question: what if Aberdeen tomorrow loses 0-10 to some other opponent? Are you gonna delete the article because it's no longer a record loss, or what? That would make you all understand why we should not allow room for such articles... And the fact it contributed to the sacking of Aberdeen's manager is just irrelevant: if we start making an article for all games that contributed to the sacking of a football coach, then we would be flooded by tons of such articles, most of them being quite unnoticeable (I am Italian, and in my country there's even a history of football manager being sacked after losing a friendly match!) --Angelo (talk) 20:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NTEMP. I think the stronger claim to relevance is the fact it is a league record. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NTEMP seems a slightly strawman argument, though. Since by that reasoning, every match in history that has set a league record is notable and should have its own article. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed
- wether you like it or not their is a precedent for league record matches to have their own article Adam4267 (talk) 14:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NTEMP. I think the stronger claim to relevance is the fact it is a league record. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I'm happy for 'record victories in top tiers' to be enough for establishing validity. Note once again the absence of standards for football match articles. Pretty Green (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 00:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Angelique Burgos[edit]
- Angelique Burgos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Long-term unsourced BLP with little or no notability. The WordsmithCommunicate 22:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Actually quite notable in Puerto Rico, as a simple search shows [3]. I know because this article was tagged as unreferenced in July 2008, which is the current month of BLPS that Wikipedia:Unreferenced BLP Rescue is working on, and I looked, but I hadn't taken on the task of reviewing the mostly spanish sources yet.--Milowent • talkblp-r 05:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The sources added demonstrate sufficient coverage to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per improvements made by the fine WP:AFTER as recommended by WP:ATD and performed by User:Milowent. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yavuz Mollasalihoğlu[edit]
- Yavuz Mollasalihoğlu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Long-term unsourced BLP with little or no notability. The WordsmithCommunicate 22:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete NN civil servant. No significant coverage, at least, not that plugging the Gnews results into Gtranslate can uncover. RayTalk 03:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Some mention in Turkish news sources [4] but I haven't dug into job title, it doesn't sound very high.--Milowent • talkblp-r 05:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete - I don't know how well indexed Turkish news sources are in Google News, but the results would indicate that this person is a senior civil servant that attracts enough notice that his appointment is covered. See this. so it is not at all clearcut that he non-notable. But I can find no other sources that write about the -- only him being quoted in relationship to his role as Director General for Foreign Trade Standards. As such, with this being a BLP, there isn't the sources to provide a verifiable article beyond stating his government position. -- Whpq (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep and improve. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ko Iso[edit]
- Ko Iso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Long-term unsourced BLP with little or no notability. The WordsmithCommunicate 22:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not sure where the name "Ko Iso" comes from, but translating the Japanese name provided in the article at the Japanese Go Association (see the EL I've added to the article) leads me to a page on a player that appears to be this player, and whose English names is given as "Huang Yih Tzuu". Automated translation gives a name more like "Ho Iso", so that could be the cause. --j⚛e deckertalk 18:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Ugh - some indication of notability, do we have any standards as to what level a Go player needs to reach for notability? (p.s. also hilarious that the japanese wiki page notes his height and that he's one of the "best tall" players of Go, height seems to be a pop culture fixation in Japan/S. Korea, etc.)--Milowent • talkblp-r 18:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I am unfamiliar with Go, and Go's ranking system, but reading Wikipedia's article on Go ranks and ratings would indicate that there may be notability. As I have no clue on the matter, I've left a note at Wikipedia:WikiProject Go advising them of this AFD. -- Whpq (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think we need to
- find & add refs to prove he exists & is at least 4-dan pro
- establish notability.
- The latter comes from the former, if as I'm sure I'll be able to prove, he's >=4-dan.
- Established precedent from an informed editor - life-long Go and chess player (& WP admin.) User:Charles Matthews - is that 4-dan pro upwards are on a par with chess grandmasters, hence notable in the Go world.
- (Disclaimer: I'm an amateur Go player, & work on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Go articles.)
- BTW, thanks guys for the heads-up & for your efforts. I'll be seeing to this within the next few days. Trafford09 (talk) 18:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe the former is easily demonstrated by the EL from the Japan Go Association, which lists him as 7-dan, yes? That doesn't go towards GNG-style "notability from sources" but it seems enough to WP:V the claim, and therefore inherent notability. If I'm not missing something, that leaves me at keep. --j⚛e deckertalk 19:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tony Koh[edit]
- Tony Koh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Long-term unsourced BLP with little or no notability. The WordsmithCommunicate 22:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Cannot find any sources about this guy, and in the only film article which mentions him (The Best Bet) his role seems to be very small. Suicidalhamster (talk) 10:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. His limited movie roles are all minor. I'm assuming that JTeam is this which would appear to be a production company for which he works. None of this adds up to notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Shelley Lubben. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Truth Behind the Fantasy of Porn: The Greatest Illusion on Earth[edit]
- Truth Behind the Fantasy of Porn: The Greatest Illusion on Earth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. This self-published autobiographical book does not meet the criteria for inclusion found at WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The book has not won a major literary award; has not made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement; is not the subject of instruction at multiple elementary schools, secondary schools, colleges/universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country; and finally, the author is not historically significant that any of her written works may be considered notable. All due respect to Shelley. Cindamuse (talk) 22:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deletemerge per below. One reference is Amazon.com. Only other reference from local news. Fails WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:NBOOK. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 23:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Merge to the article on the author Shelley Lubben. This is what should be done with most autobiographies, unless the book itself has some great importance. Borock (talk) 14:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gul Muhammad Khan Jakhrani[edit]
- Gul Muhammad Khan Jakhrani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Long-term unsourced BLP with little or no notability. The WordsmithCommunicate 22:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unreferenced bio where sources are hard to find. There are way too many politicians in Pakistan with Gul, Muhammed (and all variants on spelling), and Khan in their names somewhere. Even when I found a source, there isn't enough in our article for me to be sure I was dealing with the same guy - I'm no expert on Pakistan, but I consider that a fail of WP:V. RayTalk 03:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- RayTalk 03:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yehuda Lavi Ben-David[edit]
- Yehuda Lavi Ben-David (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Long-term unsourced BLP with little or no notability. The WordsmithCommunicate 21:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Seems to have contributed to a chapter in this book [5], but thats about all I can find. And searching "Badei HaShulchan" "Yehuda Lavi Ben-David" just produces mirrors of our article. Suicidalhamster (talk) 19:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —--Misarxist 10:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It's not clear who this Yehuda Lavi Ben-David is. Google searches in English and Hebrew say that the author of Badei Hashulchan on Hilkhot Basar B'Chalav in Shulchan Aruch Yoreh De'ah is Rabbi Shraga Feivel Cohen.[6] Perhaps the stub writer made a mistake? Yoninah (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete - non-notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kalimollah Tavahhodi[edit]
- Kalimollah Tavahhodi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Long-term unsourced BLP with little or no notability. The WordsmithCommunicate 21:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Can't find reliable sources other than a passing reference to a book he wrote, doesn't rise to GNG that I can see. Searched for alternate names and also using the Arabic script (but I don't speak Arabic.) --j⚛e deckertalk 17:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: per nom. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 07:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. So tagged. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 00:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Buyuk Vatankhah[edit]
- Buyuk Vatankhah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Long-term unsourced BLP with little or no notability. The WordsmithCommunicate 21:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Passes WP:NFOOTY. I've inserted a single source that verifies that fact. The article could still do with a lot more sourcing. RayTalk 03:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The source in the article describes him as a "legendary player' from his country, so claim of "little or no notability" in nomination is simply wrong.--Milowent • talkblp-r 05:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: An important retired footballer and a former member of Team Melli.Farhikht (talk) 13:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - appears to be a player and manager of some note. GiantSnowman 19:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Sources now cited verify that he meets WP:NSPORTS. Needs some of the OR trimmed down though. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Added sources verify this person's notability. J Mo 101 (talk) 15:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 10:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fatemeh Naghavi[edit]
- Fatemeh Naghavi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Long-term unsourced BLP with little or no notability. The WordsmithCommunicate 21:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Already added 4 sources in quick measure, appears to be quote notable Iranian actress, to the extent that you can even find sources in English. I added Persian spelling to the article for help in finding Persian news sources, which are also out there.--Milowent • talkblp-r 06:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Fails WP:ENT which says that the actress should have "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". The only notable film of Fatemeh Naghavi is The Circle (Dayereh), and it's not enough at all to pass notability guideline.Farhikht (talk) 13:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The nominator's concern with it originally having no sources has now been addressed, and in considering how little coverage of Iranian film and TV makes it outside that media-controlled cointry, I am pleased to note that she has found western coverage in news and books.[8][9] I'm satisfied that she meets WP:PEOPLE through application of both WP:GNG and WP:ENT. And as en.Wikipedia does not require that notability be world-wide, or even Western-wide, kudos to Milowent for digging through the available sources. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep per Milowent. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jeong Gyu-hwa[edit]
- Jeong Gyu-hwa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Long-term unsourced BLP with little or no notability. The WordsmithCommunicate 21:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No coverage to be found, city council member of a city with a population under 100k. Especially in East Asia, that's tiny. RayTalk 03:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- RayTalk 03:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 00:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yoshiki Kuramoto[edit]
- Yoshiki Kuramoto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Long-term unsourced BLP with little or no notability. The WordsmithCommunicate 21:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- RayTalk 03:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Clear pass of WP:PROF, with h-index of 26. The Kuramoto model is the starting point for a lot of work in complex systems, and the entire field has received a good deal of outside attention, for example, from Nature (article behind paywall, but I can provide a copy to any editor interested, and so can any other editor with university library access). RayTalk 04:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Ray. Why has nominator nominated so many articles with identical rationale, i.e., "Long-term unsourced BLP with little or no notability." Some of them are non notable, some are clearly not, but nominations are identical. Here, the subject has a whole separate article on something they conceived of.--Milowent • talkblp-r 06:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep on evidence of Ray. I endorse the concerns about the behavior of this nominator expressed by Milowent. To be more specfic, I suggest that the nominator confine his undoubted zeal for deleting BLPs to the non-academic ones and leave the academic ones to people who are prepared to put in the work to do WP:Before. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep per decent H-index. Nergaal (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 10:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ichiyo Kuwabara[edit]
- Ichiyo Kuwabara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Long-term unsourced BLP with little or no notability. The WordsmithCommunicate 21:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete. No indication of importance or notability. --DAJF (talk) 00:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete' Unable to locate sourcing. But then, I don't read Japanese. Dlohcierekim 03:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I don't read Japanese either, but based on the imperfect use of machine translation, it appears the only impact he has made on the web is in the back catalogs of book publishers, and it's not like Japan is a technological backwater where they don't put things on the web ;). I conclude that Kuwabara does not meet WP:CREATIVE, so delete on notability grounds. Thparkth (talk) 01:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. She won 11th Subaru Literary Award with Crossroad in 1987[10] so there probably are reviews of her work published at the time and may pass WP:BIO. Google Books search for subject:"Literary Criticism" "桑原一世" produces more than 50 results. --Kusunose 04:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hitomi Akino[edit]
- Hitomi Akino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Long-term unsourced BLP with little or no notability. The WordsmithCommunicate 21:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as failing WP:ENT and WP:GNG. The best that one might say is that this one is WP:TOOSOON. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tom DeWeese[edit]
- Tom DeWeese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lacks notability; I nominated a related article (an organization he created) for deletion two weeks ago which passed. The article seems to be a vanity article that just discusses this non-notable person's political views. Wikipediarules2221 21:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Merely being a columnist or pundit does not make one notable. I checked the Proquest newspaper archive and found a few articles with brief quotations from him but no profiles. Therefore, the subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Will Beback talk 23:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Bangon na, Bayan!. Spartaz Humbug! 10:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Joel Reyes Zobel[edit]
- Joel Reyes Zobel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Long-term unsourced BLP with little or no notability. The WordsmithCommunicate 21:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 00:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 08:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Bangon na, Bayan!. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Jujutacular talk 02:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Trixie Chua[edit]
- Trixie Chua (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Long-term unsourced BLP with little or no notability. The WordsmithCommunicate 21:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Pretty marginal - some notability in late 80s/early 90s, can't find a lot beyond that, maybe others can find more. Look at older versions in history, it contains more info, but she did not appear to win any major beauty pageant.--Milowent • talkblp-r 06:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I have looked at the sources listed in the article, and a second mention in the manilla standard from 1988 but these mentions are very small and do not, in my opinion, make her notable. Suicidalhamster (talk) 11:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chan Wai Ki[edit]
- Chan Wai Ki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Long-term unsourced BLP with little or no notability. BLP1E also applies here. The WordsmithCommunicate 21:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The article is no longer unsourced, with references to coverage of more than one event. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Now that sourcing and grounds for notability is established, I can't say nomination looked any further to confirm deletion would be proper.--Milowent • talkblp-r 18:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep subject passes WP:ATHLETE as they won medals in the Asian Games and the article is now sourced. Hut 8.5 11:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Now sourced and appearing in the Asian Games seems to satisfy notability to me. CTJF83 chat 00:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Getafe CF 4–0 FC Barcelona[edit]
- Getafe CF 4–0 FC Barcelona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable association football match. While comebacks from multiple-goal losses are not common, they are not unknown as well and part of the sport. Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 20:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 21:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - lots of goals does not make this a notable match. GiantSnowman 21:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Not worthy of a WP article. Does not set precedent. Is not of historical significance. —Half Price 21:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The precedent is Alcorconazo and these two matches are near-identical. The two main differences are Alcorconazo occurred more recently, leading to more online news articles about it (does that influence notability?), and this match appears to be "...the biggest comeback result in Spanish football history" which could be historical significance. Xboxandhalo2 (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Alcorconazo has carry-on effects and asides (i.e. the lottery ticket bit). This doesn't. Wikipedia is not a boxscore. Delete. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 23:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Carry-on effects? Not really. Seems like just another WP:RECENT to me. And you gotta be kidding me if you think generation of lottery tickets warrants a Wiki article but the largest comeback win in Spanish history doesn't. Xboxandhalo2 (talk) 23:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, in that case, the other one should be deleted as well. "Largest comeback win" (regardless of sport or nationality) and should be covered at the club/league/national level article. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 00:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Carry-on effects? Not really. Seems like just another WP:RECENT to me. And you gotta be kidding me if you think generation of lottery tickets warrants a Wiki article but the largest comeback win in Spanish history doesn't. Xboxandhalo2 (talk) 23:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Alcorconazo has carry-on effects and asides (i.e. the lottery ticket bit). This doesn't. Wikipedia is not a boxscore. Delete. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 23:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The precedent is Alcorconazo and these two matches are near-identical. The two main differences are Alcorconazo occurred more recently, leading to more online news articles about it (does that influence notability?), and this match appears to be "...the biggest comeback result in Spanish football history" which could be historical significance. Xboxandhalo2 (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It's notable as Alcorconazo, if not all article should be deleted.--El Unique (talk) 13:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Relatively unusual football match but not exceptional. Per the argument that 'other stuff exists' not being valid, Alcornazo is not that relevant here; each match should receive attention on its own grounds. Pretty Green (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arab-African Super Cup[edit]
- Arab-African Super Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This competition was proposed back in 2008 but never got off the ground and seemingly hasn't been heard of since. The only source currently used is this one-line mention which certainly isn't significant coverage, and whatever searches I try I can't find anything else, so it appears to fail WP:GNG. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-existent competition.--EchetusXe 10:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - competition that never materialised, so doesn't require an article. GiantSnowman 19:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non-notable competition as it never came into being. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was G3 Jclemens-public (talk) 20:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Luke wright[edit]
- Luke wright (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A bad copy and paste autobiography. I can't figure out if it was previously on Wikipedia or not, but I suspect it was. Non notable athlete. Gigs (talk) 19:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete Both this and John lukus wright by same editor were mostly a paste from Luke Wright, the cricketer. Note birth date of 1993. Appears to be a WP:HOAX. Invitrovanitas (talk) 19:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, "American football player" is not a claim to notability. Hairhorn (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per the two above. Peridon (talk) 20:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 10:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heckling of comedians[edit]
- Heckling of comedians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Completely unreferenced. Most of article consists of random examples of comedians responding to heckling, and a large percentage of them merely state that a particular response to heckling happened at some point. If we cut all of those, I'm still not sure what's left is worth saving. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this tosh, possible redirect to heckling afterwards. Guy (Help!) 21:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete G10. Page contains seriously negative information attributed to living persons without attribution. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 23:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep The topic itself is notable [11] and [12], since learning how to deal with hecklers is an important part of stand-up comedy. Not surprisingly, the article dates from 2004 when sourcing was considered silly and Wikipedia was gathering around the bonfire and singing and clapping. As Flankspeed points out, this does run the problem with WP:BLP issues. Perhaps it can survive the transition to version 20.10 Wikipedia. Mandsford 00:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, my user name is Bushranger. 'Flank speed' links to pages I've created. :) - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 01:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm seeing that the page was created in 2009. What were you referring to by 2004, the original list creation in the article? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE --Confession0791 talk 04:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which of the criteria of WP:INDISCRIMINATE? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This article was created by a sockpuppet of User:Tinpac, that and unsourced. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 14:12 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Random collection of incidents EEng (talk) 02:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep/merge Merging into heckle might be sensible but mostly the topic just needs more work, per our editing policy. A good test of a topic's potential is to check Google scholar. In this case, one immediately turns up an article in the journal Nature. Has this been considered yet? Until a proper source search is made, the topic should remain open. For one thing, it is entertaining and this is no bad thing. I shall tag it for rescue so at least the ARS and its followers get an opportunity to read it. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:NOTE. I was skeptic initially. The article basically looks like a list of examples, which is really bad. However at this stage it appears the article has some references. The topic enjoys a coverage by third party sources. Some even classify subtypes like heckling of woman comedians, see here, for instance. More sources are definitely would only improve the quality. There is a lot of room for improvement generally. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Where to begin? First, the content of the article is not what the title suggests. The article is about comedians responding to hecklers, not heckling of comedians. Second, every single entry needs to be sourced or deleted. There is fictional heckling, actual heckling, comic strip heckling, and in effect is really just a long how-to article for responding to heckling. There is nothing much here worth keeping for an actual article about heckling itself. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 19:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This article was already published as chapter in a book, so maybe we could do a self-reference paradox here ;). Seriously though the topic is discussed to a significant degree by independent sources, see User:Mandsford provided links above for instance. Naturally this article is leaning towards how comedians handle hecklers though. WP:CK is somehow relevant on deletion point as long as there is no WP:BLP problem. Fully agree, much more work is needed though Wikipedia is definitely a moving target. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete it should be presented as an encyclopaedic topic not a random list of heckles involving famous people. someone has said "For one thing, it is entertaining and this is no bad thing." WP:NOHARM and WP:ILIKEIT are not valid reasons. LibStar (talk) 13:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: poorly-sourced WP:QUOTEFARM. Would appear to violate both WP:BLP & WP:IINFO. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong comment 17:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:SNOW. Content fork full of OR. Redirect to Heckler might be appropriate (not Heckling, which is a disambig). SnottyWong comment 17:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Google news archive search shows ample coverage of cases where comedians deal with hecklers. [13]. Dream Focus 16:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But the page is not Comedians' responses to hecklers, it's Heckling of comedians. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is getting silly. There's also abundant coverage of bar fights involving knives. Actually, bar fights and heckling of comedians might actually deserve articles, 'if' there's anything written about them other than scattered news coverage or fragmentary reminscences of comedians, which there does not appear to be on the evidence. If there are no reliable sources saying something worth repeating, an article isn't possible even if the topic is conceivably notable. EEng (talk) 17:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Heckler#Comedy, where the relevant information in this article is already covered, and more can be added should it come to light. There is no need for a massive list of uncited examples. pablo 11:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Denys Defrancesco[edit]
- Denys Defrancesco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence of notability Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 12:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:PEOPLE. While prolific within his genre,[14] the individual has no coverage with which to properly source a BLP. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete no coverage [15]. LibStar (talk) 01:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus.
