Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 January 27

< 26 January	28 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seiji[edit]

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

Delete. NN bio which fails WP:MUSIC & GNG. JBsupreme (talk) 23:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication that this meets notability guidelines. --DAJF (talk) 10:49, 31 January 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. Does not meet WP:ENTERTAINER requirements. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hein Riess[edit]

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

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

No evidence of meeting WP:ENTERTAINER. He a) has not had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions (his only significant role seems to be that of Hermann Göring in one film), b) does not have large fan base or a significant "cult" following (no evidence of that in English or in German), and c) Has not made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment (again, no evidence of that in English or in German). There is also no evidence that he meets the basic WP:N criteria of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", as most, if not all, references to him are trivial and in the context of him appearing in this or that without actually covering him as an individual. Cheers, CP 23:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His "best-known role" was a very minor one. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He does have a significant career as an actor and he did have a significant role in one well-known film. PatGallacher (talk) 17:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if the comment above is correct that his Battle of Britain role was a significant one, WP:ENT asks for multiple significant roles, which Riess does not appear to have had. Glenfarclas (talk) 20:58, 31 January 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) 16:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Coast to Coast AM affiliates[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a directory. Radio stations change programming, the link provided as a reference added as an external link to the main Coast To Coast AM article is more than enough information for an encyclopedia, no need to copy the information and try to maintain it here. Ridernyc (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as WP:NOT a directory. Lets see if we can get it right this time. JBsupreme (talk) 23:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being a directory would entail including radio stations' mailing addresses, phone numbers, staff lists, etc., not just listing them — as written, this doesn't constitute "being a directory" any more than any "List of radio stations in Foo" does. Bearcat (talk) 23:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a particularly convincig argument there. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 23:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not particularly a "lawyering" one either. Bearcat (talk) 00:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how that was somehow "uncivil". If you don't get why it's lawyerly, I can only refer you to Romeo and Juliet II/ii 42-50. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 00:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WL#Misuse of the term is how it's uncivil. And you might want to reread the rest of it, too — or at least explain to me how anything I said constitutes some sort of argument from "Wikipedia policy for the sake of Wikipedia policy", which is what wikilawyering means. Bearcat (talk) 01:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, this list was originally started as a result of a CFD explicitly closing out as "listify" after somebody tried to categorize these stations in a "Coast to Coast AM affiliates" category, in obvious violation of WP:OCAT. Even as the "creator" (read that as "dutiful carrier-outer of CFD consensus" rather than "really wanted it personally"), I'm not at all wedded to keeping this, because I don't really think it's all that encyclopedic — but as written, it isn't actually a WP:NOT violation. The rest of Ridernyc's rationale is a better summary of why we probably shouldn't keep this, but it's not that it's a "directory" — it's that it's unmaintainable trivia that's subject to constant flux. My primary issue in the first discussion was that people were trying to turn it back into a category after CFD listified the original category — from a strictly encyclopedic perspective, I don't think we actually need this in either format. No vote, just two cents for the pot. Bearcat (talk) 23:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, little more than a directory, and potentially unmaintainable. If the reader wants to know where they can tune in to the programme, they can check their local listings as usual. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 23:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the stations are notable the list is appropriate. NOT DIRECTORY only applies to indiscriminate lists, and our standard for notability is discriminating. DGG ( talk ) 00:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your assertion that "if the stations are notable the list is appropriate" doesn't follow. This list is in effect something of an arbitrary intersection. The stations are notable, and the programme is notable - the intersection of the two is not necessarily so. This to me would not be on the same level as a list of stations in a given area (that would be a matter of apples and oranges) - it would seem more like a "List of guest appearances on show X by person Y", even if X and Y both have articles. It's somewhere between a directory and a time-slice out of a programme listing. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 00:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The stations are notable, the show is notable, the fact that stations host the show is not notable. Not sure I follow the logic in your statement. Ridernyc (talk) 02:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Since the nature of Wikipedia is that information will and CAN change, whose to say the information in this article couldn't be updated if a station drops Coast to Coast. Coast to Coast is the number one talk program for overnights in the United States so I don't see stations pulling the plug quickly like they tend to do with other things on this show. Bearcat is right, whose to say (list of radio stations in (insert state or country) is notable either? If this article violates WP:NOTDIR why do those not violate it as well. Didn't we learn from the first nomination? --milonica (talk) 01:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I didn't say that this list should be kept; you might want to read my second comment in which I more clearly explain that we probably shouldn't. My only concern in making the "List of radio stations in X" comparison is in ensuring that we don't accidentally set an inappropriate precedent like "all lists of radio stations violate WP:NOTDIR" in the process. Bearcat (talk) 01:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of radio stations by region is totally different, they seldom if ever change. Ridernyc (talk) 02:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Merge - Useful list, needs updated and should be moved to Coast to Coast AM and incorporated into the article already available. This is done on several other pages about big name radio talk shows. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and other delete recommendations above. Wikipedia is not a radio guide. I don't see any need to maintain this list here; far better to refer readers to the show's official web site, which lists all the stations that broadcast the show and the times they broadcast it, and which is the only source used in this article anyway. If this article were kept, it would seem to justify the creation of articles containing lists of stations that broadcast any syndicated television or radio program, which I believe would be undesirable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a useful list created after previous discussion, categorizing by show is strongly deprecated, and how can a list of one kind of thing be "excessively narrow"? This list organizes data in a way no category can or should, allows listings for stations that do not or will not have independent articles, and while there is room for improvement in the list that's never a reason to call for its deletion. WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTGUIDE are not applicable to this list. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is never a valid reason for deletion. - Dravecky (talk) 10:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not necessary as a list or as a category, nor even something to be merged back to the rock that it crawled out of. There is nothing inherently notable about being a radio station that happens to carry a particular show, whether its Rush Limbaugh or Coast to Coast AM. If the point of the list is to show how many stations carry the show, then it can be mentioned within the article at whatever length seems reasonable. On the other hand, if one is interested in finding out where they can tune in to hear "Coast to Coast AM", they can click on the link that is posted in the article about the show, which I would add is a hell of a lot more useful than this article. Nobody tunes in a radio station by its call letters. Mandsford (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per several folks above and WP:NOTDIR as while the list can serve a useful navigational purpose, a reader seeking to find information on the affiliates would be far better served by a paragraph or two in the main article discussing the topic with an external link to the show's official site for an updated, complete listing. - Dravecky (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete violates WP:NOT#DIR; Wikipedia is not an electronic program guide. Abductive (reasoning) 05:36, 4 February 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 Sourced content has been added since the AFD started. CTJF83 chat 21:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

130s BC[edit]

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

There is no content on this page, It has links, it has categories, it has section headers. When I first came across the article I put a {{unref}} then realized there was not a single word requiring a reference so I put a {{prod}}, which was removed along with the {{unref}}. It fails Wikipedia:CSD#Articles A3, the fact that there is no references is not relivent. Fails Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information an article that is simply a place holder qualifies as part of an indiscriminate collection of information. Would also seem to fail WP:N as nothing notable enough to record is in this place holder. Prior to posting this AFD, I checked the relevant linked articles and there is no referenced content to bring in to the article. Jeepday (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Content (unreferenced) has been added to the article so A3 no longer applies. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Considering that there are articles about the years in this decade (139 BC through 130 BC) that do include information about births, deaths, and events in those years, it would seem more appropriate to either put the most significant items from those years into the decade article, or at least leave the decade article in place in hopes that someone will eventually get around to putting such items into it. There is no deadline. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G2 or A3, take your pick. Ivanvector (talk) 02:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There used to be content, so A3 doesn't apply. And it'd be very difficult to make a G2 case there. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That content was unreferenced and removed a few minutes later by the same author that added it. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep , since it is so easily fixable. DGG ( talk ) 03:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even if not fixed, it serves a useful navigation function. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

that's another good reason: it is a little counter-productive to break out one of a good continuous series, because tithe particular one happens not to have been worked on yet . DGG ( talk ) 19:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now moot I added the appropriate content--easier than arguing. Would have been just as easy for the nom. DGG ( talk ) 19:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that content has been added. Placeholder articles should be deleted though. JBsupreme (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep The nominator should be forced to improve at least 10 decade articles with 10 events each, or write a 100 times "I should not nomimate articles that obviously and trivially could be {{sofixit}}ed" on his user page. ¨¨ victor falk 03:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have improved many more then 100 articles, but I don't add content without references and I don't add unreferenced content to avoid deletion of an empty article.JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be so serious; sorry you didn't get what I meant ¨¨ victor falk 03:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should like to second that: adding any unreferenced content purely to avoid deletion of a completely empty article is unconstructive. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry? On the contrary, it is strongly advised to try to wp:improve articles during AfDs, and it's OK if it's not perfect. ¨¨ victor falk 03:57, 30 January 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) 00:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Salazar[edit]