Rationale |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I am discounting the opinions that do not address the possible policy-based reason for deletion of this article, which is original research by synthesis because of an alleged lack of sources covering the topic "Communist terrorism" as distinct of other forms of left-wing terrorism. Because of the loaded and complicated nature of this AfD, I am more stringently than otherwise excluding any type of "votes", including WP:PERNOM comments, and am counting ony arguments that reflect a certain degree of individual engagement with the policy-based rationale raised in the nomination, and especially with the sources at issue. This means that I disregard the following opinions in this discussion for the purpose of determining whether there is a policy-based, informed consensus to delete this article:
Only ten opinions address the relevant question of policy and the sources at issue in what I think is at least adequate depth, and they are equally divided:
This leaves us with no consensus to delete this article. |
Editorial consensus will need to be sought in order to determine how to proceed with this article. Editors should request administrative intervention if this process continues to be disrupted by edit-warring. In particular, I am mindful to block any editor who, from now on, makes a revert from the "long" version to the "short" version of the article, or vice versa, that is not their first such revert. This also applies to editors who have already made one or more such reverts. I do not want to lock the article in any of these versions, but the edit-warring needs to stop. Sandstein 09:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Communist terrorism[edit]
- Communist terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
It's time to revisit this question. I made a good faith and (tootin' my own horn, here) valiant effort to find decent sources on this topic that made explicit connections between communist ideology and terrorism. The ONLY thing I found was a book by Trotsky [16] and references to Apartheid South Africa's concern about the ANC's ideological connections to communism (e.g. there is a book by F. R. Metrowich documenting this connection). These two ideas are disparate and unconnected, but more than this, there are no top-level discussions of the connection between communism as a political ideology and terrorism. There are groups that adopt terrorism and communist ideologies certainly, but I cannot find any sources which identify communist terrorism as a monolithic ideology. I believe that the article is inviting us to synthesize discussions of groups who have connections to two different topics: communism and terrorism. I decided to propose this article for deletion after discussion on Talk:Communist terrorism where I posted results of a search through Columbia University Library's subjects and could find nothing that approached the ostensible topic of this article. jps (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, redirect to left-wing terrorism. There's nothing I can see that calls for a separate discussion of communist terrorism as an independent topic, and the article encourages synthesis and POV-pushing. --Ludwigs2 18:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, redirect to left-wing terrorism. Have to agree.Slatersteven (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, has all the hallmarks of a POVfork even if it isn't one. Guy (Help!) 21:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Google Scholar finds well over two hundred books citing the term (excluding those about Malaya). This is a substantial number of references indeed. Further, no added rationales have been given to overturn the prior AfD discussions on this. Absent a real reason to delete, the default is to Keep. "IDONTLIKEIT" is an invalid rationale. Arguments about POV belong on the article talk page, and are not arguments for deletion. Collect (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A search on Google Scholar confirms that the most likely single meaning of "Communist terrorism" is the Malayan Races Liberation Army in the Malayan Emergency. Other results are random occurrences of the two words together when discussing topics listed on the disambiguation page, now at Communist terrorism (disambiguation). -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Right from the start, this article has been synthesis/OR used to push a POV. Repeated requests for a reliable source that actually gives grounds for treating 'communist terrorism' as a special case distinct from left wing terrorism' have been made, but none have been forthcoming. There is no question that 'left wing'/'leftist terrorism' is a much more widely used term, which incidentally avoids endless debate about how one defines 'communist'. As for Collect's suggestion that "Arguments about POV belong on the article talk page", I can only say that the talk page has been filled with endless debates over POV, with no signs that any resolution would ever be forthcoming. There is nothing legitimately covered by this topic that cannot be discussed under 'left-wing terrorism' in any case. The only purpose that can be served by its retention is the association between the words 'communist' and 'terrorist': hardly NPOV. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Left-wing terrorism. As noted, the border between "left-wing" and "communist" can blur. The Red Army Faction is/was clearly a Communist group committed to terrorism to achieve their ends, but is that significantly distinct enough for a fork from left-wing terrorism in general? I don't believe so. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 23:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary break 1[edit]
- Keep - a legitimate sub topic of Left wing terrorism, distinctive enough to merit its own article. For a similar example see Anarchist terrorism. As far as sources, apparently there is this [17] and this [18] (pg. 71) - both of these were listed by Marknutley here [19]. Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, Marek for a perfect example of the synthesis that occurs on this page. A quick search of both of these books (did you know that google will search the entire text, even pages that aren't previewed?) shows that neither of these books uses the phrases "communist terror" or "communist terrorism". The closest is the Europe's red terrorists book, which mentions 'the emergence of neo-communist terrorist groups' just once (in the introduction, not the main text), and talks about FCOs (Fighting Communist Organizations) as a particular strain of terrorist groups. If "communist terrorism" was actually a notable topic, you would expect both of these books to make liberal use of these phrases; since neither does, you've provided an excellent argument against the notability of the topic. Seeing this, I'm beginning to understand why you and Collect were so leery of providing specific sources; specific sources do not seem to help your case at all. --Ludwigs2 01:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, because "neo-communist terrorist groups" have nothing to do with "communist terrorism" whatsoever. This is a recurrent pattern with regard to how all reliable sources that have been provided are being dismissed on some flimsy IDON'TLIKEIT grounds. Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You really have no grasp of the concept of synthesis, do you? --Ludwigs2 02:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought I did. I read it and stuff. You wanna explain to me how exactly I have no grasp of it? Maybe that belongs on the article talk page. Or better yet on my user page. Or better yet on the talk page of WP:SYNTH itself. Or maybe on your own blog or something. I've been around long enough to be quite well aware of what the policy says. Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Marek does have a clear understanding of WP:SYNTH! He was the one who explained why Treaties of Bautzen and Merseburg was a synthesis and after long discussions broke it in two. (Unfortunately he failed to give credit to the creator and copyright owner as our license requires.)Off-topic -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]- What the hey are you talking about? But yes, I do have a clear understanding of WP:SYNTH. Hence my vote here. Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, your arguments here show that you don't, at least not with respect to this issue. There is absolutely no way you can get from the sources you've presented to the claim that Communist Terrorism is a notable topic without one hell of a lot of interpretation and interpolation. I have no interest in defending revolutionary socialists, obviously, but this article can't be written without going well beyond what's actually said in the literature. Your own sources demonstrate that: they don't talk about 'communist terrorism', they talk about communism and terrorism as separate but intertwined subjects within a larger context. sorry. --Ludwigs2 08:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What the hey are you talking about? But yes, I do have a clear understanding of WP:SYNTH. Hence my vote here. Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You really have no grasp of the concept of synthesis, do you? --Ludwigs2 02:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, because "neo-communist terrorist groups" have nothing to do with "communist terrorism" whatsoever. This is a recurrent pattern with regard to how all reliable sources that have been provided are being dismissed on some flimsy IDON'TLIKEIT grounds. Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Incidentally, pg. 71 that Marek highlights above contains a short discussion of Marx' and Engels' socialist utopia, and then says "This idea reappeared in altered form in the ideologies of terrorist movements...". So, far from supporting the notion of 'communist terrorism', this page actually implies that terrorist groups distorted communist ideology for their own purposes. --Ludwigs2 01:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Reappeared in altered form" is not the same as "distorted". It just means that the idea evolved over time. Unless you think that only groups which stick to the strict interpretation of Marx circa 1848 qualify as "communist" (of course Marx circa 1867 himself wouldn't qualify as a "Marxist" under that definition). So yes, these sources DO support the notion of "communist terrorism". Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you provide any sources that that explain the concept? TFD (talk) 02:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The question here, Marek, is not whether there were communist groups that used terrorism or terrorist groups that spouted (pseudo-)communist propaganda. the question is whether 'communist terrorism' is an idea that is developed significantly enough in sources to merit its own article on wikipedia. Even in the two sources you provide, no conception of specifically communist terrorism is outlined; these sources could equally well be used on the left-wing terrorism or red terrorism articles. neither of them supports the existence of an article specifically about communist terrorism.
- and whatever word you choose to use, 'reappeared in altered form' explicitly breaks the connection between the communist use and terrorist use. Intelligent design is the theory of evolution 'reappearing in a different form', but that doesn't make it science. --Ludwigs2 02:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- the question is whether 'communist terrorism' is an idea that is developed significantly enough in sources to merit its own article on wikipedia It obviously is, as sources provided above indicate. Intelligent design is the theory of evolution 'reappearing in a different form', but that doesn't make it science. - false analogy, which is a logical fallacy. To spell out the obvious Intelligent design is NOT the theory of evolution reappearing in a different form, no more at least than the heliocentric theory is the geocentric theory "in different form". It's a completely different concept, antithetical in fact to the theory of evolution in roughly the same way that heliocentrism is antithetical to geocentrism (despite the fact that practioners of both were astronomers). That's way way way way different - why do I have to state the obvious? - then the fact that 20th century Marxism is not exactly the same as 19th century Marxism? Better arguments please. Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you provide any sources that that explain the concept? TFD (talk) 02:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Reappeared in altered form" is not the same as "distorted". It just means that the idea evolved over time. Unless you think that only groups which stick to the strict interpretation of Marx circa 1848 qualify as "communist" (of course Marx circa 1867 himself wouldn't qualify as a "Marxist" under that definition). So yes, these sources DO support the notion of "communist terrorism". Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No sources exist. TFD (talk) 01:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – Extensive discussions, searches, and requests for sources have not produced a single source to establish the existence of this concept in academia or even in fringe anti-communist literature. Redirect or revet to disambiguation page. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note – The old content of this (claimed) synthesis has been moved to Left-wing terrorism, Revolutionary terror, and Terrorism and The Soviet Union – as recorded on the talk page. What was left after the last move can be seen here. The current version of the article contains material that has already been moved elsewhere. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since Petri brought it up, there already WAS a Requested Move for the article to move it to Left wing terrorism [20]. The outcome of that RM was Not moved. It was after the failed RM (closed on October 23rd) that Petri hit upon a new tactic (on October 25th) which involved deleting the article against consensus out of process by turning it into a dab page. He outlines the strategy here [21] (later rewritten to make it sound less obvious). And then follows through - in a very peculiar way. He proposes a merger here [22] on Nov 11, 3:07 and 3:08 [23] and then four minutes after proposing a merger turning the article into the dab [24] - as if those 4 minutes were enough for any kind of discussion to take place. He then edit wars to enforce this out of process deletion [25]
[26][27] (good part of the reason why the article had to be fully protected). He then employs the exact same tactic of faux-proposal-to-merge-then-merge-seconds-later the minute that the article became unprotected, on November 26th: fake merger proposal at 00:28, second fake merger proposal at 00:51, first massive removal only 3 minutes later, back to enforcing out of process deletion. These Petri's obviously bad-faithed actions are a good part of the reason for why discussion on the talk page aimed at achieving consensus hit numerous road blocks. It's hard to have a serious conversation with someone so hardcore intent on pushing their POV through despite what anyone else may think or say. Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Thank you Marek for misrepresenting the edits – and assuming bad faith! I have marked sections with a {{Merge-to}} tag before moving the content. This is done only to maintain a clear record of what has been moved and where to – partly in order to give the credit to the creators in accordance to our license.
- Re later rewritten to make it sound less obvious I have not rewritten anything – the general procedure for removing synthesis is found here User:Petri Krohn/How to get rid of POV crap. The text itself has nothing to do with this article, but has evolved quite independently. In a nutshell the essay says: "To get rid of POV crap, create something better." In this case the better content exists. There is absolutely nothing – apart from a dab-page – that can, or should remain here. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. – I fail to see how the diff you presets relates to edit warring? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relevant diff corrected. Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your diffs still misrepresent the facts: this edit from "four minutes later" did not turn the page into a dab page (read the edit ummary). This following edit from the next day is not edit warring.
- Most important, it was not me who moved the 30 kB of claimed synthesis from the article to Left-wing terrorism. It was long gone before I proposed that the page be turned into a dab page. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here. You are aware that people can click on those diffs and check themselves, right? And they can click through the history of the article too. Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The comment that by then everybody will see that...a POVFORK of your article, not the other way around on that page (and on the diff mentioned): that is...I simply don't have words to describe it, other than it translates to "fix things so that everybody is snookered into a deliberate misreprensation of the actual situation". Gah! - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 06:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Marek, Moving a whole article to a new name and moving content form a synthesis are two different things – as you are fully aware based on your successful split of Treaties of Bautzen and Merseburg. You never requested that the article be moved or renamed. You simply went ahead and removed the synthesis by moving relevant content to the proper place. In retrospect, I believe it it was not your de-synthesis, but the fact that you failed to explain and record your edits the way I have done that initially caused the fierce opposition to your actions. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relevant diff corrected. Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since Petri brought it up, there already WAS a Requested Move for the article to move it to Left wing terrorism [20]. The outcome of that RM was Not moved. It was after the failed RM (closed on October 23rd) that Petri hit upon a new tactic (on October 25th) which involved deleting the article against consensus out of process by turning it into a dab page. He outlines the strategy here [21] (later rewritten to make it sound less obvious). And then follows through - in a very peculiar way. He proposes a merger here [22] on Nov 11, 3:07 and 3:08 [23] and then four minutes after proposing a merger turning the article into the dab [24] - as if those 4 minutes were enough for any kind of discussion to take place. He then edit wars to enforce this out of process deletion [25]
- Keep (and restore to full version?) Thanks for that background, Marek. Considering all that and after further thought, I've changed my vote. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 05:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, without commenting on the current content. Source search gives hundreds of exact matches in each Scholar, Books and News, including books and articles dedicated solely to this - so there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the topic is noteworthy and should be included to Wikipedia. It would be nice if editors would not try to censor Wikipedia to fit their personal beliefs. --Sander Säde 09:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sander
s, out of your claimed " hundreds of exact matches" could you please NAME ONE that is about the purported topic! -- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sander
- Who is this Sanders you talk about? And I think you should really take a look at the sources yourself, not just ignore obvious sources discussing the communist terrorism... So, let's start from a nice old scientific monograph, Genocide in the USSR:studies in group destruction from 1958, which describes communist terrorism in depth, including types of it. Since you only wanted ONE, I am not going to waste my time any further - let this Sanders continue, if s/he wants to. --Sander Säde 11:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your source is a 1958 book, not available in preview form on Google books, from "The Munich Institute for the Study of the USSR", which has been called "secretly funded by the CIA between 1951 and 1972 and used as a front for promulgating anti-Soviet propaganda".[28] Wikipedia is not supposed to be an instrument of 1950s Cold War propaganda. Furthermore, the book is specific to the Soviet Union, and is actually about "terror" not "terrorism". TFD (talk) 18:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but could you please stop this nonsense? Stop attacking every editor and every source which doesn't agree with you or your viewpoint. There do exist other viewpoints than yours. My intent here is neither to become a Soviet apologist nor to make Wikipedia an "an instrument of 1950s Cold War propaganda". It is obvious that the term "Communist terrorism" is widely used and discussed in old and modern scientific publications, books and news. Therefore, there is no question whatsoever whether this article should exist or not - the content is a different matter. And the talk page to discuss the content of the article is this way.
- So someone wrote the publisher of the first random Google Scholar match was funded by CIA. Which, of course, doesn't say anything about the validity of the source whatsoever. "Terror and not terrorism"? Hmm, page 218 seems to discuss Communist terrorism and not terror.
- Perhaps you should reply to Marknutley on his talk page, as he seems to be interested in the content?
- --Sander Säde 18:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- When I do research on articles I use recent books by experts recognized in their field and published in the mainstream academic press. I do not care what their political views are so long as their writings are reliable sources. I would no more use anti-Communist propaganda sources that I would pro-Communist propaganda sources. I also make a point of reading the sources I present before presenting them in order to determine their relevance. If I cannot find reliable sources then I do not look for less than reliable sources, I just do not add anything. TFD (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- --Sander Säde 18:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Who is this Sanders you talk about? And I think you should really take a look at the sources yourself, not just ignore obvious sources discussing the communist terrorism... So, let's start from a nice old scientific monograph, Genocide in the USSR:studies in group destruction from 1958, which describes communist terrorism in depth, including types of it. Since you only wanted ONE, I am not going to waste my time any further - let this Sanders continue, if s/he wants to. --Sander Säde 11:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sander, your source is about Genocide in the USSR, now covered in Mass killings under Communist regimes and possibly Red Terror . It does not even seem to cover Terrorism and the Soviet Union, let alone "Communist terrorism" -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, redirect to left-wing terrorism. The latter term seems to be more widespread and appropriate. GreyHood Talk 11:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (and restore to full version) - Off2riorob (talk) 11:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete , - 'synthesis of topics not usually synthesised' - done here for transparent POV pushing reasons. POV Detritus. Make a disambiguation page. Sayerslle (talk) 12:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I can't help feeling that many of the arguments here so far are really about something other than whether or not this is a notable and verifiable topic. I have no political interest in this article one way or the other, but a few minutes spent with Google indicates that communist terrorism has been written about by Trotsky himself, was a major political issue in Europe and the USA from the 1930s to the 1970s, which would make it notable regardless of whether or not those fears were baseless, that there is extensive documentation and discussion of communist terrorism in Malaya over an extended period, and that at least one book has been written entitled "Communist Terrorism" (and there are others). There is no way to argue in good faith that this is not a notable topic. Thparkth (talk) 13:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That book is by VDM Publishing - and, I suspect, just a collection of Wikipedia articles about the communist terrorism. There are other books dealing with the topic, though. --Sander Säde 13:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- @ Thparkth: Be careful not to engage in synthesis-by-Google here: this is one place where Google is deceptive. For example, for Trotsky (I just skimmed through that book yesterday) the term 'terrorism' refers to state suppression of insurgent movements - he's talking about something closer to violent totalitarian oppression (à la Idi Amin or Saddam Hussein, often committed by nascent socialist dictatorships) and the actions needed by a socialist revolution to thwart such oppression. None of the early Marxists would have supported what we call terrorism these days - Trotsky would likely have seen 9/11 as a bourgeois (remember that bin Laden was a loose relation of the Saudi royal family) effort to oppress the working classes through the imposition of religion - and even the classic revolutionary Marxists like Che Guevara aimed violence at governments, not citizens. The term CT had a short-lived academic use referring to some forms of south-east Asian insurgency, but even that's probably better handled under left-wing terrorism than a separate communist terrorism article. A google search here is just the start - if you actually read these sources the foundation for a communist terrorism article begins to shimmer and fade. --Ludwigs2 14:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There could be no clearer example of synthesis than your paragraph here. My argument is purely about notability. Whether or not the article uses the phrase "communist terrorism" is the same sense that Trotsky did is exactly the sort of argument that should carry no weight at AfD. Thparkth (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contrary, why should we have an article called 'communist terrorism' when 'communist terrorism' is not a phrase that's actually used by academics, theoreticians, or political analysts? We do not write an encyclopedia by studiously ignoring the way that scholars talk about the material; we write an encyclopedia by trying to describe what scholars say.