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

Only Google hits are Wikipedia mirrors; possible WP:HOAX. Stifle (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The same crossed my mind when I just cut most of the article, but there are a deleted image in the history of a young guy in with the logo of the New York Red Bulls on his shirt. Does not prove anything without a source though. Is he notable anyway? Rettetast (talk) 23:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found this link. So the person probably exists. Rettetast (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Rettetast. Bearian (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note, Rettetast has !voted to delete below...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claim to fame even in his article. Only claims to be a reserve player with zero evidence of ever playing 1st team so fails ATHLETE. Only coverage I can find is error coverage based on Rettetast's provided link and similar scrapes who have not bothered to check their (mis)information, but it was in fact Fernando Salazar that took Beckham out in the SuperLiga final according to [this FIFA link and Soccernet and USA Today and all the other reliable sources. --ClubOranje^T 23:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as hoax; searching for "Salazar" at redbull.newyork.mlsnet.com returns no sign he exists. Glenfarclas (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edited to add: I see Rettetast's link above, and all it shows is that a Francisco Salazar played for C.F. Pachuca in Mexico. Since it's a common enough name, and Francisco Salazar says he's American and plays for New York, there's no reason to suppose these are the same people. As to the alleged American Salazar, I note that the prefatory text to WP:ATHLETE makes clear that "meeting one or more [of the criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included." In my view, if you're not listed on the team's roster, not mentioned in a single game writeup, there's no evidence that you've ever set foot on the team's pitch, and in fact it's difficult to prove that you even exist, then you are not notable and should not be included in an encyclopedia, notwithstanding WP:ATHLETE's criteria. Glenfarclas (talk) 05:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and it is an error anyway, Fernando Salazar plays for them and is the player that should be referenced in that link.--ClubOranje^T 10:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Glenfarclas. Rettetast (talk) 10:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence this player has ever played professionally -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's no evidence he meets WP:ATHLETE, he fails WP:GNG, and may not even exist. Sounds like a clear cut deletion to me. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable at best, possible hoax. Edward321 (talk) 14:48, 2 February 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) 00:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Runar Karlsson[edit]

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

Minor government minister of an island territory of 27,000 people (about the size of a small U.S. town), only references are to a 1 column Q&A about a project in the country and a quote in an article about another politician. Fail WP:POLITICIAN. MBisanz ^talk 22:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We probably ought to throw WP:POLITICIAN out the window on this as its generic requirements are ill-suited to these strange cases. On the one hand, this guy's political activities are limited to a very small jurisdiction similar in size to a local council. On the other hand, the jurisdiction enjoys considerable autonomy; thus its legislators would have significant power. He seems to have a reasonable degree of coverage (although bear in mind I can't understand a word of it). Ultimately, I don't have any problem with having a properly sourced article about a person who is obviously quite a significant political figure in an autonomous jurisdiction. But it is a weak keep because I am troubled about taking this position to its logical extreme (Norfolk Island etc.), and may be convinced to change my vote. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:POLITICIAN states that members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature qualify, and Karlsson is the Minister of Communications (sometimes translated into "Minister of Transport" - the Swedish title means something slightly different from both those terms) in the government which, due to Åland's status as semi-autonomous, would rank somewhere between provincial and national. Surely the number of inhabitants is largely irrelevant - the question must be whether Åland's status is sufficiently significant for its government to be notable. My answer to that would be yes. --bonadea contributions talk 12:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hmm. Apparently [1] he is the former Communications minister. That should be reflected in the article - doesn't change the notability question though. --bonadea contributions talk 14:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Minister of Communications 2005-, Member of the Lagting (Åland parliament) 2003-, Minister of Transportation and Energy 1999-2003 etc would usually assert notability undoubtedly for politicians on wikipedia. However, I am concerned that the web sources about this person really do not seem to be abundant but some reliable sources exist. I'd like to see this article improved in the future... Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 14:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But those positions are for a subunit of a larger nation. MBisanz ^talk 14:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Åland is quasi-sovereign (not semi-autonoumous), with Finland only allowed responsibility for defence and foreign relations, with a separate citizenship for its inhabitants, all this guaranteed by the international community in the form of the 1917 League of Nations treaty. Apparently he's notorious among the islanders for his roundabout proposals.¨¨ victor falk 03:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Åland appears to be a cross between a nation-state and a state/province. As either, its government ministers would be notable. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. ¨¨ victor falk 06:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Åland Islands are a sui generis case. The province has a nearly complete autonomy in all fields except defence, state security and judicial system. In fiscal matters, it enjoys only a limited autonomy. Despite its size, it has about as wide jurisdiction as states of many federal republics. Thus, its minister-level politicians are notable according to WP:POLITICIAN. --MPorciusCato (talk) 12:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep snowball keep. per above. Ikip 02:26, 2 February 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) 00:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Cole (anthropologist)[edit]

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

Non-notable professor, does not seem to have unique contributions to his field. Only source is faculty bio. MBisanz ^talk 22:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some book titles from the Library of Congress and some references from North American newspapers which quote him. Arabian oasis city : the transformation of ʻUnayzah is held by 310 libraries, according to Worldcat. Nomads of the nomads is held by 456. Bedouins of the Empty Quarter hasn't been published yet, but is due to be released in March 2010. Bedouin, settlers, and holiday makers : Egypt's changing northwest cast is held by 147. So perhaps he's also notable as an author. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. – Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources indicate he meets our content requirements. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 14:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.Ikip 02:00, 2 February 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. After the quick and substantial improvement, the nominator withdrew their objection. — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Osvald Helmuth[edit]

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

Non-notable film actor, sources are simply lists and I'm not seeing the critical commentary on his work that I would expect for WP:BIO. MBisanz ^talk 22:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has a full length obituary in the New York Times (in 1966, behind a paywall, so I can't see all of it, but they are speaking highly of him). I found that without any effort, so it should be able to find more, I will poke around.--kelapstick (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The obituary appears not to be "full length", as the NYT page states it is 193 words. Not trivial, but not a long article. ^Bongo_matic 02:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhhh, thanks Bongo. kelapstick (talk) 02:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Non notable? There are a LOT of sources in google books and web search. "I'm not seeing the critical commentary on his work that I would expect for WP:BIO. ". Then ask kindly for it to be expanded Bisanz! Tomorrow I shall write it into a decent sourced article, I am a little confused at the assumptions of the nominator, given the breadth of sources that loom up with a quick google search..... Notability in my view is judged by the level and breath of sources that exist and judged on what the person actually did. Helmuth appeared as a stage actor in many major performances in Copenhagen's main theatres, had a long film career directed by most of Denmark's leading directors of that period and he became a Knight of the 1st order, national recognition for his contribition to his profession in Denmark. similar to actors like Sean Connery and Michael Caine being knighted for their contribution to British cinema by royalty, only Danish actors are seldom known internationally but I'd wager Helmuth was widely recognisable in Denmark and probably some of the other Scandinavian countries. It would seem a quick google search has revealed that he had a 60 year illustrious career (which also saw him involved in films which were nominated for Academy Award for Documentary Short Subject and Palme D'Or and an appearance on Broadway) and is well documented in books/sites about Danish cinema. That to me is clearly good enough. Now if he had only two film to his name and was only mentioned online in an independent blog or myspace or something then he would be non notable.... Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 22:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are Lots of foreign language sources, unfortunately since I don't speak any other languages I can't dive into them...--kelapstick (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to have been the subject of a ~~full-length~~ brief but not trivial (193-word) obit by the AP, published by the New York Times (surely amongst other papers). The first sentence is:

Osvald Helmuth, Denmark's greatest musical-hall comic who strode the boards for nearly 60 years, died tonight.

Seems like a mark of notability to me. ^Bongo_matic 23:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His name appears in English-language studies of film here and there, sometimes reviewed at length, but why should anyone fix an article after arbcom recommended shooting them on sight? NVO (talk) 03:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel the irony of your comment. Sadly, perhaps that is what they're hoping for. But acting as if the policies of WP:IMPROVE were ignorable essays does not make it the correct course of action. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with kudos to User:Dr. Blofeld and a school of WP:TROUT to those who would make it somebody else's job to WP:IMPROVE an article through diligent WP:BEFORE. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, I was thinking more along the lines of piranha lunching actually..... Launch Bisanz into the volcano piranha pool on a hook I say. Nah I like him too much to eliminate him.... The article was lacking though and it didn't assert notabilty, he did have a point, but we have thousands of such stubs which need nurturing... Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Along with being involved in Academy Award and Palme d'Or nominated films, he'd also pass WP:ENT for starring in multiple notable films too. Lugnuts (talk) 07:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - thank you to Dr. Blofeld for adding a lot to the article! Osvald Helmuth is still, I believe, rather a household name in Denmark. The article now includes information that must be sufficient to speedy keep it; Helmuth was knighted, for one thing, and for another there are several biographical works written about him (not just books where he is mentioned but books about him), as noted in the Literature section. --bonadea contributions talk 12:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep MBisanz has made a number of bad AfD's, few minutes apart, some on articles I had just quickly referenced in the ongoing BLP madness, I didnt even watchlist them so coming here is quite accidental. Mr. Helmuth, and his son, Frits Helmuth, are enormously notable. It seems a pointy, while everybody is scrambling just to reference articles, then overburden the already overburdened AfD. Power.corrupts (talk) 13:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good now, thanks Dr. MBisanz ^talk 14:28, 28 January 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 upon the author's request. JBsupreme (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Born Thieves[edit]

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

Per WP:NFF, films that have not finished production are not notable unless the production itself is notable (and I see no indication that it is per the guidelines there). According to IMDB, this film is still in pre-production, which definitely makes it non-notable as Wikipedia does not predict the future. I tried PROD, but no one ever actually reads WP:NFF to discover that the mere casting of a notable actor is *not* sufficient to establish notability for a film in production or pre-production. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 22:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Project has been announced on Robert Knepper's fan page. Project has been announced on Reverson Entertainment's website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TempPass (talk • contribs) 22:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Read WP:NFF. It doesn't say: "A film in pre-production is notable if the star is notable." In fact it says the opposite; unless the production itself is notable, a film that is not in post-production is *strictly* not notable. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 22:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. Please delete the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TempPass (talk • contribs) 22:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 27 January 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) 00:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Love (cultural views)[edit]

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

This article does not discuss what it purports to discuss. The article consists of two main sections: "Cultural views" and "Religious views". The "Cultural views" section is not an explanation of the various views of love based on culture, but is rather a listing of words in different languages which, if translated into English, would be roughly translated as love; longer definitions are provided for each word. This interlinguistic information would be more appropriate on Wiktionary than here. As for the "Religious views" section, there is already an article detailing information about Religious views on love, therefore there is no need for duplication of that information here. There is also only one reference in the article, and it is in the "Religious views" section. The bottom line is that the title of this article suggests that the article discusses how views of love vary from culture to culture, but the article does not do so or even demonstrate that it is possible to do so. Neelix (talk) 21:52, 27 January 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) 16:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of classic rock radio stations[edit]

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

Delete per Wikipedia not directory. Radio stations change formats, this list is very hard to maintain. randomly going through the list I can find stations that have changed format and are no longer classic rock. The only way to maintain this would be to check the website of every station listed. Ridernyc (talk) 21:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom saying Wikipedia isn't a directory. Plus we have Category:Classic rock radio stations which is sufficient. CTJF83 chat 22:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another directory listing on Wikipedia, despite WP:NOT supposedly being one. JBsupreme (talk) 23:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep If the radio stations are notable and their format can be demonstrated then the list is appropriate. A list of notable things is not indiscriminate. NOTDIRECTORY only prohibits unselective lists. Difficulties in editing can be dealt with by editing. DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC) I accept what the others have said here. DGG ( talk ) 02:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This particular list has too broad of a topic to build up a detailed analysis of the list itself, so it violates WP:SALAT. This also goes against NOTDIRECTORY due to the lack of encyclopedic material that holds together the individual entities. Really, how much can we possibly say about how ROCK 101 in Vancouver compares with 96.3 Rock Radio in Glasgow, or the relationships between the rest of these stations? Them From Space 09:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Delete' For all the same reasons as above. Besides, they forgot the station in MY town! LOL! (But that is part of the problem, who wants all these entries?) Montanabw^(talk) 21:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hard to maintain such a list and has no encyclopedic value. andyzweb (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete given that radio stations change their format all the time, the category is better. Abductive (reasoning) 05:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY I just dont see how thos list can be expressed as something else besides a directory. Ottawa4ever (talk) 11:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also like the category reason above, if it doesnt exist i would support that Ottawa4ever (talk) 11:16, 4 February 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) 00:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ezaad[edit]

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

Notability concerns Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 20:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN, only in one movie, and I'm guessing a minor role. CTJF83 chat 22:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ENT. Joe Chill (talk) 22:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I can't find any evidence that his movie role was significant or that he would otherwise meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Glenfarclas (talk) 21:13, 31 January 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) 00:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toshikazu Ikuta[edit]

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

The total evidence for notability seems to be the publication record here, which consists of only about a dozen conference presentations, but no peer-reviewed papers. I do not see how that makes for being an authority in the field, and I see no evidence for meeting WP:BIO. (BTW, I found this through random article checks exploring Mangus' bio tool. FWIW, most of what I saw there seems to be either OK as it is, or easily improvable. -- the format for getting relevant data for improving any specific BLP is, for example, http://toolserver.org/~magnus/save_a_blp.php?page=Samuel_Johnson -- using a FA as the example. DGG ( talk ) 19:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A new researcher (Ph.D. 2008) with the kind of research portfolio one would expect for being so new. Has not yet had time to develop the impact needed to pass WP:PROF #1. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Far too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein and Xxanthippe. Ray^Talk 23:14, 2 February 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. Cirt (talk) 16:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Cartmell[edit]

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

Contested PROD. The article subject claims notability, however the claims have gone unreferenced for three years. The article should be adequately sourced so the claims can be verified, or it should be deleted. Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 18:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find anything about him beyond publications that he himself has written... that's a reluctant delete. The sources are out there, but not necessarily in WP:RS, which is indeed a necessity... --Izno (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:N Dlabtot (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't appear to meet WP:N. The lack of reliable sources coupled with inactivity would indicate a non notable subject. Stormbay (talk)
Keep well-known and notable martial artist, martial arts researcher and translator, and martial arts author [2]. "Effortless Combat Throws" in particular is highly regarded. Refernces are easily available in Google:"Nei jia quan: internal martial arts" by Jess O'Brien, where a 38-page chapter is devoted to him [3]; in "Chinese Martial Arts Training Manuals: A Historical Survey" by Brian Kennedy he is the first of several people cited as Western researchers of the Chinese martial arts [4]. His books and articles are cited frequently (see Google Books and Google Scholar). He was interviewed in Wu Gong Journal, May-June 1998,vol. 3, #15 and has published in the highly respected Journal of Asian Martial Arts (e.g. Throwing Techniques in the Internal Martial Arts: An Elucidation of the Guiding Principle of "Sticking and Following" , Vol. 18 #4) [5]. JJL (talk) 03:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is clearly a notable martial artist. The quantity of written reliable sources about him too justify this being kept. Just needs citations and improvement. Reliable source coverage exists to expand and ref this. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I still don't see this as gravely notable and even if it is the sources are poor at best. Disclaimer: I am the person who PROD'd the article that was contested see Talk:Tim Cartmell for more andyzweb (talk) 18:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm surprised to see the sources described as 'poor'. The two books I cited are from Blue Snake Books, the martial arts imprint of North Atlantic Books (distributed by Random House). If you search Wikipedia for Blue Snake Books you'll find that their works appear as references in articles on a variety of subjects. It isn't a fly-by-night or vanity publisher. (They describe themselves as "presently the largest publisher of internal and historical martial arts books in the world".) One of these books devotes its entire first chapter to Tim Cartmell, and the other describes him as one of the major Western researchers in Chinese martial arts history. That certainly seems like verifiable notability in third-party reliable sources. In addition to that biographical material there is the interview in the Wu Gong Journal of Chinese Martial Arts (since renamed the Journal of Chinese Martial Arts). Can you be more specific about why you feel these sources are not acceptable? JJL (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The only two inline citations included in this article that would allow for verification of the specific and prolific claims made within are 1) in a foreign language and 2) the individual's own website. This is not sufficient for WP:BLP purposes or for supporting notability claims. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 21:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've only been on Wikipedia for a few months, so I'm not sure of how everything works. The article as written probably deserves to be deleted since the only 2 references are his web site and an Italian copy of his book. The article's been cited for lack of references for 3 years so it doesn't look like the original author is going to fix it. However, the sources mentioned by JJL appear to be of good quality. If the article was rewritten and cited only material from WP:RS, it's probably salvageable. Papaursa (talk) 02:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs improvement, certainly, but that is a separate issue from the subject's notability. I am not an expert on the subject, but he appears to meet WPMA/N on criteria 1 (subject of an independent article/documentary) and 5 (author of significant books on his style). Janggeom (talk) 14:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep JJL's findings appear to show notability even if the current article doesn't. Papaursa (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment an article needs to be judged on its current state, not what it could potentially be. As I've reiterated several times in this discussion, there are only two very weak subject-affiliated "references" in this BLP. This has been the case for three years. Every claim of importance is sourced back to the individual's own company. If the reliable sources are not added to the article to both verify the content and also bolster any claim of notability, then it does not meet the requirements for inclusion under WP:BLP, WP:V or WP:N. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 19:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' if it has potential then Incubation might be an option. --Nate ^t/_c 14:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COmment notability is the issue here; AfD is not article improvement, and there aren't contentious or controversial BLP issues here. Feel free to edit out anything you feel is unsupported, but notability is the issue at AfD and the sources cited establish that. There is no time limit for improvement. JJL (talk) 20:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since it's notability that appears to be the crux, could you please explain what sources in the article being discussed support the notability claim? I have absolutely no qualms about the article being kept as long as the information that would verify the notability are included in the article, and any unsourced awards etc. were removed (which I could go through should the article be kept). Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 21:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question What about reducing the article to something like "Tim Cartmell is a martial artist best known as an author and translator of martial arts books."? The list of publications would serve as references and the rest of the article could be removed as unsourced. Then, as time permits, someone could added reliably sourced material. Papaursa (talk) 01:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In my opinion that would be an acceptable solution as the writings would be verifiable as the ISBN numbers are included in the article. The academy he runs could also be included even though it's a primary source as it's simply verifying "he works here". The article could be fleshed out if and when reliable independent sources become available. Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 15:22, 2 February 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. Even if renamed to cover the crime rather than the criminal, there seems no notability. JohnCD (talk) 18:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Shelton[edit]