- There could be no clearer example of synthesis than your paragraph here. My argument is purely about notability. Whether or not the article uses the phrase "communist terrorism" is the same sense that Trotsky did is exactly the sort of argument that should carry no weight at AfD. Thparkth (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- @ Thparkth: Be careful not to engage in synthesis-by-Google here: this is one place where Google is deceptive. For example, for Trotsky (I just skimmed through that book yesterday) the term 'terrorism' refers to state suppression of insurgent movements - he's talking about something closer to violent totalitarian oppression (à la Idi Amin or Saddam Hussein, often committed by nascent socialist dictatorships) and the actions needed by a socialist revolution to thwart such oppression. None of the early Marxists would have supported what we call terrorism these days - Trotsky would likely have seen 9/11 as a bourgeois (remember that bin Laden was a loose relation of the Saudi royal family) effort to oppress the working classes through the imposition of religion - and even the classic revolutionary Marxists like Che Guevara aimed violence at governments, not citizens. The term CT had a short-lived academic use referring to some forms of south-east Asian insurgency, but even that's probably better handled under left-wing terrorism than a separate communist terrorism article. A google search here is just the start - if you actually read these sources the foundation for a communist terrorism article begins to shimmer and fade. --Ludwigs2 14:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Honestly, I cannot believe you just suggested that we should not read the sources to see what they actually wrote. If that's what you meant, it is possibly the most ignorant statement I've heard uttered by a wikipedia editor (which is a fairly impressive accomplishment, all things considered). I'll assume that I've misunderstood you - care to clarify what you really meant? --Ludwigs2 16:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me clarify. This is a notable topic. It is historically verifiable. The article may or may not accurately represent that history and Trotsky's opinions about terrorism, but the place to discuss that is on the article talk page, not here in AfD. As far as synthesis goes, I'm sure you will see the synthesis in what you wrote here if you review it carefully. As for me, I won't be dragged into this any further - I have offered my opinion as an uninvolved editor, and nothing that has been said here has changed my mind. Thparkth (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, that's more reasonable, but still incorrect. Not everything that is historically verifiable is sufficiently notable for its own topic - that is clearly covered in wp:UNDUE. My own belief is that this material should covered under left-wing terrorism (since that terminology is clearly much more prominent in the literature than communist terrorism). I might be convinced to have a short article on communist terrorism itself, except that the page (as it was when I first saw it) was filled with original research trying to implicate Marxist theory as terrorist theory. It was just not encyclopedic at all. I don't see that we could ever have more than a stub on actual uses of the concept, since it only really applies to discussions of a particular form of violence in south-east Asia in the mid-20th century from a certain analytical perspective. No one involved, however, is really producing any effective sources for such a page - even the Trotsky book isn't really usable without a whole lot of off-topic contextualization. Do you have actual sources, or are you basing your support on Google search results?
- Let me clarify. This is a notable topic. It is historically verifiable. The article may or may not accurately represent that history and Trotsky's opinions about terrorism, but the place to discuss that is on the article talk page, not here in AfD. As far as synthesis goes, I'm sure you will see the synthesis in what you wrote here if you review it carefully. As for me, I won't be dragged into this any further - I have offered my opinion as an uninvolved editor, and nothing that has been said here has changed my mind. Thparkth (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Honestly, I cannot believe you just suggested that we should not read the sources to see what they actually wrote. If that's what you meant, it is possibly the most ignorant statement I've heard uttered by a wikipedia editor (which is a fairly impressive accomplishment, all things considered). I'll assume that I've misunderstood you - care to clarify what you really meant? --Ludwigs2 16:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, please don't confuse synthesis - an argument from sources to produce a novel conclusion within an article - with the normal explanations and analysis that happen on talk pages. I would never offer the analysis I gave above as actual article content, but it's necessary to run through that kind of discussion of the article to show how badly Trotsky is being misrepresented in this context. WP:SYN is not intended to stifle discussions of WP:SYN, so don't use it that way. --Ludwigs2 18:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thparkth, the topic of Trotsky's book is covered in the article Red Terror. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 08:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Another editor has suggested Neil J. Smelser's book, The faces of terrorism, as a source for discussion in this article. Smelser wrote in "The infernal problems of definition and designation:
That probably explains why scholars do not use the term "communist terrorism" as a typology and why we can find no sources for it. Instead they use the slightly less loaded term left-wing terrorism. TFD (talk) 14:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]The main scientific impulse... has been to look for analytical or value-neutral and inclusive typologies that avoid selective judgments. In all events, the history of the term [terrorism] is a history of condemnations, and the dynamic involved is that the term chases many events and situations that have little else in common other than the fact that they are perceived by some some party as threatening and offensive. In the last analysis, it becomes claear the "the very process of definition is itself part of the wider conflict between ideologies or political objectives". As a general rule, partisans forever attempt to loead words--"liberal," "conservative," "right," and "left" are but a few examples--with primarlity emotive or evaluative responses, and the word "terrorism" appears to be an extreme example of this practice. Gearty observed in 1991 that "the words 'terror' and 'terrorism' have come to be regarded as such powerful condemnations that all those looking for a suitable insult have wanted to appropriate them".[30]
- Delete and move material to left wing terrorism, however I doubt this page will resolve anything. There seem to be a group of editors variously insistent on communism necessarily leading to terrorism or mass killings or whatever (its not just this article) and the positions being taken are intransigent. I suspect this is like Climate Change and will eventually end up in Arbcom. --Snowded TALK 14:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep subject is well established and well sourced. Communist terrorism, even today, is second only to Islamic terrorism. There are reliable sources, at least two were cited in the article (if the POV pushers haven't deleted them) which say that for decades prior to the fall of the Warsaw Pact it was the predominant variety of terrorism - the "Communist terrorist network" was "by far the major source of international terrorism",see also. Those seeking to delete it and who have been engaging in disruptive editing, large scale deletions of sourced material and POV forking (i.e. to Left-wing terrorism, are really attempting to do these things and to have the article deleted because they just don't like it for ideological reasons. Mamalujo (talk) 19:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary break 2[edit]
- Comment. How about a more neutral title, "Communism and terrorism"? There are numerous books with chapters on this subject.Biophys (talk) 19:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You would need to explain what the topic would be, for example by providing a source to an rs article or book, and then we could see if the topic is already covered in another article or if C&T is the best name. Without clarity about the topic of the article it would likely degenerate into another hodgepodge of OR. TFD (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. Even a simple Google search gives you a lot of books [31]. I was reading enough on the subject but can not help because of my topic ban.Biophys (talk) 23:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Honestly, the more neutral title is Left-Wing Terrorism - I really have no idea why there's such resistance to moving the material from this page over there (aside from the desire to engage in belated McCarthyism). --Ludwigs2 01:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- McCarthyism??? Biophys (talk) 03:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your first source is about how Saddam Hussein had "weapons of mass destruction".[32] Do you have any reliable sources? TFD (talk) 04:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ??? Two first sources given by the Google book search (my link above) are good books by professional historians with the chapters entitled "Communism and terrorism", not a blog you are giving in your link. As about Saddam, that should be discussed elsewhere.Biophys (talk) 18:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- @Biophys: what would you call it? I'm pretty sure I'm neutral (I'm well-educated in this area of knowledge but don't really care about it one way or another). What I see is a number of editors trying to make 'strong language' arguments against communism through a fairly artful misrepresentation of sources. there's no real reason to do that except fervid anti-communist sentiment; hence McCarthyism. Given some of the accusations of POV-pushing they've thrown at me (and others) they are only a step or two short of the 'are you now or have you ever been' rubric McCarthy used, so... call it what you will, but I think the term fits.
- Your first source is about how Saddam Hussein had "weapons of mass destruction".[32] Do you have any reliable sources? TFD (talk) 04:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- McCarthyism??? Biophys (talk) 03:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Honestly, the more neutral title is Left-Wing Terrorism - I really have no idea why there's such resistance to moving the material from this page over there (aside from the desire to engage in belated McCarthyism). --Ludwigs2 01:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. Even a simple Google search gives you a lot of books [31]. I was reading enough on the subject but can not help because of my topic ban.Biophys (talk) 23:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just so we're on the same page, I'm trained in political science and have a reasonably good understanding of both Marxism and terrorism (they are not my specialties, though). Intellectually 'communist terrorism' misses the point in both arenas, and lumping them together blindly serves to misinform. It's a bit like calling the people who shoot abortion doctors 'Christian terrorists': it does disservice both to Christian theology and the ideology of the killers, without adding anything meaningful to the discussion. Pure content-free polemics. is that what we want on the project? --Ludwigs2 05:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "McCarthyism" and "fervid anti-communist sentiment" is precisely an example of 'strong language' to be avoided in such discussions (McCarthyism is irrelevant in this AfD). Yes, I see a serious problem with dividing people to "camps" by calling them "anti-communists", "commies", "liberals" or whatever, depending on the topic. Let's focus on the content per sources, not contributors. This is a reference work.Biophys (talk) 18:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's how you feel about it. Personally, I don't mind if people are anti-communist (everyone is entitled to their beliefs), they just need to maintain neutrality in wikipedia discussions. I will continue to point out people's prejudices as I see them in the interests of clearer discussion. --Ludwigs2 22:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "McCarthyism" and "fervid anti-communist sentiment" is precisely an example of 'strong language' to be avoided in such discussions (McCarthyism is irrelevant in this AfD). Yes, I see a serious problem with dividing people to "camps" by calling them "anti-communists", "commies", "liberals" or whatever, depending on the topic. Let's focus on the content per sources, not contributors. This is a reference work.Biophys (talk) 18:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just so we're on the same page, I'm trained in political science and have a reasonably good understanding of both Marxism and terrorism (they are not my specialties, though). Intellectually 'communist terrorism' misses the point in both arenas, and lumping them together blindly serves to misinform. It's a bit like calling the people who shoot abortion doctors 'Christian terrorists': it does disservice both to Christian theology and the ideology of the killers, without adding anything meaningful to the discussion. Pure content-free polemics. is that what we want on the project? --Ludwigs2 05:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Communism and terrorism would be an excellent topic for an article, possibly under a more general title Marxism and terrorism.Someone would have to write it though. This article and previous incarnations provide very little useful material. The article was a synthesis of Revolutionary terror, Left-wing terrorism, and Terrorism and the Soviet Union. The current article – by its POV title – tries to equate Communism and terrorism, while an article on Communism and terrorism would need to focus on the fact that Communists, i.e, Bolsheviks and orthodox Marxists, rejected and condemned the terrorist tactics of Anarchists and Russian Socialist Revolutionaries (SR Combat Organization) and their predecessors the Narodnaya Volya. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]- P.S. – Communism and terrorism would be an excellent topic – in an ideal world. In Wikipedia POV-pushers would create a synthesis – most likely based on primary sources, equating Terror and Terrorism. An indication if this danger is evident in this discussion: Trotsky and Kautsky did not write about terrorism but about terror. The topic of Communism and terror is already covered in the article on Revolutionary terror. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Communism and terrorism could be a much better article than this one - look at attitudes of marx and early bolsheviks, look at trotsky in 1920, and stalinist terror in the 1930s and then move forward to mao etc.. Slavoj Zizek has written interestingly on this I think from an article I saw earlier today Sayerslle (talk) 23:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- PLEASE READ Important Comment The actual well sourced and thorough article which is under discussion is here. The article keeps reverting it to a stub from which there has been deleted virtually all the sourced material (some of which they have POV forked over to Left-wing terrorism, which had for years been a mere redirect and was revived as a POV fork, arguably with the intent to gut or delete this article). Please review the actual article under consideration before you voice your opinion, and if you already have, please take a look at the actual article and consider changing a vote for deletion based on the actual sourced article, not some gutted stub. To give you an idea what I'm talking about, the article had 58 references, the current version has 6. Mamalujo (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Manjulo, you should really move this link to the top of the discussion - I'd like everyone to read the original as well. There is no other way to appreciate the scope and manner of the synthesis happening on this article. Note in particular the intro and the 'origins' section, which are are as close to fictionalized depictions of a topic as I've seen on wikipedia. Please actually read the sources as well, so you can see how little they have to do with what's been written in the article. --Ludwigs2 20:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep That this article is reverted to a stub, rather than this thorough version, is an embarrassment to this encyclopedia.μηδείς (talk) 01:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, redirect to Left-wing terrorism. This is not a "sub-topic"; it's not needed; and Left-wing terrorism is the more neutral term. Also, Off2riorob and Medeis, please note that AfD is not a vote; you're supposed to give some semblance of a reason for keeping the article, not just go into automatic mode. Bishonen | talk 03:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- reply - Well, it hardly seemed necessary, it has clearly been asserted by more than one other user that the topic is written about an worthy of an article. The version of the article I linked to should be reverted back to, its hard to understand why the article is being stripped back and attempted to merge to any location in some kind of attempt to do whatever it takes to get rid of the title. Off2riorob (talk) 16:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment last thing to reply to above - from my point of view, this is naive - why not start an article on 'communist corruption' then 'communist corruption is corruption carried out in the name of furthering communist goals' - tells you nothing - , a disingenuous , desire to link terrorism , innately, with communism, - then widely disparate phenomena are brought into the article , from wildly different historical settings in an effort to batter a POV into place. there are more natural homes for the info in other articles, that seems unassailable to me - classical Communist thinking as I understand it was hostile to 'voluntarism' , that terrorism was evidence of a lack of belief in the power of the masses, - the fact you admire so much an article on 'Communist terrorism' that begins 'Communist terrorism is terrorism carried out in the name of furthering Communist goals or teachings..' necessarily vapid and banal because it sprang from mamalujos OR hands, not from anywhere else, - of course communists have been involved in terrorism , in Italy or India or weherever but that was not because they were engaging in a concept they shared of ' Communist Terrorism', the type of terrorism communists agreed was of the type they pursued to achieve Communist goals - Communist Terror article, yes, Communists who have engaged in Terrorism , yes, 'Communist terrorism', no... I dunno. wheres the article on 'Christian spirituality' , oh yeah it starts 'christian spirituality is spirituality carried in the furtherance of Christian goals and teachings'. 'Communist societies' - 'communist societies are societies ordered in the style dictated by communist goals and teachings' ..rewarding reading, what a load of puke. Sayerslle (talk) 16:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - various users have presented a number of reliable sources (e.g. [33], [34], [35]) documenting the existence of this phenomenon. While related to and a subset of left-wing terrorism, the two topics are discrete enough to merit separate articles. - Biruitorul Talk 04:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources you provided are not about "communist terrorism" and do not even mention the term. They are about wars of national liberation and claimed Soviet support for terrorism, now covered in Terrorism and the Soviet Union. Besides, your third source is crap, it is pro-apartheid propaganda by the South African State Department of
InformationPropaganda from 1986. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources you provided are not about "communist terrorism" and do not even mention the term. They are about wars of national liberation and claimed Soviet support for terrorism, now covered in Terrorism and the Soviet Union. Besides, your third source is crap, it is pro-apartheid propaganda by the South African State Department of
KeepMake disambiguation only I don't see why Left-wing terrorism is seen as a neutral title. Instead, half of left-wing terrorism could be moved here, or else to Marxist terrorism. This would be more accurate and precise. Sources for "communist terrorism" : 1970s Italy:military history of Italy By Ciro Paoletti (Greenwood, 2008), In Nepal at the time of writing: Terrorism, instability, and democracy in Asia and Africa By Dan G. Cox, John Falconer, Brian Stackhouse (UPNE, 2009) Naxalites in India: Global cultures: a transnational short fiction reader By Elisabeth Young-Bruehl (Wesleyan University Press, 1994). This does in no way mean however that Communism necessarily leads to terrorism or anything like that and the article should not propagate such a POV. Munci (talk) 15:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You have fallen into the trap to Google magic. You have provided sources, but it seems that you have not even read them! "Terrorism" and "Communism" are among the most common words in the English language and they sometimes randomly follow each other in a particular order. Google Books produces a almost a hundred or these random occurrences in the millions of books it indexes. In most cases these occur when the author tries to avoid repetition when discussing left-wing terrorism. Here is a breakdown of your three sources:
- Ciro Paoletti (2008). "Italy and Nato until the End of the Cold War". A military history of Italy. Praeger Security International Series. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 198–204. ISBN 0275985059.
- The chapter is a short description of the post-war history of Italy, with discussion on the strategiy of the Communist Party of Italy to achieve influence. Page 202 includes a number of descriptive words for the types of terrorism, in the following order: Leftist terrorism, Fascist terrorism, Fascist terrorism, Communist terrorists, Marxist terrorism, Marxist terrorism, Communist terrorism, Communist terrorist. This is a typical random selection of words when comparing left-wing terrorism to Fascist terrorism and trying to avoid repetition. Two relevant quotes: The Communist Party officially disapproved of Marxist terrorism, and Communist terrorism was perceived as a real threat for Italian policy and for NATO, The author seems to be saying, that sometime in the 1970s NATO sources described their perceived adversary (Soviet sponsored terrorism) with the words "Communist terrorism". So far however, no one has been able to produce a source to establish this possibility.
- Because the book is off-topic, it is of at most marginal use in sourcing any terrorism related article.
- Dan G. Cox; John Falconer; Brian Stackhouse (2009). "A Struggling Democratic process and a Meddling Monarchy". Terrorism, instability, and democracy in Asia and Africa. Northeastern series on democratization and political development. UPNE. pp. 130–132. ISBN 1555537057.
- The phrase "communist terrorism" appears in the book only once, in an chapter describing the (lack of) a democratic process in Nepal, and the Nepalese Civil War. Quote: The UML is generally blameless in the communist terrorism Nepal experiences. – This chapter does not discuss terrorism and would be useless as a source in an article on "Communist terrorim".
- Saloni Narang. "Close to the Earth". In Elisabeth Young-Bruehl (ed.). Global cultures: a transnational short fiction reader. Wesleyan University Press, 1994. pp. 226–230. ISBN 0819562823.
- This is a work of fiction by the Indian author Saloni Narang, published in an anthology by Elisabeth Young-Bruehl. In her introduction to the work, on page 221 Young-Bruehl includes a long quote from Narang on her work, including the following sentence: ...from an anglicized manager of a West Bengal tea estate face to face with Naxalite terrorism to the emotional volatility of pastoral Punjag. In adapting the quote for her American readers Young-Bruehl has added the word "Communist" to produce Naxalite [Communist] terrorism.
- This is a prime example of the misuse of "Google mining" to produce false positives.
- Ciro Paoletti (2008). "Italy and Nato until the End of the Cold War". A military history of Italy. Praeger Security International Series. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 198–204. ISBN 0275985059.
- As for the rest of your comment, you may in fact be expecting to see an article on Communism and terrorism!
- -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I have read them. Does it really it matter whether it's only part of a book that deals with the topic? Do you realise how keeping the content in left-wing terrorism is even more biased than putting it in Communist terrorism or Marxist terrorism? Noone suggests that replacing Mass killings under communist regimes with Mass killings under left-wing regimes is a good idea. And rightly so. So why does anyone think this with this terrorism article? It's very obvious that most of the examples given on left-wing terrorism are specifically Communist. They're not social democrats, syndicalists, utopian socialists or anything else.