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

Unremarkable murderer. Fails WP:BLP1E and WP:GNG. Here is a list of every non-bot editor that has touched this article: User:The Fading Light (creator), User:Good Olfactory, User:98.203.252.255, User:Millionsandbillions, User:PyroGamer, User:Boleyn2, User:69.182.56.121, and User:Quantpole - why did no one else propose this for deletion? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of reliable sources. Plenty of ghits but all are somehow derived from an article called "Murdered for being an atheist", or are otherwise POV sources, blogs, and/or forums. Fails both WP:N and WP:PERP. No evidence that the crime itself received "intense media coverage" in reliable sources, thereby failing WP:N/CA. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E and failure to meet general notability. JBsupreme (talk) 20:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Murder of Larry Hooper on the principle of "cover the event, not the person". The motive for the murder is a relatively uncommon one. The article cited by User:Kuyabribri is more relevant in the context of the event than in the life of Arthur Shelton. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteI added what sources I could find to improve the article, but it still fails notability. Just one more sick, sad, crime, which got minimal press coverage and no coverage in books, movies, or plays, and which inspired no legislation or social movements had no societal effects. One guy dead, one in prison, end of story. Edison (talk) 05:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet WP:PERPETRATOR. He might get in under criterion #3 if this had been more heavily covered and if he were not mentally ill, which from the sketchy reports I can find it appears he was. GNews turns up virtually no legitimate coverage; most of what's out there is discussions on atheist forums and the like. Glenfarclas (talk) 21:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Probably should have nommed it myself when I removed some unsourced info. Does not seem to have been covered beyond the ordinary for a murder, so I don't agree that the event should be covered either. Quantpole (talk) 12:00, 3 February 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) 16:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican Dance Ensemble[edit]

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

Probably non-notable dance ensemble. Article written in the first person by an account blocked for spamming. Psychonaut (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources Dlabtot (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - unsourced and promotional, but these things can be fixed. Ivanvector (talk) 03:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article leans too far towards the promotional side and plus part of the history section is copeid from this page making it a copyvio as well andyzweb (talk) 15:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this version, but no prejudice to a sourced, non-promotional recreation, if sources exist. Abductive (reasoning) 05:42, 4 February 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) 00:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Law Offices of Michael Lawson Neff, P.C.[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:COMPANY, lack of secondary coverage (company doesn't even seem to be mentioned in some of the sources). Cassandra 73 (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:N Dlabtot (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a lawyer's office. Probably does a good job. Does freebie work for charity. Notable? Not so far as I can see. (I'll take Cassandra's word for the sources.) Peridon (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What makes other law firms notable and this one non-notable? The only difference I see between this firm and the others here on Wikipedia is that the others have more than one office. Some have as few as 2 offices, and fewer notable cases. As the original author, I want to know how to change this page so it isn't deleted User:AtlantaPRPro —Preceding undated comment added 17:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

See WP:COMPANY for inclusion guidelines for organisations. Re the point about notable cases, I'm not sure the cases listed in the article are notable in Wikipedia terms, which is probably a higher bar than what would be considered notable within the industry. Cassandra 73 (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, very non-notable average personal-injury firm. To the PR Pro above, what makes (a few) other firms (and companies in general) notable is being "the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." Notwithstanding that any lawyer will have his name mentioned in court reports of his cases, etc., I see no evidence of this firm's significance with respect to an encyclopedia of global scope. Wikipedia isn't a business directory. Glenfarclas (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A search returns the typical directory listings, but nothing in any reliable source indicating that this firm is notable. Plus, WP isn't an advertising forum. Transmissionelement (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A little word to User:AtlantaPRPro (and any others looking in): If, as your chosen user name suggests, you are in PR, then please be advised that Wikipedia is not the place for advertising or any promotional material. If you consider any other article to be so, then please tag it, but please do not introduce material intended to be promotional here. This is an encyclopaedia, not a directory or free web-space. Peridon (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per author request and lack of evidence of notability. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ZUVVI[edit]

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

Promotion for non-notable software product by company official. I have been unable to find any significant independent coverage from reliable sources. Haakon (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Haakon (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is agreed that it is hard to find information on Zuvvi with a simple Google search - though other sources exist and are being listed it will take time. However, as the Wikipedia editor seems set on deleting this page before completion and we are a not for profit that cannot spend time arguing the toss, coupled with the fact the Wikipedia editor has no proper knowledge of how Open Source BSD licences work and seems somewhat annoyed I have decided to let the whole go and let the page be deleted rather than complete it with details being supplied from and contributions by independent sources. I shall remove all reference from WP immediately and hope for a better informed group in the future. May Buddha's Light shine on you all. Aeomer (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The licensing question is not at issue here, only the notability is. If you think notability can be demonstrated given a little more time, I think userification would be a good solution. Haakon (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence at all of notability in article, and I have found none. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JamesBWatson and WP:CRYSTAL. It looks like the claim is that it "may" release a version that is notable, which might mean a new article next year, but not now. LotLE×talk 19:41, 27 January 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) 16:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aer Lingus Regional[edit]

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

This article was created yesterday (26th January) in response to the airlines Aer Lingus and Aer Arann announcing a new alliance in which Aer Arann will operate flights on behalf of Aer Lingus to a number of destinations from Ireland to the UK and France. The service will be branded "Aer Lingus Regional". However, "Aer Lingus Regional" is not by any means a separate airline, and it has no general notability to have its' own article. The current article can also easily fool the reader into thinking that this a separate airline, and even claims that Christoph Mueller is the CEO of Aer Lingus Regional, even though he is the CEO of Aer Lingus. Aer Lingus Regional is simply an alliance between two airlines, and doesn't have a CEO!

I've tried to redirect this article to Aer Lingus, but it has been reverted by Kavs8, and therefore an AfD is necessary. If this article is deleted, so should Aer Lingus Regional destinations. Footyfanatic3000 ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is the only article re-lating to Aer Lingus Regional a new brand JUST launched on 26/01/10 and more information will become available when it grows keep the article. --Kavs8 ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kavs8, you just left a note on my talk page asking to delete the pages. How come you've had a sudden change of heart? --Footyfanatic3000 ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Like United Express and Delta Connection, which are both owned entirely by United Airlines and Delta Airlines respectively and can be technically called the same airline, they are different entities (different pay structure, union-affiliations, etc.). As Kavs8 pointed out, this is an actual regional that seems to be in the early stages. --Oakshade (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Violates WP:RS and WP:CRYSTAL. Ditto for Aer Lingus Regional destinations.LeadSongDog come howl 18:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this is in the same line as Delta Connection and others. The article needs to be reworked to emphasize that this is an agreement between Aer Lingus and Aer Arran, and not a totally separate airline. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aer Lingus Regional is to be a new airline. It will operate different aircraft from the Aer Lingus fleet which will be branded as Aer Lingus Regional. As mentioned, this is just the same as Delta Connect etc, or in the UK bmi Regional. If the article gets deleted, then judging by Footyfantic3000's theory, all these other pages, like Bmi Regional, Delta Regional etc etc should all be deleted too. It is a different company, a different management team a complete new entity. -- Planephoenix (talk) 17:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They will be using Aer Arann's planes, who are operating the route. Aer Arann cabin crew will also work on board the flights, while the flights will be booked through aerlingus.com. This is not a separate commuter subsidiary like BMI Regional or Delta Connection, it's just an alliance, and as far as I know it won't have any board of management, unlike what you claim. --Footyfanatic3000 ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like this is exactly the same as United Express. United owns none of the airlines that operate United Express branded service; United sells the tickets, but the planes are operated by other carriers like SkyWest, Shuttle America, Mesa, and others, using SkyWest/Shuttle America/Mesa/etc cabin crew and call signs. Delta Connection is the same, except that some of the carriers are wholly own subsidiaries of Delta, but even in that case the subsidiaries have their own pilots, cabin crew, and callsigns. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 03:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The aircraft will come from Aer Arran, yes. But they will be repainted in to Aer Lingus branding and therefore has just as much right for an article as other regional airline offshoots. Planephoenix (talk) 20:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Delete From the information given this seems to be not much more than a wet-lease or codeshare agreement. It's like bmi operating some flights on behalf of Lufthansa. The only difference is that there has been a unique brand name chosen, but I think this is just a marketing issue. Therefore I tend to think the article should be deleted, and the - still notable - information shall be merged in Aer Lingus or Aer Arann. Though, on the other hand, there is an article on Lufthansa Italia, which has not any management of its own, either. There is not even a distinctive callsign. It troubles me that I cannot find any difference to Aer Lingus Regional. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my mind, as I found out that LH Italia is an airline brand of its own, unlike EI Regional. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 13:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have added new information that states the airline is an agreement between both Aer Arann and Aer Lingus + footfanatic i have had a change of heart because the airline just launched remember that just 2 days after the launch and we have people trying to delete the new wikipedia article created by me give it time for more information to become available. --Kavs8 ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per aspera ad Astra i understand where you are coming from as that seem's to be the case but the only difference is that it is a brand new subsidary with Aer Lingus house colours on Aer Arann aircraft and new routes will be launched, with Aer Arann and Aer Lingus indicating new aircraft, new routes, and a mangement team for the new airline ontime for the launch on 28/03/10 so please wait for information to become available remember it lauched just 2 days ago, but i do understand what you are saying as that is very similar just in a different sense as it is a subsidary of Aer Lingus but with Aer Arann operating flights. --Kavs8 ^{(talk · contribs)} 21:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me people but where does it say in any of the articles / press releases that the Aer Arann aircraft being used will be re-painted to show this "Aer Lingus Regional" Livery? From what i gather, the point of the new franchise is that both Aer Arann and Aer Lingus benefit from a partnership so that neither airlines loose identity and come together to offer more to the public. Haven't heard anything about the Aer Lingus Regional brand becoming an actual subsidiary "airline", just that it will be operated by Aer Lingus but through the use of Aer Arann aircraft - hence the partnership? Please forgive me if i am wrong 92.23.17.152 (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