- As for "you may in fact be expecting to see an article on Communism and terrorism!", I really don't see you're point. Munci (talk) 21:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- One may only guess why scholars refer to Marxixt-Leninist terrorism as Left-wing terrorism and not something else. But "[a]rticles are normally titled using the name which is most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article."[36] TFD (talk) 22:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Munci, I'm not sure why you'd think 'left-wing' is more biased than 'communist'. As I've said before, I think this article should really be called 'revolutionary terrorism', since that's the real subject matter, but left-wing terrorism is certainly more common in scholarship than communist terrorism. --Ludwigs2 22:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I already tried to explain this. It's like if you would call Nazi death camps 'German death camps'. There's good reason to be specific. But whatever. Come to think of it, if it was an individual or an organisation, then sources not treating the subject specifically would be ok but since this is an intersection of two words, you need to show why bring these two words together rather than another. Revolutionary terrorism does seem better than Left-wing terrorism; it gives a clearer idea of what the topic is. Both are treated as individual subjects and "Revolutionary terrorism" does get more than twice as many google book hits than "left-wing terrorism". Munci (talk) 22:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just as a comment on your Nazi/German example (because it's a good one), the difference here is that the Nazi's were a (more-or-less) clearly defined singular group - we use 'Nazi death camps' because the camps were built and run within the context and philosophy of that singular entity. with respect to communism and terrorism, though, we have groups as diverse as the Shining Path, FARC, the Ba'ath party in Iraq (yeah, everyone forgets Hussein was a socialist dictator), the Viet Cong, Maoism in China, the revolutionary forces during the Russian revolution, western dilettante groups like the old Symbionese Liberation Army, the Irish Republican Army... these groups use different tactics for different goals under different ideological constructions, and the only thing they have in common is some form of lip-service to different forms of communist propaganda. It would be one thing if they all worked together in some kind of overarching communist framework (and if they did that there would be reams and reams of writing about it in the literature), but as far as I can see these groups would be as likely to kill each other as help each other if they moved in the same circles. I understand the urge to lump them together, but without something in the literature tying them together... --Ludwigs2 23:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I already tried to explain this. It's like if you would call Nazi death camps 'German death camps'. There's good reason to be specific. But whatever. Come to think of it, if it was an individual or an organisation, then sources not treating the subject specifically would be ok but since this is an intersection of two words, you need to show why bring these two words together rather than another. Revolutionary terrorism does seem better than Left-wing terrorism; it gives a clearer idea of what the topic is. Both are treated as individual subjects and "Revolutionary terrorism" does get more than twice as many google book hits than "left-wing terrorism". Munci (talk) 22:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Munci, I'm not sure why you'd think 'left-wing' is more biased than 'communist'. As I've said before, I think this article should really be called 'revolutionary terrorism', since that's the real subject matter, but left-wing terrorism is certainly more common in scholarship than communist terrorism. --Ludwigs2 22:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- One may only guess why scholars refer to Marxixt-Leninist terrorism as Left-wing terrorism and not something else. But "[a]rticles are normally titled using the name which is most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article."[36] TFD (talk) 22:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You have fallen into the trap to Google magic. You have provided sources, but it seems that you have not even read them! "Terrorism" and "Communism" are among the most common words in the English language and they sometimes randomly follow each other in a particular order. Google Books produces a almost a hundred or these random occurrences in the millions of books it indexes. In most cases these occur when the author tries to avoid repetition when discussing left-wing terrorism. Here is a breakdown of your three sources:
- (ec) Munci, you are right that left-wing terrorists generally tend to be extremists also on the political spectrum, i.e. more likely to call themselves communists or Marxists than social democrats. There is thus little need to disambiguate between different types of leftist terrorists. As for the question of why they are called left-wing terrorists, TFD already provided the answer. It is not for us to express our opinion on what they should be called. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Leftist terrorism gets more Google hits than "revolutionary terrorism". However "revolutionary terrorism" is a broader concept and not clearly defined. Notice the first page of Google hits includes "terror" by revolutionary governments (France and Russia), nationalist terrorism (Algeria and India), and "religious terrorism" (al Qaeda). TFD (talk) 22:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Just read the original version, a really well written article, not sure why it has been nominated for deletion TBH.--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- it was nominated because it's well-written synthesis. Please check the sources. --Ludwigs2 20:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There seem to be no reliable sources devoted to discussions of a specific topic entitled "communist terrorism". There are numerous academic texts on terrorism. Left-wing terrorism or revolutionary terror already contain any material that other users might have been discussing here. The page could survive as either a disambiguation or a slightly longer stub, also pointing to other articles. Best probably is a list with redirects, without any possibility for expansion. Mathsci (talk) 20:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Communism and terrorism as proposed above. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - At best a WP:POVFORK of Left-wing terrorism and at worst a WP:SYNTH violation.Griswaldo (talk) 03:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- From what I've seen, it's Left-wing terrorism that is the WP:POVFORK. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 03:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just a FYI. Look at this version of left-wing terrorism which was deleted in 2006 per this discussion. In 2007, an expanded version of that deleted content was recreated, now named as communist terrorism. It evolved into this version where Marxism, revolutionary terror and modern terrorism were mixed in a WP:POV-titled bowl of WP:SYNTH. Then to fix SYNTH and POV issues different content was moved to revolutionary terror, left-wing terrorism with some parts of the older versions going to terrorism and the Soviet Union. Now there is an ongoing bitter debate over what content to put into an article titled communist terrorism. (Igny (talk) 05:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- yeah. I know. but patience is always on the side of reason, and I've decided not to let this issue go until there is a modicum of reason present on the (multiple) page(s). this AfD was premature and ill-advised, and will (likely as not) resolve nothing. but that's ok. --Ludwigs2 06:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all the synthesis concerns. Communism and terrorism would be a better article name: for instance, Julian Assange of Wikileaks, an Australian whistleblower and very possibly a communist, has been accused of terrorism and treason by some American Representatives. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A lot of the discussion above confuses me, when there are so many sources out there. I have no opinion on whether it should be renamed to Communism and terrorism, since that isn't really relevant to this discussion. I can understand the arguments about whether Communist terrorism is a myth or not, since there seems to be quite an argument in the scholarly world about this as well. However, that just means that this article should be about the term and its use throughout history, not necessarily communist terrorism as a reality. As for sourcing, there is this, this (which does highlight the ambiguity of the term, but doesn't change the notability of it as a term), this, this, this, and this. There's a lot more where that came from, 3,470 results (for me) more of it. SilverserenC 21:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as SYN, and unencyclopedic POV-magnet. BigK HeX (talk) 21:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notability amply demonstrated by the sources. "POV" magnet is no more reason to delete here, than it would be to delete the abortion or Israel articles.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is true that it is close to impossible to write a resonable article by people who are neither experts in communism nor in terrorism, nor even in writing a coherent essay; however the term is rather specific and deserves description. Since it is an abstract political term, the proper way is to write who and how understands this term and how it is applied. Lovok Sovok (talk) 16:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Comment.If 'communist terrorism' is "an abstract political term", then sources would presumably be available that discussed it as such. Given the long period which has elapsed since a request for any source which discussed the phenomenon in general (if it actually is a 'general phenomenon'), rather than just using it as a label (often merely a synonym for leftist terrorism, and sometimes used as such in the same text, for stylistic reasons), I can see no reason to assume that such sources exist. I'd also strongly suggest that an article about the usage of an 'abstract political term' should have a different title than the term itself. Actually, the usage of the term seems to be anything but 'abstract', as can often been said for the term 'terrorism': instead it is often used to avoid analysis, but instead condemn as self-evidently 'wrong'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You (and other talks) convinced me that I am insufficiently educated to judge about the fate of this article. So I am withdrawing my vote. And as a final say let me put in a nice quote: "Communist terrorism" is another worn-out anticommunist myth which has recently been revived by American politicians and ideologists". In other words, in early 1980s the term was in sufficient circulation to disturb Soviet ideologists. So I stay with my opinion that it is only our ignorance what prevents us from writing an article on the subject. Lovok Sovok (talk) 02:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment.If 'communist terrorism' is "an abstract political term", then sources would presumably be available that discussed it as such. Given the long period which has elapsed since a request for any source which discussed the phenomenon in general (if it actually is a 'general phenomenon'), rather than just using it as a label (often merely a synonym for leftist terrorism, and sometimes used as such in the same text, for stylistic reasons), I can see no reason to assume that such sources exist. I'd also strongly suggest that an article about the usage of an 'abstract political term' should have a different title than the term itself. Actually, the usage of the term seems to be anything but 'abstract', as can often been said for the term 'terrorism': instead it is often used to avoid analysis, but instead condemn as self-evidently 'wrong'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article is a POV fork of Left-wing terrorism and initially was designed to present a synthesis that the USSR was a 'terrtorist state' (see the history). The article Left-wing terrorism which precedes this article by four years was nominated for deletion shortly after this one was created.--Dojarca (talk) 07:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhpaps you missed the fact that the old LWT article was redirected to the new name for years? The "new" LWT article is 'exceedingly recent, so your argument should be that it is the fork. Collect (talk) 11:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Collect: for the umpteenth time, no one cares. please read wp:NOTBUREAUCRACY. This isn't some procedural issue about which name came first, this is a content issue about which name is correct for the article. Please get your head on straight. --Ludwigs2 14:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- IOW, if LWT came first, then that is "important." If CT came first that is "unimportant." I hate to say this, but arguing both sides is silly -- if it is important if LWT was the first article, then it is also important iif CT was first. Which it was. And from any reasonable viewpoint, the new LWT article is, indeed, a POVfork of the first water. As for saying "get your head on straigth" - that is precisely the type of comment which shows the intent of those seeking deletion of CT -- that is, to conform to what they know is the true correct POV (theirs). Thanks for affirming this. Collect (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Now you're just making crap up. If you're going to lie about what I said, and least make it a believable lie. I don't care which frigging article name came first; I care which phrase has support in sources. There is virtually no support in sources for the phrase communist terrorism. The 'get your head on straight' line referred to your evident preference for procedural complaints over reasoned discussion. If you keep this up, collect, you are heading for an RFC/U - you are well into wp:IDHT territory, and I have limits as to how much tendentious refusal-to-understand-the-point I'll put up with from a single editor. Consider that your first warning. --Ludwigs2 17:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? Try WP:AGF a bit. As there are well over two hundred books listed by Google Scholar for the precise term eliminating every one which refers to Malaya, your claim fails. Note this entirely refers to facts which are ascertainable by others. Now kindly again read WP:AGF. Thanks. Collect (talk) 17:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How about showing good faith, rather than going over the same ground endlessly when it is getting us nowhere? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Collect, as I keep saying (and you keep not hearing) a google search proves nothing. You need to provide an actual passage from a quote which uses the term meaningfully, so that we can all see that you are correct. Your inability/refusal to do so to date speaks volumes. --Ludwigs2 18:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? Try WP:AGF a bit. As there are well over two hundred books listed by Google Scholar for the precise term eliminating every one which refers to Malaya, your claim fails. Note this entirely refers to facts which are ascertainable by others. Now kindly again read WP:AGF. Thanks. Collect (talk) 17:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Now you're just making crap up. If you're going to lie about what I said, and least make it a believable lie. I don't care which frigging article name came first; I care which phrase has support in sources. There is virtually no support in sources for the phrase communist terrorism. The 'get your head on straight' line referred to your evident preference for procedural complaints over reasoned discussion. If you keep this up, collect, you are heading for an RFC/U - you are well into wp:IDHT territory, and I have limits as to how much tendentious refusal-to-understand-the-point I'll put up with from a single editor. Consider that your first warning. --Ludwigs2 17:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- IOW, if LWT came first, then that is "important." If CT came first that is "unimportant." I hate to say this, but arguing both sides is silly -- if it is important if LWT was the first article, then it is also important iif CT was first. Which it was. And from any reasonable viewpoint, the new LWT article is, indeed, a POVfork of the first water. As for saying "get your head on straigth" - that is precisely the type of comment which shows the intent of those seeking deletion of CT -- that is, to conform to what they know is the true correct POV (theirs). Thanks for affirming this. Collect (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Collect: for the umpteenth time, no one cares. please read wp:NOTBUREAUCRACY. This isn't some procedural issue about which name came first, this is a content issue about which name is correct for the article. Please get your head on straight. --Ludwigs2 14:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhpaps you missed the fact that the old LWT article was redirected to the new name for years? The "new" LWT article is 'exceedingly recent, so your argument should be that it is the fork. Collect (talk) 11:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA. That is all. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, agreed, user Ludwigs please stop accusing and attacking contributors , focus on content, you seem a bit overly involved, perhaps take a step back. Off2riorob (talk) 21:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, he said that he gave a meaningful quote from a source on the article talk page, which I don't remember at all. Either he did it and I missed it (in which case I'd like to see a diff so I can review the material) or he didn't do it (in which case he's - yes - lying). If he provides a diff, I'll apologize, but if he is in fact actually lying, you guys don't get to bust my chops for pointing it out. Lying on a AfD page is a fairly gross violation of wp:consensus and clear wp:tendentious editing, which far outweigh any minor violation of wp:CIV I make by discussing it. --Ludwigs2 22:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Two wrongs do not make a right. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, he said that he gave a meaningful quote from a source on the article talk page, which I don't remember at all. Either he did it and I missed it (in which case I'd like to see a diff so I can review the material) or he didn't do it (in which case he's - yes - lying). If he provides a diff, I'll apologize, but if he is in fact actually lying, you guys don't get to bust my chops for pointing it out. Lying on a AfD page is a fairly gross violation of wp:consensus and clear wp:tendentious editing, which far outweigh any minor violation of wp:CIV I make by discussing it. --Ludwigs2 22:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, agreed, user Ludwigs please stop accusing and attacking contributors , focus on content, you seem a bit overly involved, perhaps take a step back. Off2riorob (talk) 21:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA. That is all. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(out)(To L2) Fabricate? More PA when you were told to cease? Try looking at [37] I'm sure if we listen carefully we'll hear the entire internet weeping... Collect [38] Collect, if you refuse to allow the possibility that other editors might be operating in [wp:AGF|good faith]], please say so now, explicitly, so that I can ask an admin to indef-block you [39] Again, the whole "baffle 'em with bull" approach doesn't work on me [40] we seem to have some free time while the AfD plays out, I'm going to make an offer. If anyone wants to make an argument to reinsert specific sections or passages from the moved material, I'm listening as el Exigente. And I aver that I made none of these diffs up either. Collect (talk) 12:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, collect, you can attack me until your blue in the face (I'm not all that thin skinned about it), but you still have not produced a source. I will highlight the fact that you chose not to provide the diff I asked for above, and instead chose to focus on my purported badness. should I take that as an indication that you do not have such a diff, and that I was correct in my accusations above? I think most people can put 2&2 together at this point, whether or not you want to admit it. --Ludwigs2 13:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your edit summary accusing me of "being related to Sarah Palin" speaks volumes :) Heck try [41] for a single example at the start: THE IMPACT OF TERROR ON THE AUTHORITY, IDEOLOGY, AND MORALE OF A REVOLUTIONARY REGIME IN A COMMUNIST SYSTEM IS DISCUSSED; GOALS ACHIEVED THROUGH AND REPERCUSSIONS OF TERRORISM ARE HIGHLIGHTED Stanford University Press should be RS enough for you. Collect (talk) 16:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Best not to lose your sense of humor, collect - Palin jokes are all the rage these days.
- Your edit summary accusing me of "being related to Sarah Palin" speaks volumes :) Heck try [41] for a single example at the start: THE IMPACT OF TERROR ON THE AUTHORITY, IDEOLOGY, AND MORALE OF A REVOLUTIONARY REGIME IN A COMMUNIST SYSTEM IS DISCUSSED; GOALS ACHIEVED THROUGH AND REPERCUSSIONS OF TERRORISM ARE HIGHLIGHTED Stanford University Press should be RS enough for you. Collect (talk) 16:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect to the source you provided, I have three comments:
- That's the first thing resembling a decent source that you've provided in this discussion so far. thank you, that makes discussion easier.
- Even this source (which should be right on target for this topic) does not talk about 'communist terrorism': it talks about political/revolutionary terrorism (a more general category) within communist regimes. I'd actually have to look at the book itself to see how the material plays out, but the abstract doesn't really lend support to the concept of communist terrorism as a distinct area of research. If you'd like to consider renaming the page to 'political terror in communist regimes' (which might be a decent choice, incidentally), that would fly better
- The book is 40 years old now - can you find anything more recent? On the other hand, a 40 year old book that was significant in its field should have built up a decent set of works that cite it - have you checked the citation indexes for more current sources on the same topic?