92.23.17.152 Look hear i found it when i looked at the new flight schedule http://www.aerlingus.com/i18n/en/htmlPopups/reInformation.html --Kavs8 ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oh right well that's cleared it up then :) thanks kavs8 92.23.17.152 (talk) 22:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is just a marketing brand that just needs to be mentioned on the Aer Lingus and Aer Arann article. Not legally an airline or even a company. Probably better as a redirect. MilborneOne (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Keep it is a seperate Aer Lingus & Aer Arann division, a new Aer Lingus subsidry with a new CEO, team to be announced how could you justify a delete just 3 days after it launched!! Milborneone --Kavs8 ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.232.125.146 (talk) [reply]

As you ask nothing in the article indicates that it is an airline as it says franchise agreement. Just need to point to an Air Operators Certificate or other legal document that shows that it more than a branding franchise agreement. (please dont keep adding keep we dont add it up like a scoreboard) MilborneOne (talk) 19:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

busi

Keep: i have read Aer Lingus's press release in London on the 26th it clearly states on that that Aer Lingus Regional is a subsidary and not controlled by Aer Lingus so it deserves an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josemaneulo (talk • contribs) 20:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Josemaneulo i have re-itered this but it has been ignored by footyfanatic3000 on multiple occasions. --Kavs8 ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As per what you have deleted in the edit history, I can't help but be suspicious about this. Two users voting from the same IP is quite uncommon... --Footyfanatic3000 ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really footyfanatic 3000 their is a wikipedia article re-lating to blocked pc's using the same IP address this is very tipical in broadband services, you are also straying from the point in hand have you read the aerlingus press release in London?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josemaneulo (talk • contribs) 20:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have read many press releases, but this is not a separate entity, just a franchise agreement between Aer Lingus and Aer Arann (as I've already said).

Anyway, I'm a bit suspicious about this because the two accounts, Kavs8 and Josemanuelo are using the same IP with the same ISP in the same debate, are giving strong support to each other, they both seem to be ready to reply to one another's edits, and have the same style of writing. It's hard to imagine all of this being a coincidence... Footyfanatic3000 ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will report you are being totally unconstructive if the article means this much to you to follow and accuse people of helping to back each other up on articles is hearsay, I Joined wikipedia in January 2009 after the ip address for my area Coolamber Cobh was blocked for over 3months so josemaneulo mite be in my local area i have also reported you for your vandilism at 21.54 + 22.12 on 26 January 2010 + josemaneulo was wrong as Aer Lingus article dose not state a completely sperate company. --Kavs8 ^{(talk · contribs)} 21:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should read WP:VAND for what is and what isn't considered vandalism. These edits were not vandalism. I have always edited constructively on both this wiki and the Irish language wiki. You've made many great contributions to Wikipedia too. Just don't be falsely accusing others of vandalism. --Footyfanatic3000 ^{(talk · contribs)} 21:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway you created your account in April '09, not January. --Footyfanatic3000 ^{(talk · contribs)} 21:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having at first been very much for the keep I am open to what comes. I believe perhaps we should wait until closer to the time until it is deleted, as Kavs has said, it was only announced within the last week therefore details are still sketchy. My belief is that it is just like bmi regional, that has its own article hence why i believe Lingus Regional deserves one. Lets just wait and see perhaps?Planephoenix (talk) 18:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But BMI regional was originally set up as a separate airline (Business Air) until it was later bought by BMI. In this case, we're dealing with a brand name for a franchise agreement. Not an actual airline at all. --Footyfanatic3000 ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep BA Connect had its own page... I see no problem in this page existing, should further news come from Aer Lingus/Aer Arran that would provide a substantial reason for deletion so be it, But as of the 3/2/10 I see no reason in which this page should be deleted.--NorthernCounties (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But at least BA Connect was a subsidiary, this is just the name being used on planes to advertise a franchise agreement. When you book a flight to one of the destinations served under the agreement e.g. Durham Tees Valley, there is not even a hint that this may be operated by Aer Arann. In fact, when you click on the flight details when booking your flight, it says that it is operated by Aer Lingus. No mention of Aer Lingus Regional whatsoever. --Footyfanatic3000 ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see no reason for deletion. Deb (talk) 12:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is only a brand being used on planes only for a franchise agreement. That's all it's about, and that's the reason for deletion. --Footyfanatic3000 ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:35, 4 February 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) 00:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wishywashy[edit]

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

Contested PROD (by tag removal). Seems to be original research, containing no verification by referencing reliable sources. I have looked for and have not turned up any references to Wishywashy (or wishy washy) as a musical style, only as a descriptive term (generally negative) about a musical style, DJ or track. blue520 17:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The closest I could come to finding information about this was the four hits returned for "wishy washy synthesizers", in particular the review here. But, as the nominator says, that just seems to be describing a synthesizer sound as wishy washy in this particular instance, it's not evidence that a "wishy-washy sound" is a notable musical style or innovation. Thus this is no more a proper subject for an encyclopedia article than Hard-driving beats would be just because some rock band was described that way. Glenfarclas (talk) 23:34, 31 January 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, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lise Nørgaard[edit]

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

Non-notable writer, no awards or lasting impact of work. Not seeing much coverage out there except in large lists of people. MBisanz ^talk 17:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:AUTHOR #3 [6] Dlabtot (talk) 18:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is nuts, she is one of the most notable Danish playwrights, a first-class celebrity. Her plays for TV have aired in Germany and elseswhere and have been issued and re-issued on DVD, seen repeated runs on national television, in-depth interviews in ALL major Danish media, the major TV channels included. This is a clearcut WP:BIAS issue, as access to Danish media archives requires subscription. "Not seeing much coverage out there except in large lists of people" - tsk. Power.corrupts (talk) 12:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per both of the above. She is something of a national treasure. That being said, someone should do something about the references. Hmm, maybe I should. Favonian (talk) 12:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I've added a couple of sources. This one, though it's written by her about Hans Christian Andersen, also contains a brief bio by the Danish Broadcasting Corporation confirming her standing as "The Grand Old Dame of Danish Literature". Not sure I would have chosen that phrase in English, it sounds rather more polite in Danish ;) Favonian (talk) 13:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep DId the nominator even look for sources? These are very strange nominations. Bisanz has picked two articles for deletion which are actually more notable figures than many of the others from their countries!! Perhaps he has something against the Danish? I am kidding but please do look for sources first before wasting peoples time when really non notable articles should be here instead... Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 14:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Left a note at his talk page, exactly the same message. Power.corrupts (talk) 14:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep "Lise Nørgaard is the Danish cultural life's first lady, not only its oldest one".[7] - Dagens Nyheter ¨¨ victor falk 04:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. —Power.corrupts (talk) 11:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP -- A best-selling author, creator & writer of the most successful TV series in Danish history, winner of the lifetime achievement award by the Danish National Press Club, winner of the Danish writer of the year, knighted into the Order of the Dannebrog, Bio in the Danish Encylcopedia -- an obvious obvious keep. — CactusWriter | ^needles 19:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable. Wikipeterproject (talk) 02:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This is an odd nomination for deletion and, at face value, even seems frivolous... Wikipeterproject (talk) 02:11, 31 January 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) 00:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

16 Lagu-Lagu Hari Raya Aidilfitri[edit]

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

Unremarkable compilation recording. only 2 of the included artists. only claim to notability is vague and unreferenced. Title lacks coverage in 3rd party references. Contested CSD based on the claim of "is most popular" RadioFan (talk) 16:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment I had closed this Afd as the author had blanked the article and I had speedily deleted it. Since the author has now recreated the article, I am restoring the AfD. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 19:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence provided. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:26, 28 January 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, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nimma Raja Reddy[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP of a local politician, appears to fail WP:POLITICIAN. MBisanz ^talk 16:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- –SpacemanSpiff 20:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Neither a BLP nor does he fail WP:Politician! –SpacemanSpiff 21:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In other words, "Oh no it isn't!" I think you need to explain yourself a little better. I fail to see how it's not covered by BLP - recent death is a mere teechnicality. WP:V is an absolute. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in its current form after addition of refs by Spiff. Meets WP:Politician and in its current form, raises no BLP concerns. . --Sodabottle (talk) 03:41, 28 January 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. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 08:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Harpole[edit]

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

While the article claims he is internationally recognized, it does not provide any further evidence to support this claims and the only sources provided are to his own website. MBisanz ^talk 16:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I recommend looking at the history of the article. The content has been removed by JB Supreme, even though it is sourced by a proper source, the official faculty page. I am sorry to an editor I respect assisting in the technique of dismembering articles and then nominating hem for deletion. As for actual notability, I'll need to look further. ` DGG ( talk ) 00:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced to his own page? Abductive (reasoning) 06:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having looked, and found references for the publications (and restored the material--I think it really counterproductive for JB to have deleted as unsourced material he could have found sources for with a trivial effort), he meets WP:PROF for having produced a standard reference work of enduring importance, the standard 10v. history of American Cinema. DGG ( talk ) 02:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh ok, thanks for seeing that. MBisanz ^talk 06:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable. History of article indeed raises questions. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. It's hard to imagine that the guy isn't potentially notable. Had I come across the language "internationally recognized" I would have just removed that, maybe placed a notability, reliable sources and citation needed tags, and waited. Then if improvements were not forthcoming, I might prod it. BLP concerns are important, and I hope that MBisanz and JBSupreme continue to research the problem and contribute to an overall solution. Abductive (reasoning) 06:03, 4 February 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 - everyone can make up theories, but only theories that other people comment on are liable to be notable Ϣere SpielChequers 17:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cory swarmer's theory[edit]

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

Original research would be the polite way to describe this bit of global warming related speculation. Web and news searches don't provide any evidence of notability or even existence of this theory. Contested PROD. Favonian (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW delete. Should even be speediable, with a vandalism wanring to follow. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR (I prodded for the same reason). I don't see anything suggesting that this is a deliberate attempt to disrupt Wikipedia, just an editor who isn't aware of what Wikipedia is and isn't. It's obviously something someone made up one day, but certainly doesn't warrant a vandalism warning. matt (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For being completely and utterly original research. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 16:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. The page was tagged with {{db-g3}}: incoherent gibberish; blatant and obvious misinformation. Naturally, Google shows zero results for "Cory swarmer's theory". — Rankiri (talk) 17:00, 27 January 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) 00:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Thompson[edit]

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

Minor actor that fails WP:ENT. Article claims he appeared in 3 episodes of Davy Crockett in the 1950's. IMDB shows only one episode.[8] Even at 3 episodes, he probably wouldn't even qualify as a recurring character. No significant 3rd party coverage found. Article has been tagged as unsourced since Jan 2007. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:29, 27 January 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) 00:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rhythmology[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Appears to be self-promotion. Deskford (talk) 16:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Deskford (talk) 16:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Deskford (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to be completely unverifiable; fails WP:BIO^{([9], [10], etc.)}, WP:PROMOTION. — Rankiri (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:N, WP:BIO and WP:PROMOTION --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 17:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Failed all attempts to establish notability in any sense (adding WP:Music to above). The only vaguely useful thing is this. But anyone can premiere a forgotten piece in concert. I even checked him out on YouTube but only got the well-known dance studio and people playing from a useful primer for funk guitar. --Jubilee♫clipman 18:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:N Dlabtot (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Jubileeclipman --Klein zach 00:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Jublieeclipman. Risker (talk) 04:08, 30 January 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) 16:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alrosa Villa[edit]

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

Article is about a small bar in Ohio that happened to be the scene of a murder. The bar itself doesn't appear to have received significant coverage in reliable sources. Most coverage I could find was soley the mention of the business being the location of the murder and bare background info. Appears to fail WP:CORP. Article has been tagged for no references since 2006. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This book does appear to give very significant coverage about the location. Even though the book is about the metal scene/murder, the coverage to the bar is nonetheless significant. This book calls the venue "legendary." Billboard also gives good coverage about the bar.[11] There is more significant coverage about the club from Fox News, three years after the shooting. [12]--Oakshade (talk) 18:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How much of that coverage is related to the murder? I really discount the book because the book is about the murder and covers the bar because it was the location of the murder (talking about the setting), not because the place was so important without the murder. The Rolling Stone article was about the band and only talks about the bar because of.....yeah, the murder. Had the murder not taken place there, the bar wouldn't have been mentioned in the article at all. The FNC story? Again, because of the murder. In this case, talking about how the band involved in another bar death was booked into this one, the scene of....yeah, the murder. Everything about this bar is only because it was the site of a murder. Infamous maybe, but not really notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that line of logic, the Enola Gay shouldn't have an article because its notability is solely related to the Hiroshima Atomic Bomb dropping, or the Texas School Book Depository shouldn't have an article because its notability is solely based on the Kennedy assassination. It doesn't matter if one event began a topic's notability, but that a topic is notable. The murder inspired reliable sources to write significant coverage of this club, which by the way is listed as the primary reason for this afd ("The bar itself doesn't appear to have received significant coverage in reliable sources"). Since this topic has in fact has received significant coverage, it's not clear why this afd is still going. --Oakshade (talk) 03:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the pesky detail that those examples were involved in historically significant events. Francine Hughes bedroom was the setting for a book, a movie and numerous news stories, but I wouldn't see much case for that article either. And the one event didn't begin the bars notability, it is the only factor in the bars notability. Describing the setting of an event isn't significant coverage. Regardless, you think GNG gets everything under the sun into wikipedia. I don't. We'll just disagree and see what the others have to say. The AfD is still going on because....well, not everyone sees things the same way you do. At best, this should be a redirect to the victims bio. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N. What happened at the bar is notable. The bar is not. Dlabtot (talk) 18:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Location is a longstanding venue in Columbus which has seen many notable acts over its decades of existance. That might be shaky by itself but with the murder, any doubt about notability is put to rest. It's not "just a small bar in Ohio" as the OP suggests.--Analogue Kid (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So notability is now transferable? Since notable people played there, it makes the small bar notable and we don't need significant coverage to accomplish notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage is given to this topic. You just have issue of why it received significant coverage. --Oakshade (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Describing the scene of a notable event isn't significant coverage. Giving a little background info on the setting isn't significant. As I said before, the events that took place in Francine Hughes' bedroom have been the topic of a best selling book, the subject of a movie and covered in many news articles. The bedroom was depicted on film and described in the book. Yet the bedroom itself isn't notable. The event is notable. If this were historic, like Lincoln's assassination, the location might be more relevant and notable. But this is a small bar in Ohio, not Fords Theater and Dimebag Daryl wasn't the President of the United States. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, describing the club in great detail is significant. And there is a lot of background info, not "a little." If you don't like why there is significant coverage, that's fine. But if you claim there is no significant coverage of this topic, you will be called on it.--Oakshade (talk) 22:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't work on "like" or "don't like" (despite your bad faith allegation). I don't view it as significant. I view it as solely peripheral to the notable event. Minus talking about the event, those descriptions (and that's what they are, descriptions) wouldn't see the light of day. Have you seen any of this "significant" that wasn't more about the murder than the place? I haven't seen any yet. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rolling Stone article barely covers the bar. It talks about it in a couple of paragraphs, mostly describing their security issues and describing the low stage that lacked barricades and how that made it easier to commit the crime. After reading it again today, it looks even less significant than when I read it the first time. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Of course the place that a murder occurs will be described in a book about the murder, usually in some detail. So will the people in the murders and victims lives, and various events earlier associated them them, and the weapons, and the bios of the policemen, and so on. All of this is background, and none of it gets a separate article except in the most unusual circumstance when the location becomes for some reason way actually famous, and people write about it specifically. DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC) .[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Dimebag Darrell, or A Vulgar Display of Power: Courage and Carnage at the Alrosa Villa or Nathan Gale, the gunman. Actually, Nathan Gale should be deleted under WP:BIO1E. The murder of Dimebag Darrell has generated a lot of coverage, a documentary, and yet I never recall hearing a peep about the venue. Had it been well-known, I think that would have been mentioned. Abductive (reasoning) 06:13, 4 February 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) 00:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Beastie Boys concert documentary[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL. When there are details and sources, this can be re-created. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 22:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wp:crystal ¨¨ victor falk 06:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously. JBsupreme (talk) 09:45, 29 January 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) 00:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Advancing Australia Fairly Prize[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTE, no relevant google news archive hits, web hits are mainly university websites about their own candidates Polarpanda (talk) 15:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Polarpanda (talk) 15:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of WP:RS and per nom Satu Suro 07:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Among the 34 Google hits (zero news results), many of which look like Wikipedia mirrors, I see absolutely nothing to indicate that this could be remotely notable. Heck, the departmental award I won in college has a lot more results than this. Glenfarclas (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 01:42, 1 February 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. JohnCD (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David F. Haight[edit]