- With respect to the source you provided, I have three comments:
- @ Bushranger - FYI, bluster doesn't work on me. Best if you try a different approach. Unless you enjoy that kind of thing, of course, in which case please feel free to continue. --Ludwigs2 18:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's good, as I don't bluster. Things seem to be taking a more civil turn, though, thankfully, so assuming things stay civil, we're all good. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 19:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- @ Bushranger - FYI, bluster doesn't work on me. Best if you try a different approach. Unless you enjoy that kind of thing, of course, in which case please feel free to continue. --Ludwigs2 18:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE: Ludwig2, please cease your personal attacks, or you will be reported. Regardless of what Collect has or has not said or done, your conduct and comments are utterly inexcusable. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Obvious POV fork. Apparently no sources. Alternatively, based on the Communist genocide debacle, that's the perfect criteria for article creation. We should also start a page on Neo-Keynesian paedophilia. --FormerIP (talk) 02:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- PS This page almost made me wet myself: Communist_terrorism_(disambiguation). Talk about self-parody. --FormerIP (talk) 02:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that's all on User:Petri Krohn. Disambiguating a term to a disambiguation of the term itself. Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- PS This page almost made me wet myself: Communist_terrorism_(disambiguation). Talk about self-parody. --FormerIP (talk) 02:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - There are plenty of sources, this article has already survived 2 afds. - Schrandit (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. All the keep arguments are eithe assertions or based on sources being found. My reading of the discussion is that noone has actually provided any sources so,,, Spartaz Humbug! 10:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Taku Kitahara[edit]
- Taku Kitahara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This BLP has been unsourced for over 2 years. I have been unable to verify the scant information in any reliable sources and I have not been able to verify that he meets WP:GNG or WP:ENT as there is no substantial coverage anywhere (at least that I found in my search). Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I can verify an image song for My Neighbor Totoro and Anime News Network is reporting that he performed the theme for the film Venus Wars, but gives no source for the credit. —Farix (t | c) 02:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He is also credited for performing the opening and closing themes of Dash! Yonkuro, that combined with singing the opening and closing themes for Choushinsei Flashman could be enough to tip this over in passing WP:MUSICBIO. The question now rest on whether anison.info can be used as a reliable source. —Farix (t | c) 02:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I checked to see if anison.info was cited as a source by Anime News Network, and while it didn't seem to be used as a source for any news articles there, one of the main staff encyclopedia editors repeatedly suggested on the forums that it is the best database of anime music (for example here [42]). It's also used as a source or external link in several other Wikipedia articles. I'm inclined to believe that it is the best source out there for information on anime music, though I don't know if it would pass the requirements for a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. Also, if it helps to verify that he did sing one of the songs credited to him, I found this Amazon.com listing for a CD that lists him as the singer for the one of the Dash! Yonkuro songs [43] (the 17th song on the first disc in the track listing). Calathan (talk) 07:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable work for notable series. Dream Focus 00:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, though the author's work was published, it doesn't looks like he created anything since 1990s. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 02:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He is a singer, not an author. And how does when he did his work have anything to do with whether he should have an article? Calathan (talk) 04:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My way of thinking was, if the guy is not notable now, and he is not singing anymore, he won't get anymore notable in the future. I tried to google his name in Romaji and Kanji but was unable to find any reliable websites about him. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 03:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He is a singer, not an author. And how does when he did his work have anything to do with whether he should have an article? Calathan (talk) 04:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, provided that reliable sources can be found to verify the song performances in Venus Wars, Dash! Yonkuro, and Choushinsei Flashman. That would be enough to pass WP:MUSICBIO criterion #10. Though WP:MUSICBIO suggests a redirect might be appropriate if a person only meets that criterion, with songs in multiple notable works a separate article is probably appropriate (WP:MUSICBIO suggests a redirect based on WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E, but performances in three notable works obviously isn't only one event, and you can't redirect to three places anyway). However, I'm not sure if his song for My Neighbor Totoro would count as a performance in a notable work, as it did not appear in the movie, just on a CD associated with the movie. If no reliable sources can be found that verify his songs were used in any of the notable works, then probably the article should be deleted (at least until someone tracks down a source). Calathan (talk) 05:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Farix, Calathan. Edward321 (talk) 14:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This website [44] says he is a producer of CDs, that he the founder and head of TEAM Entertainment, and that he produces works by Motoi Sakuraba. I'm not sure if TEAM Entertainment is a notable company (the Wikipedia article for it doesn't say much about it), but that at least explains what he has done since the 1990s. Calathan (talk) 05:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deleted by JzG (talk · contribs); rationale was "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion." Non-admin closure by nominator. —KuyaBriBriTalk 22:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eurotech Soccer Camp[edit]
- Eurotech Soccer Camp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested prod. Promotional piece about a company that fails notability criteria. None of the references given are reliable sources, and I couldn't find any. —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unsourced article with no claim to notability. - Pmedema (talk) 19:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hourglass (Christian rock band)[edit]
- Hourglass (Christian rock band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Could not find significant coverage for this local band. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no independent sources. Christian bands are ten a penny. Guy (Help!) 21:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete lacks notability. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable band, search for "Hourglass band" turns up several other bands with this name; "Hourglass band Christian" turns up no reliable sources or significant coverage. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 23:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable --Guerillero | My Talk 01:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tittytainment[edit]
- Tittytainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])
Unless the article is rewritten, esp the intro (WP:NPOV WP:Verifiability), I'm going to keep nominating this for AfD. Additionally the references contain NO mention of the term in question... ☭ cmn ☭ ( ❝❞ /✍ ) 22:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or smerge, a one-man neologism that has not received any wider currency. Guy (Help!) 21:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I would say speedy but it seems the term does exist...among the "Trilateral Commission? OMG NWO!" lunatics. WP:FRINGE, WP:NEO, WP:NPOV, I could go on. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 23:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep,It's real and upcoming phenomenon in the process of globalization.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 02:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to White rabbit. Spartaz Humbug! 10:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
White Rabbits[edit]
- White Rabbits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There is only two articles of White Rabbits include White Rabbits (sculptors) and White Rabbits (band). Macr86 (talk) 00:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural question (before possibly closing this as an error): this is a navigational disambiguation page for two ambiguous topics with no primary topic. If the goal is to make one of the topics primary, please see Wikipedia:Requested moves to request it be moved to the base name. Is the desired outcome to change this article to a redirect to the White rabbit disambiguation page? -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DELETE This article is really not an article at all, rather it appears to be a disambiguation page. As long as folks looking for White Rabbits (sculptors) can find that page while searching for "White Rabbits" I will be happy. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 00:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Redirect to White rabbit. Both "White rabbits" on this page are already on the White rabbit disambiguation page, this is a clear duplicate page. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 23:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no need to redirect this (and so this shouldn't be speedily done). Having different disambiguation pages for capitalization or number differences is acceptable. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Except both items on this redirection page are already on the other redirection page. If I had found this without it already being at AfD I would have tagged it with an A10 Speedy tag as a clear duplication of content. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 19:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not an exception. Disambiguation pages might have subsets of other disambiguation pages. (In this case, I tagged White rabbit for cleanup. It's unlikely that anyone looking for one of the ambiguous "White Rabbits" topics would search instead for "white rabbit".) -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Except both items on this redirection page are already on the other redirection page. If I had found this without it already being at AfD I would have tagged it with an A10 Speedy tag as a clear duplication of content. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 19:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no need to redirect this (and so this shouldn't be speedily done). Having different disambiguation pages for capitalization or number differences is acceptable. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy redirect per The Bushranger. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kelly-Ann Bishop[edit]
- Kelly-Ann Bishop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Newscaster who does not seem to meet WP:CREATIVE or WP:SIGCOV. NW (Talk) 16:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, completely unsourced WP:BLP. Guy (Help!) 21:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Laurent Puechguirbal[edit]
- Laurent Puechguirbal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence that the subject meets WP:CREATIVE. NW (Talk) 15:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unsourced WP:BLP. Guy (Help!) 21:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Brief film career[45] fails WP:ENT. Lack of coverage in reliable sources[46] fails WP:GNG. One novel which has not received coverage[47] fails WP:AUTHOR. This one is simply WP:TOOSOON. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It's not very notable, and it's unsourced. WAYNESLAM 23:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
G. H. Frost[edit]
- G. H. Frost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Seems like a typical author. No evidence that this pseudonymous writer meets WP:AUTHOR. NW (Talk) 15:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unsourced WP:BLP. Guy (Help!) 22:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable.GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deleted by JzG (talk · contribs); rationale was "A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content)". Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 22:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ron Schnitzius[edit]
- Ron Schnitzius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails to meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:SIGCOV. NW (Talk) 15:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No valid justification for speedy 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 delete. Spartaz Humbug! 10:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Massimo Gobbino[edit]
- Massimo Gobbino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails to meet WP:AUTHOR, WP:PROF, or WP:SIGCOV. As only the very rare and very exceptional International Math Olympiad contestant gets significant reliable source coverage, it is unlikely that Prof. Gobbino has gotten any that I missed in my search. NW (Talk) 15:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. He gets an H-score of 9 based on a GS search, which is marginal but could go either way. The subject is only an associate professor, so it isn't clear how he passes the basis test: "the academic is more notable than the average college instructor/professor" Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. He seems to be primarily notable not so much for his mathematical research but for his math team coaching activity, something more appropriately covered by WP:GNG than by WP:PROF. But although Google news archive finds several stories (in Italian) mentioning him in this role, they all do so only trivially as part of a larger story about the team itself. So I don't think he passes GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Leisure Dome (Weston-super-Mare)[edit]
- Leisure Dome (Weston-super-Mare) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Too soon to have an article for a proposed facility that has not yet been submitted to the planning authorities, so right now it is nothing more than an idea. It has been reported in the local press, but all they do is report what is proposed as nothing has been submitted for approval. I suggest that the article is deleted as it is very spammy, and should be recreated once planning approval is granted and it is known that construction will commence. Simple Bob (talk) 15:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- until the planning process has moved forward quite a bit, it's too WP:CRYSTAL-ballish for an article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - too speculative, and borderline notability anyway. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Although I can see the nominators rationale, I'm not sure the lack of planning permission can be used as an argument. To use a fairly local example Hinkley Point C nuclear power station doesn't (yet) have planning permission - but no one is suggesting that article should be deleted.— Rod talk 15:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hinkley Point is a different thing altogether. It has been widely reported in the national press for the past two years and as recently as October was confirmed by the government as a suitable site (subject to planning permission of course). Notability of the proposed power station is beyond doubt, while a proposed leisure scheme that has only been reported in local newspapers based on the company's press releases is not yet notable in my opinion. Planning consent would help establish its notability. --Simple Bob (talk) 15:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, without prejustice for recreation if and when construction begins. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 23:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy. If construction commences as planned, this will have a good case for notability. If not, it won't. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 10:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vegoia and Egeria[edit]
- Vegoia and Egeria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Wikipedia already has two articles Vegoia and Egeria. The content of this seems to be a lift from those two articles, plus a generous helping of original research claiming that the two are one deity/one is the inspiration for the other. It is notable that while the creator refers to a Jean-Rene Jannot, they do not cite a single sentence to anything that Jannot has ever published. Even if the creator is Jannot, and this is their doctoral thesis, it's OR and it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Jannot is a published scholar; however, that doesn't relieve the OR concerns, on which I'll comment below in posting my opinion. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It should be noted that this is the work of a new editor who may need some help becoming familiar with WP policies and guidelines. The essay seems to be a content fork from the new article Vegoia; both show many many Manual of Style issues, which also need to be addressed. I see the following grounds for deletion:
- Redundancy: A section can be added to Egeria and to Vegoia discussing their similarities. Readers of the encyclopedia may well find this more beneficial than a separate article.
- OR: Although much of the material appears to be sourced, I see only two secondary sources, Jannot (mainly) with some reference to Dumézil, whose work has achieved the status of being an object of study in its own right. The article is framed like an exploratory comparison-contrast essay, not an encyclopedia article. The footnotes are long and discursive; sometimes this is a useful way to avoid a digression in the body copy, but here they offer unsourced arguments. It seems to be about discovering rather than presenting material. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete For the above reasons and
because it is now impossible to trace attributions, ie who wrote what, thus much of it is copyvio from 3 other articles, not deliberate, but still copyvio.We could just stub it but we already have two articles. Dougweller (talk) 15:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] - Delete. As said above, this seems an editor's original comparison and contrast of primary-ish sources, or the material in two separate articles, to propose a thesis of some sort. If the topic was notable enough to be a subject of specific scholarly enquiries (plural), that might be worth a keep. Not in this case. Haploidavey (talk) 15:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.
- Delete, but not before preserving this text on Talk:Vegoia or a linked subpage to that page. The similarities between the two goddesses should be discussed on one page or another, and mutually linked, but it seems that this relationship at the moment is one man's theory. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Until or unless the material's cited using secondary sources, preservation on a sub-page or user-page seems appropriate. Haploidavey (talk) 16:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
:::Note There are copyvio issues here as much of this material comes from other articles and isn't attributed. I've asked User:Moonriddengirl about this and she agrees. Copying from other articles must be attributed, and that hasn't happened here. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Dougweller (talk) 16:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. SInce copyright violations weren't the original grounds for proposing deletion, and since these are being addressed (much of it seems to be misunderstanding and correctable), I wonder where we stand on the question of deletion. I still think this is not an independent article; the cited grounds of WP:OR#Redundant content forks also raises the question of notability. I think as a scholarly question pertaining to these figures, it's notable enough to be included in their respective articles, but not to warrant a separate article. That's where OR comes into play: the secondary sources are limited, and a certain degree of originality is required to make this a stand-alone essay, emphasis on "essay": it isn't an encyclopedia article. No one, not even the creator, has recorded a "keep" here. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Deletion was proposed on the grounds of a content fork, OR and a non-notable topic. The copyvio is a side issue. Let the deletion debate run its course, see what comes out at the end. The material can be userfied (provided any copyvios are dealt with) if it is deleted and anyone wants it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. SInce copyright violations weren't the original grounds for proposing deletion, and since these are being addressed (much of it seems to be misunderstanding and correctable), I wonder where we stand on the question of deletion. I still think this is not an independent article; the cited grounds of WP:OR#Redundant content forks also raises the question of notability. I think as a scholarly question pertaining to these figures, it's notable enough to be included in their respective articles, but not to warrant a separate article. That's where OR comes into play: the secondary sources are limited, and a certain degree of originality is required to make this a stand-alone essay, emphasis on "essay": it isn't an encyclopedia article. No one, not even the creator, has recorded a "keep" here. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bruce Schwack[edit]
- Bruce Schwack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This possible autobiography has not been referenced since it was created in 2007. There are no strong claims to notability. It has had a proposed deletion tag removed previously so I am now bringing it to AfD. Polargeo (talk) 13:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:BIO. Good heavens, this article's survived 3 years? RayTalk 05:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Appears to fail WP:BIO, WP:GNG, can't find reliable secondary sources which .... --j⚛e deckertalk 16:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - It would seem that it is verfiable that he was Clarence Clemons manager [48]. However, there is no significant coverage about him. After I read the article, I correctly guessed that the user who created the article was bschwack. -- Whpq (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep, nomination withdrawn. BencherliteTalk 11:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jitender Mehra[edit]
- Jitender Mehra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is BLP about an Indian cricketer, who isn't notable.According to his profile at cricket archive, (shown in external links) he has only played one first class match in his career.Even, it was a local cricket match between two Indian counties.Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 13:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC) Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 13:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: per the WP:ATHLETE#Cricket guidelines (in line with WP:CRIN recommendations). Playing one first-class match is enough to ascertain notability. Precedence has been long set that "People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport" (in this case f-c cricket) are notable, without any reference to number of games played.—User:MDCollins (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: for the reasons given by User:MDCollins. JH (talk page) 17:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:CRIN. ----Jack | talk page 19:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:CRIC, Mehra is notable because he has played first-class cricket, which is the highest level the game is played among certain Indian domestic teams. Having played cricket at the highest domestic level, this also makes him notable under WP:ATH. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry but I didn't knew about WP:CRIC and WP:CRIN.As the nominator, I'm closing this AFD.Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 06:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Paddy Beirne[edit]
- Paddy Beirne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unable to find any coverage independent of the subject. Unable to figure out what the BAMA award is that he is reported to have won nevermind verify that he won it. Based on the subject's age, 22, and the age of the article, 2, I wouldn't be suprised if it was a student award he won. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. —J04n(talk page) 13:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ——J04n(talk page) 13:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I can't seem to find anything to verify this article and this BLP. Fails WP:RS and WP:N. - Pmedema (talk) 20:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - subject fails both WP:GNG and the contents of this BLP are completely unverifiable. I've searched under a variety of name combinations. The BAMA award probably refers to an "award" from the rather grandly named "Bristol Academy of Media Arts" part of South Gloucestershire and Stroud College, a vocational school for 14-19 year olds. Voceditenore (talk) 07:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unverifiable. -- Whpq (talk) 17:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I did a LexisNexis search of this person and found nothing except a few references to other people with the same name. A search for his name and "film" produced no results. I also couldn't find anything on the BAMA awards except the "British Aerosol Manufacturers' Association" and "Birmingham Area Music Awards", neither of which apply here of course. Definitely seems to fail WP:V to me, and I wouldn't be surprised if this were a WP:HOAX altogether. — Hunter Kahn 19:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If the only claim to notability doesn't appear in reliable sources (or any kind of source for this matter), it's not notable. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: A thorough search turns up absolutely nothing. --Dylan620 (t • c • r) 20:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete In its use in the article, BAMA Award is an acronym for "Birmingham Area Music Award", found mentioned in some articles,[49][50] but of which I can find no further information on just who the BAMA group is. Lack of career, lack of sources, lack of actual sourcability, all indicate that at best, this one is TOO SOON. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 10:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True.Origin Archive[edit]
- True.Origin Archive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Obscure, anonymously-edited creationist (and thus WP:FRINGE) website. Disputed A7 & G4 WP:SPEEDY candidate. No articulation of notability (beyond an absurd article talk claim that a creationist reply to TalkOrigins Archive is inherently notable). Recreated from a redirect, by a since-indef-blocked user, only months after original article was AfDed & deleted, cited almost solely to topic-website. No WP:RS coverage to speak of (beyond a few bare citations, and occasional mention in TOA, but that website catalogs all creationist claims no matter how obscure). Coverage even in the more prominent creationist literature is thin (a bare citation in The politically incorrect guide to Darwinism and intelligent design was all I could find). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's 6:30AM here and I haven't slept in several hours. I hope people can give me circa 18 hours to reply before piling on the deletes so I can convince people of a keep, or failing that a merge. (For clarity, I'm not the guy who recreated this.) Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe you should have thought about that before you demanded a second AfD for this already-AfD-deleted WP:SELFPUB-sourced article. (And it should be obvious that you're not the recreator -- as if you were you'd be indef-blocked and unable to comment here.) HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt. What has changed since the last AfD? ~Amatulić (talk) 18:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as a clear G4. The version that was recreated by User:AshforkAZ in October is an exact copy of the deleted article. The current version adds a couple paragraphs but nothing that's reliably sourced. That aside, the site fails WP:WEB.
(1) The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. Aside from Talk.Origins, there are no reliable sources cited in the article. A search of Talk.Origins turns up one article that could possibly fit criterion 1 - A Reply to "Talk.Origins: Deception by Omission" by Mike Dunford, and even that is a fairly weak source. Even if this is an acceptable source (a fact that some would certainly dispute), it's not a sufficient source. You couldn't write an encyclopaedic article about the website only using Dunford's article. And apart from that, I can find no other reliable sources. So it fails the bit about multiple reviews.
(2) The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization. I can find no evidence that it has.
(3) The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. Again, I can find no evidence of this.