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

An academic who does not seem to pass WP:PROF. He has no significant citations in Google scholar; he has written one book, for which I can find no reviews beyond a brief mention in Recent Titles in Philosophy. Sourced only to a search engine for philosophy publications, and no other sources seem to be available; the bulk of the article here is not supported by the source. Was prodded as an unsourced biography of a living person, with a prod2 that he does not meet WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF. And as a minor party failed candidate for a major political position he also fails WP:POLITICIAN. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I gave the prod 2. many academic people are notable, but it requires doing work that is recognized as being a substantial and authoritative contribution to the profession, as shown by publications or by reliable sources. One book from a minor publisher is not a substantial contribution unless it should happen to be widely noticed, and form the basis of wide comment and discussion and citation . There is no good index of citations in philosophy or the other humanities, but we can use google Scholar as a rough substitute -- and it shows not only that it has not been widely noticed, but that nobody at all within its scope has ever linked or referred to it: [13] , and that essentially nobody has ever linked or referred to any of the articles or other publications of this author.[14]. In most fields of academic work, only about one half of published articles ever get cited, and these are in the half that does not. No evidence at all for notability as a scholar. no evidence for notability in any other way either. Being the candidate of a minor party for office is not notability, and there is nothing further to be found. Most of the articles prodded as unsourced BLP do turn out to have sources and be about notable people, once the work is done on them; but not all of them do. DGG ( talk ) 16:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete DGG has summarized the situation well. I had prodded it a few days ago. Another editor removed that tag and added a single source, which lists the subject's papers.[15] There are only two of them. I'm afraid that does not establish the person as being a notable academic. Will Beback talk 19:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: You will find a lot more references under "David Frederick Haight" and "David F. Haight" and on Google Books. For example, there is a "Reply to David F. Haight" in the The philosophy of P.F. Strawson by Lewis Edwin Hahn. (Sir Peter Strawson is a well-known Oxford philosopher.) Why would a reply be needed if he is not notable? There should be more research and don't just rely on online sources for a subject like philosophy. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There are few enough hits in the two Google book searches you mention to look through them all by hand. I don't think they contradict the assertion that he has few publications and (more to the point) few citations to his publications. As for the "Reply to David F. Haight": that is merely one of his publications, in an edited volume of papers each of which is published together with a "Reply to [author]" response. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. It would be great to hear from a real philosopher on this one. Are there any out there on Wikipedia who would care to comment? — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Listed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - well, I'm not a professional philosopher, but I have a degree in philosophy, and from my limited perspective I don't think he's sufficiently notable for an article, at least going by the material available on Google Books and Scholar. If there was more about him out there somewhere then he might be, but as it is he just doesn't seem to have attracted enough attention to pass WP:PROF requirements. Robofish (talk) 17:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am not a real philosopher in fact not a philosopher at all, but the GS cites seem inadequate. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:ACADEMIC. Many good, intelligent and influential people are not notable. That's just how it is. Wikipeterproject (talk) 02:04, 31 January 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) 16:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CoaXPress[edit]

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

A serial communication protocol. Author has likely COI. Previously deleted as spam. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep - First:I rewrited this article(I removed for example the company names of the standardisation consortium). Second:I think this is an interesting article as it is a communication protocol which is already available on cameras and frame grabbers of different companies. Coaxpress is a protocol with specific connectors,coding,... like USB or firewire but only for a niche-market. (Of course this article can and will be improved, but the topic is interesting and certainly not spam) Xmaillard (talk) 07:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 21:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. No gnews or ynews hits for this term, and no gscholar or gbooks hits either. This may be an important protocol in the future, but right now it is not. Wikipedia is not the place to garner attention for a new protocol. See WP:SOAP points 1 & 4. Joshua Scott (talk) 02:54, 2 February 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 as per consensus that the subject meets WP:ENT. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 04:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Polick[edit]

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

Unremarkable actor. Fails WP:GNG. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Meets the first criteria of WP:ENT by having multiple significant roles in notable films and TV (Blow, Dukes of Hazzard, Jackass) as well as the second criteria "large fanbase or cult following" which he has through the Jackass movies and tv series. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 15:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting WP:ENT through projects and the incredible cult following of Jackass. It might have been more diligent to have checked WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD before bringing this here and making it was someone else's problem. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's a jackass; nuff said. Seriously, blatantly notable. Playing Cletus in Dukes of Hazzard would also be enough to secure notability by itself.¨¨ victor falk 06:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
QUESTION Which source alleges that this person, specifically, has some sort of a "cult following"? If someone is asserting that simply being in a Jackass film gives you a cult-like following, I don't buy in. JBsupreme (talk) 09:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from his other projects, it was 4 Jackass films, not one. Buy it or not, the entire franchise has a cult following. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was about to close this as Keep, but I have no idea how big his roles were in any of the movies. Can anyone answer for me? CTJF83 chat 21:59, 2 February 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 The Hits (Lemar album). Non-admin closure. Jujutacular ^T · C 03:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Way Love Goes[edit]

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

Contest prod. Removed by Chas1992 (talk · contribs) but no reason was given. The deletion was, and is, proposed on the basis that "Per WP:NSONGS: "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article", no references, no explanation as to why this meets the notability guidelines". Adambro (talk) 14:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Adambro (talk) 15:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Hits (Lemar album). Per the rationale of the nom, does not meet WP:NSONGS or WP:GNG. Cannot find significant coverage independent of the album. J04n(talk page) 23:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. Per WP:NSONG: "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." I see no indications this song rises above that general rule. Glenfarclas (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Hits (Lemar album) for now. This single will be released in less than two weeks; perhaps at that point it will chart and/or there will be more significant coverage than what currently exists (all I can find at this time is a tiny Digital Spy review). Gongshow ^Talk 20:05, 2 February 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) 00:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conceptual Net Art[edit]

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

I've left this alone for a while to see if it could be improved. However, there appears to be no real improvements forthcoming. This is a neologism that one artist uses to describe his work. All google hits point back to the artist or this article. Otherwise we have hits for "conceptual" and "net art" but not the whole term. Anything else in the article is original research, such as "according to Bala every conceptual art piece performed on internet is conceptual net art piece". It then goes on to state the "opposition" to the term and that it is meant to "simplify" things. Not sure what that actually means, but again it is original research in order to establish the term. Likewise, the attempt to include all internet art as part of this "movement" is reaching in the extreme. The sources are only pointing to this artist (the citation for Carlos Katastrofsky does not mention the term at all). freshacconci talktalk 14:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —freshacconci talktalk 14:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom...Modernist (talk) 15:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I had previously argued for the retention of this item, and appreciate Freshacconci's patience. Sadly, although the phenomenon that the article is describing certainly exists, and is discussed in many places, I think he is right that the term "Conceptual Net Art" to describe it hasn't caught on (or caught on yet), so I do not feel I can press for a keep. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment I agree with Elen of the Roads (talk · contribs) daughter, it is a pretentious term; we have internet art; Algorithmic art; Interactive art; Generative art; Electronic art; net art; conceptual art; neo-conceptual art; digital art; computer art; Software art; Systems art; new media art; Fractal art; Evolutionary art ad infinitum...Modernist (talk) 16:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. NN neologism that appears to be setting up to support sales links at some future point. CliffC (talk) 17:37, 27 January 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 Tnxman307 (talk · contribs); reason was "Mass removal of pages added by Womblethereof". Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Mayer de Rothschild II[edit]

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

Looking very likely this is an elaborate hoax. But not certain as yet. Please see Nathaniel Mayer de Rothschild and Andrew de Rothschild which are also likely hoaxes. Polargeo (talk) 14:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certain hoax. Should be speedied. See related articles such as Andrew de Rothschild Polargeo (talk) 16:58, 27 January 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) 00:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