The article fails WP:WEB and is a textbook CSD G4. I really don't understand why this is even at AFD. Guettarda (talk) 04:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was deleted by administrator Athaenara (talk · contribs) under WP:CSD#G7. (non-admin closure) RayTalk 21:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abdul Rauf (Sipah-e Sahaba Pakistan)[edit]
- Abdul Rauf (Sipah-e Sahaba Pakistan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:BIO. Based on one source where the full relevant text is "he deceased reportedly included a senior leader of the banned Sipah-e Sahaba Pakistan, Dera Ismail Khan, Abdul Rauf. He along with two other leaders was said to be missing for long time. Officially, nothing could be confirmed about the death of Abdul Rauf."[51] This is not sufficient basis to form a Wikipedia article. Google searches for further sources were fruitless, but made more difficult by the abundance of Abdul Raufs. Fram (talk) 10:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A two-sentence mention in a single source is a far cry from satisfying either WP:N or WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 10:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- RayTalk 03:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. RayTalk 03:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 10:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominal Christian[edit]
- Nominal Christian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I had added Essay and NPOV tags which were removed twice by the article's creator and its only contributor. The entire article is written in a biased essay style. I also doubt the article meets any notability requirements, and seems more like a dictionary entry. It relies on a series of quotes and opinions, and not on facts being verified. Article is serious POV. Examples are the opening statement - "A nominal Christian is a Christian in name only". Also - "The phrase is also used in a perjorative sense of those who attend church but have not had a born again experience" – both very biased statements. There is no attempt to show that this is some sort of movement or system of beliefs. Following addition of tags, the only contributor invited comment from other users (nothing wrong with that, of course) but the replies only supported my opinions that it should be removed. Replies suggested that the term is only a dictionary term for wiktionary, and also some suggestions of merging to another article. (See article's talk page). I can't see any notability at all so am listing for AFD. Dmol (talk) 09:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Smacks of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. --Confession0791 talk 09:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Several references are provided to demonstrate the notability of the term. The article clearly indicates that some theologians (e.g. Douglas Wilson) disagree with the term - the fact that a debate exists over the use of the term indicates that an article is appropriate. StAnselm (talk) 10:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —StAnselm (talk) 10:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. For a start, the idea of someone being nominally religious cannot be restricted to Christianity alone. Nominal Christianity is not a notable concept in and of itself. Any useful content could be merged to Christian and/or Religion.--KorruskiTalk 11:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete pointless article. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 22:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jon Weber (baseball)[edit]
- Jon Weber (baseball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable minor league outfielder. He has been around a while, but he has never reached the major leagues and at age 32 it seems very unlikely that he is going to. Alex (talk) 05:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The history suggests that the article was started in hopes that he was going to be playing MLB in 2009, but there's no indication that he ever got above Triple-A. Not subject to the specific guideline in WP:ATHLETE, and not notable enough for a stand-alone article. Mandsford 13:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If is the minor leader, not says that not is encyclopedic « CA » Talk 15:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable minor leaguer--Yankees10 19:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ambivalent I guess. I'm not sure where to draw the line on these career minor leaguers. How important are his drug suspensions? --Muboshgu (talk) 02:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, he'd announced his retirement four days before the ban, so the last one possibly wasn't important after all. I must say that apart from getting caught (drugwise, that is) so often he doesn't seem to have achieved much, but then most of American sport is a total mystery to me. Peridon (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted as a page originally blatent advertiing, subsequently changed into a page for defaming an organization. created only to defame a person or =organization. The various eds. involved have been given a final warning. DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IJTS[edit]
- IJTS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This page is basically an "exposé" of some school that is apparently not on the up and up. None of the references are from reliable sources. The original author wrote on the talk page: "I decided to create this page, So it could go public and then it has a little more chance for the government officials of Sri Lanka to be aware of this fraud. Please contribute to expand this.". If the situation had reached the press then there might be some notability to it, but as it is it looks like a crusade against the (pseudo) school. ... discospinster talk 05:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Ngaio, New Zealand. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 00:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ngaio School[edit]
- Ngaio School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I don't really see any notability for a school at this level. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Ngaio, New Zealand as is standard procedure for articles about elementary schools. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Redirect - we normally do this on sight for primary schools (except wherethere is some distinct notability). dramatic (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Information has now been added to Ngaio, New Zealand. dramatic (talk) 08:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Redirect - per above. OSbornarfcontributionatoration 01:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) -- Lear's Fool 05:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wedding of Joseph Guiso and Honey (dog)[edit]
- Wedding of Joseph Guiso and Honey (dog) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is well referenced, but Wikipedia is not a news source, and it is hard to see this novelty story gaining any persistent coverage as required by the notability guidelines for events. -- Lear's Fool 04:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn in favour of a bold redirect to Human-animal marriage, per below. -- Lear's Fool 05:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool 04:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool 04:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A while back, wasn't there an equally God-awful nonencyclopedic article, which was unfortunately kept, about some Moslem man who was forced to marry a goat? Edison (talk) 04:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Found it: Sudanese goat marriage incident. Edison (talk) 04:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect
Mergeto Human-animal marriage. Fails WP:NOTNEWS as a stand-alone article describing a case of depravity (if not bestiality) which was briefly noted by the press. Edison (talk) 04:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]- That article is pretty much just a list of cases, and already includes a mention of this event, so I'm not sure how much more of this article could be merged into it. Given that, would you suggest a redirect to Human-animal marriage? -- Lear's Fool 05:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blueneck[edit]
- Blueneck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:NOTNEO - this simply hasn't received significant coverage in reliable sources. There's one book that uses it, and it's clearly used as a rhetorical device rather than as a serious neologism (the title is the only usage of the word). All the other results I can find are either false results for something else (there's apparently a band) or from forums and UrbanDictionary and the like. Roscelese (talk) 04:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Roscelese (talk) 04:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Roscelese (talk) 04:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Roscelese (talk) 04:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Roscelese (talk) 04:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Unless someone can find a lot of off-line sources, this just doesn't seem to be used often enough by reliable sources to be able to create a properly sourced article. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pavel Turcu[edit]
- Pavel Turcu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A supermarket guard who's only claim to notability is a finalist for Moldova in the Eurovision song contest. He did not represent Moldova in Eurovision, he only made it to the final round for the country. Losing country-level finalists for eurovision usually do not have articles unless they are otherwise notable. Gigs (talk) 14:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 15:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 00:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. —Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 04:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I created this page because I noticed that the "Divi Fillus" page already had this before being blanked and replaced with its current content, but after investigating further, I found out that band that supposedly made this album was deleted on notability grounds. So my bad for resurrecting a page that was previously agreed by Wikipedia to be deleted. And since I know nothing about the band or the album to make it notable, there's no reason to keep it around. I don't know how to delete though so...yeah. Putting it to a vote should help out.--SilentScope001 (talk) 04:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Barbara Rockefeller[edit]
- Barbara Rockefeller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Independent essayist she may be, but I'm seeing no evidence of third part significant coverage. NW (Talk) 04:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - this is not the late famous ex-wife of Winthrop Rockefeller. This is the woman with one quote in a news story five years ago [52]. 01:13, 3 December 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 06:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Christopher John Moore[edit]
- Christopher John Moore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not appear to meet WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC NW (Talk) 04:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Tuning your guitar in an unusual way does not make you notable. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sheila Dooley[edit]
- Sheila Dooley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics)—has not made a major impact within her field (per my search in Google Scholar) NW (Talk) 04:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Her papers don't have the citation impact to pass WP:PROF#C1, she's only adjunct faculty at her institution, and what else is there? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Greg Saporta[edit]
- Greg Saporta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable football sub-assistant coach. Fails to meet either WP:SIGCOV or WP:ATHLETE. NW (Talk) 04:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Assistant strength and conditioning coach is a minor position. College career does not confer any notability. -Drdisque (talk) 19:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Samantha John[edit]
- Samantha John (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Run of the mill newscaster. Fails to meet WP:SIGCOV. NW (Talk) 04:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, no significant coverage found.--Tikiwont (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Nomination Withdrawn . Spartaz Humbug! 10:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Continue[edit]
- Continue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Full of OR, and Unreferenced since 2006 this article shows no potential on wikipedia. Fails WP: V Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:OR, WP:NOTESSAY, and unencyclopedic. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 04:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep obviously needs cleanup, but although sources are difficult to find, I am having some luck ([53] Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman. Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals. 2004. p. 264 [describing how the option to "continue" influenced the game design of Gauntlet]). I'm sure strategy guides or manuals for the games referenced can probably also serve as sources. RJaguar3 | u | t 05:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If this is kept, it probably ought to be moved to an unambiguous title such as Continue (video gaming). My expectation would be that this should redirect to the disambiguation page continuity. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:HEY, based on sources found by RJaguar3. Bearian (talk) 01:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD Withdraw with Comment After seeing the article in it's current form I am withdrawing this nom and thanking the editors who have fixed it up. The only issue I see with the article is the name and think it should be moved to Continue (video gaming) as the title "continue" alone is a word and should goto a disambiguation page continuity per Ihcoyc. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Central Avenue Church of Christ Valdosta, Georgia[edit]
- Central Avenue Church of Christ Valdosta, Georgia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I originally prodded this article with a concern of no evidence for notability. The author contested the prod via a talk page query. It was subsequently speedily deleted as G11 promotion. The author reposted it. An A7 deletion request was met with the author's declaring intent just to repost (presumably again). I think we need to come to a consensus on this article subject's suitability for Wikipedia. LadyofShalott 03:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 03:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 03:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, salt if need be. A cursory glance at Google search results reveals to me no suggestion of notability. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 03:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Average and typical church doing a fine job of what churches do, but non-notable as an organization. The local gas station pumps gas, the local McDonald's fries burgers, the local church does what this one does, all satisfactorily, and kudos to them. Does not seem to have reliable and independent secondary sources with significant coverage, thus failing notability. Edison (talk) 05:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete due to lack of independent reliable sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt I speedied this, non-notable, spam, no refs, could well be a copyright violation, what's to discuss Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for a lack of referecnes that would establish notability. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 13:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete lacks reliable sources, no notability proved. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 15:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
maybe if you looked at my sources you would see that they are reliable! i talked to many members at this church for information including one of the preachers....is that not RELIABLE? i am determined to keep this article up here one way or another. this church is doing great things in South georgia and yall are just too single minded to see it. there are other documents about churches up here? why dont you go harass their authors as well! Vscheer94 (talk) 15:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Do Not Delete Informative article. There are articles on both the city and county where this church is located. This is a piece of those histories. There are thousands of articles on wikipedia about less notable topics. Those looking for this information will be able to find it; those who are not interested will not be affected. Wikibrian28 (talk 15:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikibrian28 has only edited this article, and is presumably a sock of Vscheer94 Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikibrian28 has never met Vscheer94. Sometimes it's not best to make assumptions. I edited because I thought integration with other wikipedia articles might be helpful. Every one of you had a first article you edited. This one is mine. I am impressed that someone put together something like that for a school project. Again, the article is informative and harmless. Wikibrian28 (talk 15:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As I pointed out in another discussion, I have a compost bin. It is now mentioned in two places on the internet - but it is still not very notable. (Might get there someday...) This article is fairly harmless - somewhat promotional in places. Harmlessness is not a criterion we look for. (On the other hand, libel is one we do look for - to delete it...) The article must be referenced and comply with Wikipedia's standards no matter whether it is a class project or otherwise. Peridon (talk) 18:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I note that saying that "there are articles on both the city and county where this church is located" is not a particularly strong argument. Any populated place that shows up in the U.S. Census will already have an article about it, and any legally recognized populated place in any country is generally considered notable (although we don't necessarily have articles about all of them yet). But we don't consider all religious congregations in the world automatically notable just because they are located in places for which Wikipedia has articles or should have articles. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - salt if there are problems No, the church members (not even the preacher) are NOT a reliable source. Look at WP:RS to see what is. The other articles are irrelevant. If necessary, they will be taken care of in due course. To me, the article starts off as borderline on spam, and then tells me more than I want to know about a very ordinary sounding church (or is it a Church - there is a difference). No reliable sources are given to show any notability. Note that 'reliable sources' is a term here applied in the usage of Wikipedia. I don't doubt that your preacher is an honest person who wouldn't tell lies - but that's not what we mean. I would suggest that someone expand this into a booklet that can be supplied by the church authorities for anyone interested in the history and work of this establishment. I'm afraid if you go on reposting it (in the event of deletion) that the title will be 'salted' - which blocks re-creation without special permission. If you do get better sources, you can contact the closing admin to see if they are in conformity with our requirements. Or if you can find them before this discussion closes, add them and tell us here. Peridon (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I'm sure it's a nice church for the local congregation, but there's nothing special or notable about it. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 15:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I held off on commenting to see if there would be an effort to add sourcing to the article. I don't see any effort to do so. Vscheer94, you may want to create a subpage article in your own userspace if you genuinely want to bring the article up to Wikipedia standards. I'm sure that there are a number of editors who would be willing to help you with that. For now, the article cannot be kept. Henrymrx (t·c) 15:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What are some other typpes of sources i could use to bring this up to these ridiculously high standards. Vscheer94 (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC) Thank you wikibrian28- i appreciate your support Vscheer94 (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt- reasons given above. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- what do you mean by salt the article? Vscheer94 (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It means that the name will be protected so that you can never recreate this article. Given your stated intent to disregard any outcome of the AfD process and recreate the article no matter what, salting will prevent that. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Clearly has no notability and just an average church. --Ultrablastic123 (talk) 04:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:SNOW A look at online sources reveals no WP:RS coverage. I found yellow pages, yahoo local, and weblinks by the church itself. Does not meet WP:NOTE. Appears to be solely sourced by itself in the article. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 03:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
so would it help me to use the yellow pages and yahoo local sources Vscheer94 (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No. They confirm existence, which no one was doubting anyway. They do not establish WP:Notability. Please, have you read WP:RS yet? LadyofShalott 15:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is we understand its there, but there is nothing that we can find that shows it to be notable enough to need an article. This is an encyclopedia, not a yellow pages ad. If there were articles about the church doing great works up and beyond what a church would be expected to do, or had a notable past, like being involved in the Civil War or something notably similar, we would welcome the article. Sorry. Like was stated earlier, it seems like a nice church doing things that a nice church would do, but not notable things. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 16:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete all, deleted by User:Spartaz.. Courcelles 15:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dead Man in Deadwood[edit]
- Dead Man in Deadwood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Novel is one of many children's novels produced in serial with no significant real world coverage, thus fails Notability. Sadads (talk) 03:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC) To clarify I also added the following books per the comments below which are all in the same situation and are in that series:Sadads (talk) 05:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: other stories in this series have their own article. Should these be up for discussion too, as they are likely no more notable? Computerjoe's talk 22:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I certainly would be up fro discussing the whole group, Sadads (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I propose expanding this discussion too all the articles listed at Casefiles. None of them do not have any sourcing, except the first 3, as far as I can tell, perhaps a merge into a list or three?Sadads (talk) 22:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I added the afd tags to all the articles which I thought should be afd'd, Sadads (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per Sadads, the book doesn't even have an Amazon review. I think almost all the Hardy Boys book articles should be deleted, they are not notable enough to have their own article. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 04:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What are your thoughts about the other books in the series?Sadads (talk) 05:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I think they should be deleted, most of those articles don't have enough information present to be merged. None of them are notable. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 19:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not notable enough for separate articles for each. Or just redirect them all to the main article. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 13:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - almost all stubs and unexpandable. Only notable thing is the series, not each book. PrincessofLlyr royal court 04:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jason Soroski[edit]
- Jason Soroski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Could not find any significant coverage for this local musician. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Submit entry should be kept active. Found legitmate recent magazine article written by this freelance writer/musician with byline verifying parts of biography. AKransboldt (talk) 20:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second magazine article written by this freelance writer/musician .
Third magazine article written by this freelance writer/musician .
Also found musician listed in published book covering musicans from Houston, Texas — Preceding unsigned comment added by AKransboldt (talk • contribs) 2 December 2010
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No real notability shown. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Those articles are by him, not about him. That book is sourced from Wikipedia. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 11:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jaeger (comics)[edit]
- Jaeger (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I don't see this fictional character as having the real-world notability for his own article. Perhaps a merge to Neo (comics). Or perhaps none of these have encyclopedic content worth saving.
This also applies to the following:
Domina (comics)
Rax (comics)
Seth (Neo)
Anteus
Salvo (comics)
Static (Marvel Comics)
Elysia (comics)
Tartarus (Marvel Comics)
Barbican (comics)
Kilmer (Marvel Comics)
D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all per nom, Sadads (talk) 03:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all due to a lack of third-party sources. Feel free to expand the main article about the comics with WP:DUE weight on information that can be verified in primary sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 10:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thorny Lea Golf Club[edit]
- Thorny Lea Golf Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A golf club with little claim to notability, and Google shows just more advertising on their website than any coverage in independent, reliable third-party sourcing. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 01:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - When I looked in google it showed very significant coverage in independent, reliable third-party sourcing, particluarly from the Boston Globe and the Boston Herald. [55][56][57][58][59] This is the club legendary New York Times golf journalist Herbert Warren Wind learned golf at.[60] --Oakshade (talk) 04:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 00:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. There are many refs here to sources on WP:VG/RS, and I looked at all of them. But there are a few that point to reliable, third-party coverage of the game. Those reviews, coupled with this discussion, lead me to conclude the article should be kept. KrakatoaKatie 21:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dead Frontier[edit]
- Dead Frontier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:WEB and WP:V: non-notable browser game with no references based on reliable, third-party published sources. Deleted in May 2009 for the same reasons. I've checked sources using the WikiProject Video games guide to sources (including the WPVG custom Google search) and found nothing but press releases, forum posts, and reviews from unreliable sites. The article was salted due to repeat recreations but was unsalted and recreated today via WP:REFUND (see WP:REFUND#Dead Frontier). Recommend deletion and salting again. Wyatt Riot (talk) 01:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Wyatt Riot (talk) 01:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The accusation and renomination for removal is unfounded, since third-party published sources are used, which are reliable and have reliable content. The content and references of the Dead Frontier article surpass several of the MMORPGs placed on Wikipedia, with several years of being stub articles or/and having outdated references. Some examples are as follows:
- Therefore, the renomination for deletion based on old content/sources that the Dead Frontier article may had had, has no weight in this matter. Also, recommend undeletion of Dead frontier and redirection to Dead Frontier. --WizTheDoc (talk) 03:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Where are the reliable sources? I've looked and haven't found any. As far as other articles go, feel free to send them through the deletion process. Discussion about other articles really doesn't belong here. Wyatt Riot (talk) 03:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles of similar and related content convey and support the existence of the remaining ones. The sources you are looking for are in the References section (e.g.: [61] and [62]). Regards, --WizTheDoc (talk) 03:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Onrpg isn't a reliable source, and the review itself is poorly-written and amateurish. The same thing goes for ahkong.net, which is an amateur blog written by a guy using a pseudonym. Articles must be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Wyatt Riot (talk) 03:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles of similar and related content convey and support the existence of the remaining ones. The sources you are looking for are in the References section (e.g.: [61] and [62]). Regards, --WizTheDoc (talk) 03:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Where are the reliable sources? I've looked and haven't found any. As far as other articles go, feel free to send them through the deletion process. Discussion about other articles really doesn't belong here. Wyatt Riot (talk) 03:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and Salt, per nom. I had marked this as speedy G11 while it was still in userspace. WuhWuzDat 06:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete; does not provide attribution from reliable, independent publications. Britishindie.com, gamezig.com are self-published websites. Onrpg, as I discussed here, is published by SPIL Games but the articles are often so poorly written I can't believe it has any editorial oversight. Some reliable sources now: A short piece at RPS that could be used to verify the game for the "List of" articles. An article at n4g that at the time of writing is a broken link - I don't know how significant it is. Marasmusine (talk) 08:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Keep, previous AfD discussion appears to be more based on WP:GAMEGUIDE. The new article describes in in a much more encyclopedic manner. A search for "Dead Frontier Review" yields many results, such as this review , this (admittedly small) gamespot page and this review -- Tlim7882 (talk) 08:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What the previous AfD said is irrelevant, as we are here to assess the current version of the article on its merits. None of the sources given by Tlim7882 is significant coverage, and they don't look to me like reliable sources either. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- MMOHut has been found by WikiProject Video games to be a specifically unreliable source. GameSpot is reliable, but there's no real content there, only screenshots. BBPS appears to be a fairly small (and currently defunct) game review blog with no mention of their editorial policies, so we can't really consider them reliable. Wyatt Riot (talk) 19:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, I was not using the previous AfD to support my argument but to clarify that it does not seem to have been deleted for exactly the same reason as this AfD suggests. I was not referring to those reviews specifically, but only to show there are numerous third party reviews out there. --Tlim7882 (talk) 11:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The content of the Dead Frontier article was temporarily in my personal page in order to process the request from Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Dead_Frontier, which was accepted by HJ Mitchell having, at that time, one third-party source. This source was not the result of a self-promoted action, since the site is dedicated to independent game development. The game reviews provided by Marasmusine and Tlim7882 were valuable to this matter and appreciated, therefore were promptly included in the references of the article. It is normal that websites try to promote games to their target audience, thus non-formal language is frequently used. However, the British Indie interview, [63] and [64] are not questionable sources, or self-published sources according to Wikipedia:SOURCES#Reliable_sources, since they do not express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion. Therefore, the suggestion to Keep the article and add more sources with reliable content is welcomed and appreciated. Regards, --WizTheDoc (talk) 13:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No significance in any independent reliable source. None of the sources cited is of any use in establishing notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia's concept of notability (...) avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics, which is not the case: "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". This happens and there are sources in the References section that comply with the needed requirements (at least two independent and unaffiliated reliable sources cover the subject). If that is the only reason why the nomination for deletion is still active, please consider this: an article without third-party sources should not always be deleted. The article may merely be in an imperfect state, and someone may only need to find the appropriate sources to verify the subject's importance.. Without disregarding any of the requirements, you can also help to find other sources for this subject, instead of proposing the deletion of an article already presenting encyclopedic content. Also, although related with the official web-site of the game, the Dead Frontier Statistics Center belongs to a system that cannot be forged in its actual state. Please, feel free to register and fact-check the accuracy of the data presented there and compare with the actual content of this article. Regards, --WizTheDoc (talk) 16:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's true that we don't have to delete this article without third-party sources, but we should. In fact, this article shouldn't have been created in the first place without reliable, third-party published sources as it's a requirement of our verification and notability policies. The policies and guidelines you're referencing are more about articles for which there are reliable sources but which happen not to be in the article at the moment. Wyatt Riot (talk) 19:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt(changed, see below) - unfortunately I just don't see a lot of coverage from established, reliable sources. British Indie is a wordpress blog with no professional staff of note, ahkong.net, jaggedbladegames.com and deadfrontier.com are Self-published sources, onRPG is an unreliable source, thebbps.com is also a blog with no editors of note, as is gamezig.com. MMOhut.com is also an unreliable source. The N4G article points to a dead link at everythingforgamers.info, another wordpress blog. The Rock, Paper, Shotgun article is a reliable source, but it's just one paragraph, so more would be needed to firmly establish notability. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources for more info. I wish the game the best, but it needs coverage by the professionals. --Teancum (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Teancum, the NG4 link you checked was the wrong one, so here is the updated one. More reviews from third-party sources were added. The developers' and publishers' home pages. If, however, the official game site is housed on the developer or publishers pages that allows for obvious navigation to the main developer/publisher site, these may not be necessary., I appreciate your external link removal edit and this information, but you also removed the developer site/blog which is not accessible through obvious navigation. Regards, --WizTheDoc (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed your keep vote from your last comment. You've already noted to keep, and placing it multiple times is confusing to closing admins. Additionally the N4G link you provide goes to gamer4eva.com, which has no about us page and seems to be run by a single individual. It has no professionalism nor notability. --Teancum (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your note, I have already placed new references, you may be interested in some of them due to the about us page you mentioned (e.g.: [65]). Regards, --WizTheDoc (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The BrightHub article looked promising at first, then I clicked on the author and got their bio. Definitely not someone with experience in the industry (of both gaming and journalism). Worth Playing has been deemed dubiously reliable here. The Gamer's Hell link can be used, but not to establish notability, as it's merely a press release, meaning that a developer/publisher wrote it. BBGsite links to a guide to the game, and not journalistic coverage. Again, maybe this could be used, but not to establish the game's notability - merely to point out some feature of the game (which could be done better with a primary source (I.E. the game's website) once notability is established. The GamerTell article might be a start, though. Staff have to be hired on as described on the parent company's jobs page. If 1-2 other decent articles that are reliable sources pop up, I'll change my vote. Hopefully you'll find more - I'm not opposed to keeping an article when it fits Wikipedia policy. --Teancum (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition to Teancum's comments, both N4G and BBGSite have been found to be unreliable by WikiProject Video games. It seems like everything out there is either trivial or a press release on an otherwise reliable site or a lengthy review on an unreliable site, none of which fit our needs. Wyatt Riot (talk) 19:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Generally the Bio information about an article's author is not available to the reader, therefore you are including a matter that does not concern to this subject. However, since you referred it, in this particular case, despite her age (which should not be relevant for competences assessment, provided the coherence and integrity of the article), the author has written a valid reliable review and her legitimacy is proven by the article itself, which was edited and published by the managing editor and writer of the MMO & MMORPG gaming section of this company. Therefore the expertize factor is not devalued by this, on the contrary, it serves to provide greater value to it. If you are contesting areas of expertize, there is only two known experts in the development of zombie's MMORPGs till this moment, one is the author of Urban Dead and the other is Neil Yates, the author of the game which knowledge you are concerned to nominate for deletion. They are not journalists, which seems there is little chance, or none at all, to publish a full expert article in a mainstream media covering the whole subject. Therefore, according to the Wikipedia policies, [66] and [67] are complying sources that fulfill the requirements and not the needs of particular Wikipedia users. With so many stub and incomplete articles of the same genre, this almost seems a joint attempt to find excuses to delete a relevant article with relevant content, when there are sources complying with the Wikipedia policies, as shown above. The non reliable accusations of articles or authors of entire web-sites that are not in the Wikipedia blacklist are based on your opinions only and not on actual proofs. If those sites get promoted to the blacklist, the source will obviously be invalid, but until then, if the author is identified and the article has relevant and consistent content, they are third-party reliable sources as placed in Wikipedia policies pages. A reminder to the voters in this topic, Wikipedia is not a democracy, the keep/delete/etc. vote system serves only to test for consensus and has no weight to the outcome of the final decision when reliable sources are present in the article. Therefore, since the content is considered notable at the moment, I thank you all for this discussion and kindly request you to withdraw the delete nomination. Regards, --WizTheDoc (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No offense, but the editors who regularly contribute to articles for deletion are very much aware that these aren't votes, but a way to help reach consensus - that being said no one is voting and it comes of as slightly desperate to accuse us as such. Each editor has cited policies or their own rationale for one side or the other. If they were votes, we wouldn't comment after writing delete/redirect/keep. In regards to sourcing, please read WP:Reliable sources which states they must be reliable, published sources, - as Wyatt Riot already pointed out, BBGsite has been deemed unreliable by consensus. --Teancum (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/Userfy - A decent written article, but it doesn't display notability. Try to get a few sources from sites that are written by paid professionals. Blake (Talk·Edits) 02:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate your concern, Teancum, but the material discussed in here does not offend me in any way. However, I am concerned that you interpreted my words as an accusation. I made a reminder to all the voters in this topic, to consider that since two reliable sources are embedded in the article: [68] and [69], the article is now notable, and the consensus to keep the article has been reached (not by previous votes or comments). In response to Blake vote and comment, as Teancum suggested before, I suggest you to please remind yourself of the content of Wikipedia:SOURCES#Reliable_sources and WP:Reliable sources and you will notice that these two sources comply with the requirements and are reliable. Therefore I, once again, thank you all for this discussion and kindly request you to withdraw the delete nomination. Regards, --WizTheDoc (talk) 18:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus has not been reached because you deem it to be so. Consensus is the majority thought in accordance with guidelines. The consensus must be made on the notability and reliability of the references given, which, no offense, is likely to be better suited to those who have had extensive experience in editing Wikipedia and finding reliable sources. --Teancum (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Quoting your words: "I just don't see a lot of coverage from established, reliable sources (...) so more would be needed to firmly establish notability (...) I wish the game the best", words that you used as the basis of consensus on this subject. Since at the moment, the sources have been presented and justified, the consensus has been reached. Consensus is an opinion or position reached by a group as a whole, so no person is able to deem a group's opinion or position alone. Using your words above, since the majority thought in accordance with guidelines has been reached, consensus has been reached. Again, the material of this discussion does not offend me in any way, thanks for your concern. Regards, --WizTheDoc (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Bright Hub review is by a self-professed "18 year old Fine Art student" on a commission-based review site. The Helium review is on another commission-based review site and the author appears to write more poetry than anything else. Both are amateur reviews with spelling and grammar mistakes, not the work of professional game journalists you would find from a reliable publication. Wyatt Riot (talk) 19:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wyatt Riot, I remind you that according to Wikipedia:SOURCES#Reliable_sources none of the arguments you exposed now are significant to determine the unreliability or questionability of the sources [70] and [71]. As I explained to Teancum, the age of the authors is not relevant for competences assessment, provided the coherence and integrity of the article. In the Bright Hub case you referred, despite being a student and having a certificate in Fine Art, the author has written a valid reliable review and her legitimacy is proven by the article itself, which was edited and published by the managing editor and writer of the MMO & MMORPG gaming section of this company. May I remind you that even the great mainstream media often produce content with several grammatical errors, and those are often disregarded or unnoticed since the articles are published through what is considered a reliable media. Regards, --WizTheDoc (talk) 19:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SPS explains the conditions under which we accept self-published sources. The two authors above lack the prior publishing history we want to see before we accept self-published works, if at all. Marasmusine (talk) 20:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wyatt Riot, I remind you that according to Wikipedia:SOURCES#Reliable_sources none of the arguments you exposed now are significant to determine the unreliability or questionability of the sources [70] and [71]. As I explained to Teancum, the age of the authors is not relevant for competences assessment, provided the coherence and integrity of the article. In the Bright Hub case you referred, despite being a student and having a certificate in Fine Art, the author has written a valid reliable review and her legitimacy is proven by the article itself, which was edited and published by the managing editor and writer of the MMO & MMORPG gaming section of this company. May I remind you that even the great mainstream media often produce content with several grammatical errors, and those are often disregarded or unnoticed since the articles are published through what is considered a reliable media. Regards, --WizTheDoc (talk) 19:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changing !vote to Redirectto List of massively multiplayer online role-playing games and list there, citing Rock, Paper, Shotgun. Although I'm still fine with delete if that helps reach concensus. Marasmusine (talk) 20:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Wikipedia:SPS#Self-published_sources are self-published media, such as books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, that are largely not acceptable as sources, which have nothing to do with the three already embedded sources in the article: [72], [73] and [74]. You may also have noticed from Wikipedia:SPS and Wikipedia:Third_party, Marasmusine, that the lack of prior publishing history is not even mentioned in Wikipedia policies in order to determine the reliability or questionability of the sources. However, since you mentioned and have unfortunately missed all the author's profile pages, which have links to a vast amount of related and non related articles published by themselves (and in some cases edited and co-published by experts in the area), reveal that your comment is deeply unfounded and biased. I am sorry I had to point that out to you and I hope to remind to the voters again that the subject of this discussion was based on the existence of reliable third-party sources, which since they have been established, the voting-commenting system is now obsolete in this discussion. Regards, --WizTheDoc (talk) 12:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Quote: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Brighthub and Helium are self-publications. I could not see evidence of published works in the biographies of McDonald or Wilkins other than more articles on the same sites. I will investigate Gamertell further as it looks promising. Stunned to hear about the obsolescence of the voting system, as I didn't realise we employed one. Marasmusine (talk) 19:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Bright Hub and Helium sources are not self-published sources, since they belong to independent companies having no relation with the company representing Dead Frontier or the game's author. If you, Marasmusine, are asking for more articles of the authors of the respective articles, you can visit Wayne K. Wilkins' profile and Lynda Mc Donald's profile, glad I could be of use. However, note that it is normal that employees publish their articles in the company that gives them employment, but if you are interested in finding articles of their authorship in other websites (not a requirement according to Wikipedia:Third_party), I suggest you to contact them and ask them that directly. I am sure they will gladly inform you with precision. Regarding the voting-commenting system I mentioned, I am glad that I could help you realize that. Regards, --WizTheDoc (talk) 20:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're confusing the term WP:SPS defines Self-published as things where there is no editorial process, I.E. they have published the article themselves (blogs are a good example of this). This doesn't mean they are affiliated in any way with the game or its makers. --Teancum (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again Teancum, regarding WP:SPS, firstly: "Anyone can create a personal web page or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field", I hope you are not suggesting that the entire Bright Hub and Helium enterprises produce articles without an editorial process associated to them, and they are somehow related to personal web sites or other personal publications, such as blogs. In the Bright Hub article there is a clear distinction at the header indicating that the article was edited and published not by the writer but by the managing editor and writer of the MMO & MMORPG gaming section of this company, as I mentioned before. Secondly, the WP:SPS section also serves to prevent associations between the entity responsible for the subject that concerns the Wikipedia article and the enterprises that publish articles about that entity, i.e., it is a way to prevent that entity to use personal blogs, books or other personal media as references in the Wikipedia article. I thank you for your explanation, but my mind is very clear regarding this subject. Regards, --WizTheDoc (talk) 22:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Both Bright Hub and Helium are commission-based article sites, where ultimately anyone can create an account, write an article, and get paid based on how many hits the article gets. Neither site has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" that our verification policy requires. Neither author is a game journalist by any stretch of the imagination. These are exactly the kind of sources that we consider unreliable. Wyatt Riot (talk) 23:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wyatt Riot, I please ask you to not repeat the same arguments you have exposed before. As I replied to you earlier, they do not justify the questionability and unreliability of the sources according to WP:SPS. I may inform you that other well known websites do not require one to be a game journalist (e.g.: GameSpot) in order to write games' reviews, nor the Wikipedia verification policies. Regards, --WizTheDoc (talk) 00:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sites such as GameSpot have established reliability. Besides, the principle of saying other stuff exists isn't a valid argument. --Teancum (talk) 04:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Whilst I agree that Brighthub and Helium should not be used, I wonder what you think of the Gamertell coverage?[75] Gamertell is now owned by a publishing company[76]. Hasn't been discussed at WP:VG/RS yet. Marasmusine (talk) 08:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see anything wrong with the GamerTell coverage - I didn't know that owned by a publisher. Looking at a few articles the editorial process seems to be in place and working well, too. I'd say it passes WP:RS, and certainly provides significant coverage. Between that and the little coverage on Rock, Paper, Shotgun I'm leaning towards Keep now. I'll nominate GamerTell as a permanent reliable source shortly. --Teancum (talk) 12:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Both Bright Hub and Helium are commission-based article sites, where ultimately anyone can create an account, write an article, and get paid based on how many hits the article gets. Neither site has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" that our verification policy requires. Neither author is a game journalist by any stretch of the imagination. These are exactly the kind of sources that we consider unreliable. Wyatt Riot (talk) 23:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - DF users are discussing the situation here (requires an account). So far the discussion seems quite civil and certainly isn't bringing any ill here - I'm merely logging this in case this AfD ever comes into question. --Teancum (talk) 04:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Teancum, we appreciate your verification of the GamerTell coverage and also the contents of the official website/forum. A request to GameSpot was also made in order to provide a review for their Dead Frontier page, which hopefully, soon will be displayed. Regards, --WizTheDoc (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete - not notable. Mostly self published sources and scant mentionings. Need direct coverage in reliable third party sources to meet the WP:GNG. 74.198.9.141 (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)— 74.198.9.141 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Please, this has been debated: "you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist" - self-published sources are mentioned in the article, but there are also reliable third-party sources at this moment, as discussed above. Regards, --WizTheDoc (talk) 08:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (!vote changed, again!) based on GamerTell coverage. Marasmusine (talk) 11:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Association for Symbolic Logic. Spartaz Humbug! 11:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Journal of Logic and Analysis[edit]
- Journal of Logic and Analysis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Self-published new journal, not yet notable: no third party sources, apparently not indexed anywhere. Article deprodded with reason "i do "otherwise" object. I would hope that any journal published by the ASL would qualify as notable". Indeed, the journal's only claim to notability is being sponsored (not published) by the Association for Symbolic Logic. Sponsorship apparently intended to increase visibility for new journals. Article creation premature, does not meet WP:Notability (academic journals) or WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 14:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Let me say up front that I do not think holding academic journals to the same standard of notability as other articles is smart AT ALL. We should be endeavoring to compile information on ANY journal which may be used as a source within WP. However, with that policy position stated, I still think within our current guidelines we have a keeper based on its affiliation with ASL. They're not exactly a 'journal mill' you know. Greg Bard (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Personally, I don't keep journals up to the same standards as other subjects at all, I use WP:NJournals. However, many editors find that essay too lax, so I cite WP:GNG when prodding or taking an article to AfD. If I were to take GNG as sole guideline, there would probably be a couple of hundred journal articles that would qualify... The current example, though, fails all possible criteria of notability. It's "affiliation" with ASL does not appear to be more than a simple endorsement. It is not published by ASL, nor does ASL have any influence on the journal's editorial policy, etc. --Crusio (talk) 16:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination, otherwise Merge to Association_for_Symbolic_Logic in section "Publications" but note that this journal is sponsored by, not published by ASL. BrideOfKripkenstein (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose --Philogo (talk) 16:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Would you mind explaining your reasoning? Note that closing admins often ignore !votes without an explanation of why the editor !voted one way or another. --Crusio (talk) 16:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because of the Association Of Symbolic Logic's announcement at http://www.aslonline.org/asl_announcements.php#11. --Philogo (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't give the closing administrator any clue as to what you mean by "oppose", be it keep or delete. See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Shorthands for how to express yourself clearly in AFD discussions. Uncle G (talk) 00:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge back into Association for Symbolic Logic. It is clearly not yet notable, being so new. Because we have not developed specific criteria (such as a rule or guideline) for academic journals, we must rely on the general guideline. Wikipedia is only supposed to report what is already notable, not what ought to be notable. There are a few exceptions of people or places that are pre se notable, but I know of no regular contributor who advocates having an article for every journal. The parent organization meets our notability rules for organizations, so I think we should merge it back there for now. If you can convince me that WP:WEB applies, please make your argument now. Bearian (talk) 01:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In fact, I don't think this should be merged atb all, as the "parent organization" is not the parent. All the AfSL has done is pronouncing their support for this journal, nothing less, but also nothing more. The AoSL is not the publisher of this journal and as far as I can see, there are no administrative/institutional or other links between the journal and the society. --Crusio (talk) 16:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into the association, saying that it is they who sponsor it, not publish it. Add a redirect for the earlier Springer title also, Logic and Analysis, of which this is the successor (I added that information to the article). Neither of the two are independently notable, but this preserves the information. (The Springer journal seems to have had only 92 holding libraries listed in WorldCat) Although not formalized as a guideline, we do have good criteria for academic journals, and they can be seen in previous decisions here, which have been remarkably consistent in the last few years--as compared to almost every other class of article; that's because almost everyone particularly concerned with them here agrees about the basics, and it's rare they attract much interest here otherwise. . There is an alternative view, which is that we should make articles for every one of them, in order to help the readers. This does seem a possible alternative to me, but that would be such a major change in the application of the general concept of notability that I think it would be better discussed in the context of our coordination with a general bibliographic resource. I don't actually want to oppose Greg Bard's view about this, but it would need further discussion--this AfD is not the place to make such a change, and I think the discussion could be held more usefully about a year from now, where the outside resources such as Open Library will be further developed. DGG ( talk ) 02:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
103rd Series Apartment House[edit]
- 103rd Series Apartment House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced original research. Also I could not find any sources and I don't think this style of architecture is a notable enough to be included on WP. Mattg82 (talk) 01:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete due to lack of sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It is only due to lack of sources this article seems to be original research. This type of building construction and several others of the Soviet era are notable, since they were the housing backbone of the Soviet Union. Together they constitute all of the apartment buildings ever built in the Soviet Union from the 1950s to the 1980s - in many cases also known as "Soviet satellite towns" or "Soviet suburbs". Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 07:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) jsfouche ☽☾Talk 13:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aditya Roy Kapoor[edit]
- Aditya Roy Kapoor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
BLP with no reliable sources; PROD template removed jsfouche ☽☾ talk 05:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Since the article was listed, good sources have been added, including Times of India & Hindustan Times. DGG ( talk ) 06:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:HEY as article is no longer a "BLP with no reliable sources". Kudos to User:Ekabhishek for addressing the nominator's concerns and turning this into THIS... now an encyclopedic and sourced article. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Warshak[edit]
- Richard Warshak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:PROF, best claim to fame is the unsourced assertion that his work had an impact on one volume of one journal; two books mentioned are popular, not scholarly, and the ideas promoted are not significantly noteworthy or accepted within the discipline (parental alienation is poorly accepted and nebulous, parental alienation syndrome more so and controversial, Warshak's own "parental alienation disorder" has even less history, controversy and acceptance. The intervention mentioned is a low-n study and it is far too early for it to have had any significant impact. The "Warshak Inventory for Child and Adolescent Assessment" referred to in the final paragraph turns up once on google scholar in a journal article that has nothing to do with it (actually an advertisement at the bottom of page 6/200). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Gscholar gives an h-index of 18 or so, sufficient for notability under WP:PROF criterion 1. Gnews searching finds sufficient mention of him as an authority on the subject of child custody and divorces to have a shot at criterion 7 as well. RayTalk 23:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I am not convinced that he passes criterion 1 of WP:PROF, but there is a fair amount of newscoverage of him as GoogleNews shows[77], where he is frequently quoted as an academic expert in psychology, so there is a case for satisfying criterion 7 of WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 10:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Terry Lee Hale[edit]
- Terry Lee Hale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreferenced BLP, does not appear to meet criteria for artists. I just removed a biographical section that was copied from his web site as a copyvio, folk may want to check that out in the history. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I watchlisted this one awhile back and still no one has chimed in. I wasn't able to find the type of coverage for this person I'd hope for, so I guess its headed towards deletion.--Milowent • talkblp-r 03:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. All opinions are "delete" or "neutral", so we have a rare case of "when in doubt, delete": nobody seems to be convinced that there is sufficient sourcing for this article. The content can of course be userfied for further improvement. Sandstein 09:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ukrainian People's Militia[edit]
- Ukrainian People's Militia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The Ukrainian People's Militia did not exist. Militia's existed, as militia is the Ukrainian word for police - and there is already an article about the Ukrainian auxiliary police. This article is based entirely on original research and mistranslations and no english sources make any reference to this alleged unit. Львівське (talk) 08:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To Ukrainian auxiliary police. --Birczanin 17:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral: Gosh, this would be much simpler if I could read Ukranian; right now, I can't figure out any of the refs. Whom do I AGF in: the author(s) or the nominbator? After the previous discussion, I think the burden of proof is on the user who initiated both noms. I'm sorry that proving a negative is quite difficult, but I think it's reasonable to ask for some more information before deciding my stance. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 19:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What kind of proof do I need? I've been researching this topic extensively lately and the only time the word "militia" pops up is when referring to auxiliary police. Though I don't have a source that explicitly states "the 'Ukrainian People's Militia' did not exist" I do have at least one I remember explaining the confusion historians find because "police" in Ukrainian is literally "militia"...so...I'll get proofs, just don't know what we're looking for exactly. And I don't mean to engage in RS here, but "narodna militsia" = "people's police" so, IMO, it just seems like a way of describing the police; and the closest unit I could find was the "Ukrainska Narodna Samooborona", there is no mention of the "UPM" in Peter Abbott's "Ukrainian Armies" book which covers literally EVERY type of unit (including obscure police/militia units)--Львівське (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hard to say, unfortunately, but the one you say that mentions the confusion in translation would probably do it for me (I'm assuming that the explanation of the translation is in English, otherwise, it won't help my own ignorance). bahamut0013wordsdeeds 21:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What kind of proof do I need? I've been researching this topic extensively lately and the only time the word "militia" pops up is when referring to auxiliary police. Though I don't have a source that explicitly states "the 'Ukrainian People's Militia' did not exist" I do have at least one I remember explaining the confusion historians find because "police" in Ukrainian is literally "militia"...so...I'll get proofs, just don't know what we're looking for exactly. And I don't mean to engage in RS here, but "narodna militsia" = "people's police" so, IMO, it just seems like a way of describing the police; and the closest unit I could find was the "Ukrainska Narodna Samooborona", there is no mention of the "UPM" in Peter Abbott's "Ukrainian Armies" book which covers literally EVERY type of unit (including obscure police/militia units)--Львівське (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - on face value it lacks reliable sources so the existance of this organisation isn't verifable. As such the subject fails the requirement for 'significant independent coverage' and therefore isn't notable per WP:NOTABLE. Anotherclown (talk) 03:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but Ukrainian auxiliary police and the Ukrainian Police article ought to clearly state and use the word 'militsiya' in their opening paragraphs.Buckshot06 (talk) 02:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC) Neutral - we need User:MarshallBagramyan in here. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I could have sworn I brought it up on a talk page once, it has to be in one of my notes...I'll find the ref again...I was researching this topic extensively recently so its all a jumble. I'm sure I could pull up other refs where authors say "the police or so-called militia" or "police/militia" etc.--Львівське (talk) 03:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral While it's virtually impossible to verify what these sources are saying is true, we do have some basis that the compiler's specialty is in World War II affairs (according to this page on a university website), and that he is affiliated with Kiev State University. I have less success in finding the Ukrainian-published sources in research libraries, although this can readily be explained that it has not yet reached libraries in the West. However, I find it bizarre that editors have not found any mention of it in English-language or Western sources. Perhaps the unit goes by a different name in Ukrainian, hence the naming discrepancy with the Ukrainische Hilfspolizei article. If anyone has access to it, see Alexander Dallin (1981). German Rule in Russia: 1941-1945: A Study of Occupation Policies. Boulder, CO: Westview Press and Mark Mazower's Hitler's Empire: How the Nazis Ruled Europe (Penguin, 2008). Perhaps some references might exist there.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 03:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have online access to the Dallin book, the word "militia" does not appear in it. --Львівське (talk) 04:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - if we are having difficulty finding information about the group then we lack adequate sources for an article and the subject lacks notability. Since the largest contributor to the article appears not to be available, it seems that the article will not improve. If in the future sources are found, then the article could be re-written. TFD (talk) 00:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
these are two distinct units[edit]
Guys, you all got it wrong. The Ukrainian People's Militia (Народна Міліція) or more correct militias DID exist! for two months, before they were disbanded by the German Military authorities and replaced by the Ukrainian auxiliary police (Українська поліція допоміжна). However there is no direct lineage between the two, as the militias were organized by Ukrainian nationalists to take revenge on their enemies, while the police was organized top down by the Germans to ensure policing of the occupied territories. Also the article about the Ukrainian auxiliary police (Ukrainische Hilfspolizei) gets the date of the founding wrong: not July 27th, but on August 18th 1941 the Ukrainische Hilfspolizei was established. BUT both units were distinctly different from the Ukrainian Schutzmannschaft battalions! The Ukrainian Schutzmannschaft battalions were active in the Reichskommissariat Ukraine, while the militias and police were active in the District of Galicia of the General Government. Also each German command (Wehrmacht, SS, Einsatzgruppen, Militärverwaltung, Waffen-SS, ecc.) recruited it's own Ukrainian collaborators: i.e. in 1942 the Reichskommissariat Ukraine fielded 70 Schutzmannschaft battalions with 35,000 men, 14,163 Ukrainian members of the Schutzpolizei in the big cities as well as 54,794 other policemen of the Gendarmerie. see [78] and [79] for details. Therefore I am neutral on this article: as there was a Ukrainian People's Militia; or at least an attempt to form one. Both German books are stating that the militias were formed in the first days of the war by OUN activists with the encouragement of the German Military authorities, but already by the end of July the Germans began to disband the militias and created their own police units. Also both books agree that the militias were not led by an unified Ukrainian command, but were subject to the local German military commanders. Therefore I am neutral on this subject as I do not see anything to support a Ukrainian People's Militia, but see a lot of OUN militias/units that were active in the first two months of the war without a unified leadership. noclador (talk) 00:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, militias existed (its as ambiguous a term as saying "partisans") before the UH was formed and afterwards police units were referred to as militias in english (from the Ukrainian "militsia") so before and after, "militias" existed, I'm not contesting the loose usage of the term. I'll have to look into the date you cited as well. The Abbott book gives a pretty good detail of how all this came about.--Львівське (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Diana Stomlega[edit]
- Diana Stomlega (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. Subject does not meet criteria for notability found at WP:NTENNIS. Placed #1 in ITF Tournament winning $10k, notability requires earnings in excess of $25k. Cindamuse (talk) 09:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NTENNIS Subject meets the number 6 criteria: The player holds a tennis record recognised by the International Tennis Federation, ATP or WTA.(Gabinho>:) 14:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, but obviously without prejudice to re-creation later if the subject achieves one of the tennis notability criteria. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as Metropolitan90 already said, the subject does not meet the criteria yet. (Gabinho>:) 11:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ilinca Stoica[edit]
- Ilinca Stoica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. Subject does not meet criteria for notability found at WP:NTENNIS. Placed 2nd in ITF Tournament winning $10k, notability requires earnings in excess of $25k. Cindamuse (talk) 09:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NTENNIS Subject meets the number 6 criteria: The player holds a tennis record recognised by the International Tennis Federation, ATP or WTA.(Gabinho>:) 14:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]- Keep per WP:NTENNIS. Subject meets the No. 3 criteria at junior level participating at the 2009 Wimbledon Championships – Girls' Singles event. (Gabinho>:) 01:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment. WP:NTENNIS requires play in the main draw of the (Grand Slam) Wimbledon. Play in the major professional tournament is required. This does not include the Juniors tournament. Currently ranking at #896 with a career prize of $2,181. Cindamuse (talk) 11:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. To be notable as a junior tennis player, according to the guidelines for tennis players, you need to win a junior grand slam, not just participate in its main draw. And as the nominator notes, this player is not notable as a senior player either Mayumashu (talk) 23:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Photographic Association of Dum Dum[edit]
- Photographic Association of Dum Dum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:ORG. despite over 50 years existence, little indepth coverage [80]. LibStar (talk) 10:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 22:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article is poor and unsourced. However, it is very short and unassuming. Google shows mentions (if admittedly little or nothing more) of this name in non-trivial sources; there may be more in web searches in other scripts, or magazines. -- Hoary (talk) 08:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reluctant delete I agree that it's WP:HARMLESS, but my online search turned up nothing other than a very few trivial mentions in reliable sources, typically a passing mention that would permit you to say nothing more than "____ was a member" or "they hold an annual conference". If more sources appear someday, it could always be re-created. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jai Kumar Jalaj[edit]
- Jai Kumar Jalaj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unable to find any coverage of the subject. The lack of specifics in the article makes judging notability particularly difficult. As such, does not meet WP:GNG, WP:PROF, or WP:AUTHOR. —J04n(talk page) 01:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Does this http://books.google.com/books?id=LJzkAAAAMAAJ&q=%22Jai+Kumar+Jalaj%22+-inpublisher:icon&dq=%22Jai+Kumar+Jalaj%22+-inpublisher:icon&as_brr=0&cd=1 Principal at Government Arts & Science College, Ratlam meet WP:Prof 6. The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society. ?
- Keep - in addition to the comment the alternative transliteration Jaykumar Jalaj yields more evidence on his books and three pages of ours refer to them (see Special:WhatLinksHere/Jaykumar_Jalaj). The pages are: Jainism, Nathuram Premi and Pujyapada. Perhaps we should move the page FROM Jai Kumar Jalaj TO Jaykumar_Jalaj (this is just a redirection page at the moment) But this might be better after this Afd (Msrasnw (talk) 16:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- I have removed the orphan tag and added a few links via the Jaykumar Jalaj (redirect page). There are now, what are I think appropriate links on Jainism, Nathuram Premi (This page includes Also, highly respected modern scholars such as Premiji himself, Prof. Ludwig Alsdorf, Prof. Maurice Bloomfield, Prof. Willem Bollée and Dr. Jaykumar Jalaj have been a), Pujyapada and Ratnakaranda śrāvakācāra. We seem to be relying on him as the authoritative translator when looking at some of these. Does our use of someone in this way add to their notability? Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Delete. Regardless of what this person has written, there is not enough reliably published material about him (rather than his writing) to write a biography. Kevin (talk) 22:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Without offering an opinion on the subject's notability, I oppose Kevin's reasoning entirely. It is settled and storied convention that encyclopediae, being compilations of useful knowledge, must cover significant creators of such knowledge - who are, in large part, academics. This is a convention that goes all the way back to the Encyclopédie, and Wikipedia hews to this tradition through WP:PROF. To quote from the second point in the summary, "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." If Kevin wants to overturn WP:PROF, he's welcome to try. If he should be successful on the grounds as stated, I can see a lot of us exiting Wikipedia for good. RayTalk 16:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So what material would you propose using to write the bio? Kevin (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- His publications are clearly self-sourcing, as are citations to them. In most academic fields, it's common for review articles to discuss the impact of various forms of work. For such minimal personal details as are common in academic biographies, primary sources (like the subject's CV and website) are usually good. RayTalk 21:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, however under WP:PROF Caveats #3
- His publications are clearly self-sourcing, as are citations to them. In most academic fields, it's common for review articles to discuss the impact of various forms of work. For such minimal personal details as are common in academic biographies, primary sources (like the subject's CV and website) are usually good. RayTalk 21:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So what material would you propose using to write the bio? Kevin (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for an article in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Every topic on Wikipedia must be one for which sources exist; see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
- It is that lack of reliable independent sources that concerns me here. Kevin (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For what? The standard is verifiability. To verify significance of work, true, we would like reliable independent sources, such as, say, those provided by a review article, or by a prize citation when the prize is given by an independent group, or by the act of an independent author citing the subject's work. In this sense, citations are self-sourcing. To verify trivial personal details? Of course we take the subject's word for them unless we think he's lying. No need for independence there. RayTalk 21:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Ray's arguments are sound. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Weak keep. Two award wins seems like enough to meet WP:ANYBIO, although some more content would be nice. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ingrid Radu[edit]
- Ingrid Radu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. Subject does not meet criteria for notability found at WP:NTENNIS, which provides notability for players that have won at least one title in any of the ITF Women's $25,000–$100,000 tournament. Player has only played in lower tournaments with possible earning capacity of $10k. Ranked #552. Cindamuse (talk) 12:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NTENNIS Subject meets the number 6 criteria: The player holds a tennis record recognised by the International Tennis Federation, ATP or WTA.(Gabinho>:) 14:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well, the subject has been active this year winning 2 ITF finals and playing 2 more. (Gabinho>:) 01:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment. Commendable, but WP:NTENNIS requires players to have won at least one title in any of the ITF Women's $25,000–$100,000 tournament. The subject of this article has only played in lower tournaments with possible earning capacity of $10k. Cindamuse (talk) 11:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 06:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Stanton (actor)[edit]
- Chris Stanton (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The subject apparently had a recurring role on M.I. High, but he is not even mentioned on the page for that program. Has had a few other small role but nothing significant as required to pass WP:NACTOR. Also, unable to find non-trivial coverage in any reliable sources independent of the subject, so WP:GNG is not met either. —J04n(talk page) 12:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ——J04n(talk page) 12:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ——J04n(talk page) 12:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment a number of named roles in films and one-ofs in telesvision series, added to recurring in 29 episodes of M.I. High seem to push nicely at WP:ENT. Yes, commonness of name will make sourcing difficult. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Seems to have had a few roles, but the lack of reliable secondary sources make it difficult to write a decent biography. Kevin (talk) 21:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I can't find any sources, and he's not mentioned in the MI High article. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No WP:RS found but I did find what seems to be plagiarism here. If you cursor over his name near the bottom of the page, the exact same sentence from the Wiki article pops up. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 17:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This is the last unreferenced BLP dating from March 2008, thanks to J04n! I concur in the delete recommendation.--Milowent • talkblp-r 05:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Seems to be notable, but BLPs require a source. No source = no article. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 11:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Saeed Kamali Dehghan [edit]
- Saeed Kamali Dehghan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Some claim to importance, but few sources to indicate notability. Passed a previous AfD but with very few comments, so a wider debate might be better. KorruskiTalk 14:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: per nom. Many of these claims are original researches.Farhikht (talk) 11:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Passes WP:ANYBIO with the Foreign Press Association award. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:Are you sure that the FPA award is "significant and well-known"?Farhikht (talk) 12:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Phil Bridger and per AWP:Energy conservation. °°Playmobilonhishorse (talk) 04:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 00:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 08:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rick Crouch[edit]
- Rick Crouch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Here is a weird one. When I found the article it was in this state: [81]. Looked to be a notable bounty hunter/PI who later became a politician. The problem is not one of the references actually mentioned the subjected with the exception of a very dubious "LA times article" in the form of a PDF for download off of the subject's website which appears to actually be a press release. When I stripped away everything that wasn't verifiable, all that was left was a City Council men of very dubious notability. This article was created and maintained by two single purpose accounts. Leivick (talk) 16:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The office he holds is a metropolitan district with 3 million people and includes the city of Durban. Almost all articles on politicians and politics are edited by people with agendas, so nothing special about that. We just have to keep an eye on them so they don't become too one-sided. Jaque Hammer (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] - Keep Well spotted and nicely cleaned up. But I agree with Jaque, the subject is notable, due to his present occupation. Anthony (talk) 03:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 06:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Markus Kosonen[edit]
- Markus Kosonen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unable to find coverage in any reliable sources independent of the subject. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. —J04n(talk page) 00:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. ——J04n(talk page) 00:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ——J04n(talk page) 00:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No secondary sources from which to write a bio. Kevin (talk) 21:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I checked Aamulehti and Helsingin Sanomat (and Etelä-Suomen Sanomat for kicks since i created it), and couldn't find anything.--Milowent • talkblp-r 16:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. Created as part of a campaign to defame an organization--editor has been given a final warning. DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ranarala[edit]
- Ranarala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable blogger; article has only one citation which goes directly to her blog Usb10 Connected? 00:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete no secondary sources in Google search and confirmed that the only reference is to her own blog. MorganKevinJ(talk) 01:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 11:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Finnur Justinussen[edit]
- Finnur Justinussen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeopel-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 21:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I don't agree at all, that this player is not notable and that he has not played in a professional league. He plays in the best Faroese league, Faroe Islands Premier League (Vodafonedeildin), there are many other Faroese players who have their own article here on Wikipedia, should they all be deleted??? I don't think so! (If you think that they all should be deleted, than I will stop at once to write about Faroese football and football players, there is no point if the articles gets deleted). This player, Finnur Justinussen, was the top scorer in Vodafonedeildin in 2009 and the same year he was elected Young Player of the Year of a Faroese newspaper, who elect one young player of the year every year. Justinussen has also played 8 matches for his country in the youth national team U21 Faroe Islands, in these 8 matches which he played the Faroe Islands won two matches, played two draws and lost four matches. The team played against Russia on 9. June 2009 (Justinussen didn't play this match) and the result was 1-0 to the Faroe Islands 2011 UEFA European Under-21 Football Championship qualification Group 1, isn't that notable for the team and the players? This team is the first national team of the Faroe Islands which has gained 11 points in an international competition. I think that there is a great chance that Justinussen soon will play for the National team of the Faroe Islands too. EileenSanda (talk) 20:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not infer racist motives where none exist. I am not nominating this article on the grounds that the subject Faroese. There are plenty of Faroese footballers who are notable, as evidenced by the fact that they have articles. I simply do not believe Mr. Justinussen is one of them. The Faroese league is not fully professional and therefore insufficient to grant notability under WP:NSPORT. Furthermore, NSPORT specifically states that youth international caps do not confer notability. The claim that he will play for the senior national team is speculation, making it an improper basis for notability. If you can provide significant coverage in reliable source, as stated in WP:N, I would be more than willing to withdraw this nomination, but at this time he does meet any of the criteria for notability as laid out under standing Wikipedia guidelines. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not say anything about racism, I didn't mean to imply that. I just tried to improve the article, but he has not played for clubs in other countries as far as I know (or as far as I can find on the internet), so if the criteria is that a Faroese player must play or have played in another country or for the national team of the Faroe Islands (and not U21 i.e.) than there is nothing more I can do about this article. I just thought that being the top scorer in the best Faroese division and being elected "Young Player of the Year" should be a sign of notability (in the Faroe Islands that is notable, but of course in the rest of the world that probably doesn't count for much). Yes, of course it was only speculation, that he may be playing for the national team of the Faroe Islands sometime in the future, nobody knows that, I shouldn't have written that, sorry. I don't have any personal relation to this football player, other than the fact that we come from the same country, we come from different islands, I don't know him. The team from my village is FC Suðuroy, which just got relegated. Well, we will see what this ends up with. Deletion or not deletion. I still say Keep, but that is of course not up to me. Regarding the question about fully professional or not, most of the players in the best Faroese division get a wage for playing football now, they didn't earlier. Some get a wage that is what would be the same as having a part-time job (working half time or so), other get more others get less. The players change more between the clubs now in order to earn more money and to get better, and I think that more and more players go abroad to play football. EileenSanda (talk) 21:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Songs From The Howling Sea[edit]
- Songs From The Howling Sea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence of notability. Only one real reference could be found (the one already in the article). Google shows some sites by the project, but no coverage from reliable third party sources. Netalarmtalk 00:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's covered by the Evening Standard and others. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, This is the Evening Standard. Thought it was "This is London". That's the only source I could find, and it sounds like one of those "local people doing stuff updates", any others? Netalarmtalk 01:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "This is London" is the Evening Standard's web brand. That's why it has a large masthead reading "London Evening Standard" on their pages. Did you follow the link, or just AfD it without? Andy Dingley (talk) 02:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I just scrolled down on the page and read it, since there was a large commercial next to it. Commercials everywhere --> ignore everything and just read the article. Regarding the notability of the subject, are there more sources? I'm having a hard time finding any. That Evening Standard one feels kind of local news though. Netalarmtalk 02:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "This is London" is the Evening Standard's web brand. That's why it has a large masthead reading "London Evening Standard" on their pages. Did you follow the link, or just AfD it without? Andy Dingley (talk) 02:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. Sounds cute, but nevertheless a web-based project by a non-notable unsigned musician. The Evening Standard coverage is OK, but any coverage I can find seems to be pickup of press releases about the project, and WP#N does say "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity ..." I don't think the citations offered establish this. Karenjc 13:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's obviously a risk, as most of the coverage I've found so far is obviously instigated by the singer's own press releases (and our Lady Gaga coverage presumably isn't...). I did like this comment from the Londonist though, "The Londonist inbox swells to Jupiter-like proportions each day with inane requests for coverage. Much of it is guff of the most guffsome guffishness. And then, every once in a while, we get beautiful non-guff like this:" Andy Dingley (talk) 13:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence of notability. The couple of sources provided do not give substantial coverage, and we do seem to have write-ups of press releases. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Press puffery, no actual notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as interesting but not notable. There is no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 20:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Minor articles in the Evening Standard and Londonist are a start, but for from enough to be considered significant third-party coverage. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 00:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Madison parker[edit]
- Madison parker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per WP:PORNSTAR Winner 42 Talk to me! 00:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - She passes WP:PORNBIO having been nominated for AVN Awards in multiple years. I'll update the article accordingly. To the nominator, afd'ing an article 30 minutes after its creation is a bit soon. At least let the creator know what's deficient about the article. It's clear that's he's a newbie. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. She passes WP:PORNBIO with award nominations in multiple years. And thanks to Morbidthoughts for improving the article. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per diligent WP:AFTER by User:Morbidthoughts that allowed improvement of article and sourcing of notability. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Believe Me (film)[edit]
- Believe Me (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per WP:CRYSTAL Winner 42 Talk to me! 00:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't find any mention of this film anywhere.--Johnsemlak (talk) 00:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Appears to be made up. Even if not, it fails WP:NFF. —Mike Allen 03:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 15:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Only announced recently. Not even in pre-production. Fails WP:NFF. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.