12-Gai (tic-tac-toe)[edit]

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

No reliable sources. PROD removed by IP without comment. WP:NOTMADEUP applies I believe. The-Pope (talk) 13:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no relevant hits for "12 gai" -WIKIPEDIA "tic tac toe" Polarpanda (talk) 13:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It looks like a hoax (or at best a neologism) "12-Gai is a relatively new leisure sport, which has only come into fruition within the last few years", "The term '12-Gai' was infamously coined by a group of youths from Sydney, Australia. Despite its humble beginnings, 12-Gai is expected to spread quite rapidly across the world". -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yet another game made up by a small group of friends mucking about. If this "spreads quite rapidly across the world" I will eat my sofa -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's just a game made up by a few kids whilst (possibly) bored at a beach. If this does become notable, I'll willingly support England in the World Cup this year (and I'm from Scotland). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 16:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, made up at school one day. JIP | Talk 18:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:MADEUP. Joe Chill (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing was found related on search engines and it's not notable. Also per madeup--Bsadowski1 21:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but thanks for the interesting idea about a variation of tic-tac-toe, where you add another three squares to the bottom of the grid if it's a draw. It's better than the usual "things made up in one day". As for the idea of the tide "deleting" the top squares drawn in the sand... nah, bad idea, waves aren't usually that precise. Mandsford (talk) 22:18, 29 January 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) 00:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Archer[edit]

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

Delete. Cute girl, but she simply is not notable. JBsupreme (talk) 22:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find no news coverage of her. Her IMDB entry clearly shows here being a stunt driver in Get Smart, Hancock and Live Free or Die Hard, but I see no indication that she is notable per our criteria at WP:N or WP:ENTERTAINER -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Phantomsteve; that's my assessment too. Glenfarclas (talk) 23:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ENT. Joe Chill (talk) 03:37, 28 January 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. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 08:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anandita Dutta Tamuly[edit]

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

Delete. This is yet another textbook example of WP:BLP1E. It should also be mentioned that this article has been promulgating misinformation for quite some time now, and is slowly creeping into related articles as well. The subject of this article does not appear to actually be listed in the Guinness Book of World Records. If you read the cited sources carefully it actually says the pepper she ate was recognized as the hottest by Guinness and that it would "take some time" for her to be recognized by Guinness. In point of fact, this official statement by Guinness World Records disputes and denies the claim saying that no such claim was ever received by their organization and that historically all such claims have been rejected. So what we have here is someone who ate 50+ chilis and is not officially recognized by Guinness. BLP1E. JBsupreme (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: How can it be a case of one-event? Let me explain

She can eat the world’s hottest chiilli pepper
She has made record in Limca Book of Records
She also participated in “Shabash India”, a Zee TV programme see here
I did not mention that she had made Guinness Records, instead I wrote that she is preparing for it. see here XETELI ^(HELLO) 02:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Limca record is not referenced in the article. The appearance on Shabaash India is not in the article. Neither "Limca" nor "Shabaash" can be found by text-search in any of the three online items in the "References" section. She can eat ghost chilli, but that's not recognized by Guinness yet. So, so far that's BLP-zero-E. Maybe this article should be moved into the author's sandbox till the Guinness record is official. --PFHLai (talk) 13:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've fixed the problem of "Limca" & "Shabaash India". Plz have a look.XETELI ^(HELLO) 03:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not one event, she has one skill or talent for which she is notable. Some people are notable for their music, some are notable as scientists, some as athletes; this woman is apparently notable for her chili eating. She has been the subject of multiple, independent articles published by reliable sources, from at least 2006–2009.[16][17] Like it or not, she meets WP:BIO. Wine Guy Talk 01:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 05:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Userfy or Incubate until the Guinness thing comes through? Abductive (reasoning) 06:24, 4 February 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LSDJ[edit]

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

Delete. This is not even remotely close to being notable. JBsupreme (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find any singificant coverage for this topic. Angryapathy (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this cartridge. Joe Chill (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable homebrew product. Glenfarclas (talk) 23:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThis IS quite an important product in the creation of Bitpop / Chiptune / 8-bit music; it actualy was a trend-setting product. Deleting this because it's not noteworthy enough must be viewed like deleting the banjo aricle because you don't listen to western, please redonsider. Chiptune is gaining popularity (at least in europe) as a dance music style : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiptune#Modern_incarnations —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.11.192.119 (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Google Books lists over eight thousand books about banjos; zero for this particular topic. JBsupreme (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 08:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 08:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any mention of this in gbooks, and almost all the ghits are duplicates of this article, or youtube videos. In short, I don't see the 2 WP:RS required by WP:GNG. Joshua Scott (talk) 02:34, 2 February 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.

yo i'm just gonna lazily edit this page to make a point to you guys but uhhh I dunno about y'all homies and all but 240k results sound pretty significant to me https://i.imgur.com/BsiayUT.png

meanwhile open MPT gets like 140k https://i.imgur.com/gakVan0.png

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenMPT so what's this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ ([[User talk:#top|talk]]) 03:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Winner takes all (benefits)[edit]

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

Article is a WP:SOAPBOX piece. The article title makes it difficult to re-write from a neutral point of view. noq (talk) 07:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it is not possible to summarise areas of law which are one-sided, then how can an encyclopedia be complete?

I am sure I could find dozens of articles on wikipedia which are one-sided in their portrayal of the situation and have been included for some time.

If the information is accurate, the fact that it is identifying a problem, which is unfair is surely not a good reason for deleting?

For example, the article on domestic violence continually repeats 'evidence' of female victims and is unbalanced, but that has been allowed to stay. It is likely (as is said in the article) that the number of male and female victims is about the same and yet wikipedia allowed an unbalanced article to remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubblyian (talk • contribs) 09:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a WP:SYNTHESIS of several laws that has been put together to present a political point of view. Why did you create it? To show the inequities of the system? If so, that is inherently not WP:NPOV. As I said in the nomination - WP:SOAPBOX applies. Your reference to Domestic violence is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument and so not relevant. (although from your comments it seems it does strive to be neutral even if it could be better). noq (talk) 12:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to be WP:OR/WP:SYNTHESIS. The impression that I get from reading this article is that the creator is pissed off because they don't get money that goes to his kids mother instead (if that's not the case, then I apologise, but that's the impression that I got from reading it), but as has been noted above, this is not a place for WP:SOAPBOX. You'd be better off creating a website at sites.google.com and placing this there. Unless independent and reliable sources show that this phrase 'Winner takes all' is in common use with regard to the benefits situation in the UK (and I couldn't find any evidence of this), then I'm afraid that this has no place in an encyclopedia. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Editorial soapboxing, redundant to pages such as father's rights and child support. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

okay - will add third party support references, rather than just my own use of the title. I could add the phrase to each reference on Wikipedia to the underlying issues to cross refer if that would makke more sense?Bubblyian —Preceding undated comment added 17:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Delete as synthesis, bordering on a personal essay. JIP | Talk 18:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added 11 references to same phrase from round the world - if deletion request is removed, I'll move these into references and discuss the detail of each comment if you wish. Just google winner takes all children and see how many more you get. It IS in common use and should be explained. Open to suggestions on variations to meet your objections.comment added by Bubblyian —Preceding undated comment added 19:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I have just looked at all the references you added. None of them actually improve your case. No one is disputing that the phrase "winner takes all" is common. And most of the references you gave did not even mention the phrase anyway. The article still suffers from the problems highlighted above. Your own involvement with a pressure group involved in this are also indicates a conflict of interest. noq (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for accepting that the phrase is in common use in this context and hence that argument for deletion is no longer a factor. As for your other points - Inevitably a researcher will publish his results. In doing so he will have a point of view to present, but should still be allowed to publish. Otherwise society cannot change direction if people who point out that the current belief is wrong are not allowed to say so because they are accused of a conflict between campaigning to change the system and identifying what is wrong with the system! I have added the alternative position as an intro. All the articles referred to mention the phrase somewhere. I have deleted most references to Families Need Fathers and there are no links to my personal campaigning websites, so it is not self-publciity and since I am only involved with charities, I cannot be accused of personal or commercial gain. I am simply trying to raise awareness and knowledge of a huge problem in society, which is being swept under the proverbial carpet by people refusing to acknowledge the problem and trying to suppress the publication or publcity for the issues, as you are trying to do here. I am sure I could find loads of examples of exactly the things that you are acuusing me of elsewhere on wikipedia, but are generally accepted as 'correct' perceptions of society, without any real evidence to support them - as with the domestic violence sites and other pro-female viewpoints. Why not equally pick their unsubstantiated arguments apart as well?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubblyian (talk • contribs) 20:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I have not accepted the phrase is "in common use in this context" - please do not put words into my mouth. What is "this context"? Law? or UK benefits? Most of the references you added DO NOT contain the phrase, those that do, do so in the context of litigation - not benefits. Secondly, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not accepted as an argument in AFD debates. Thirdly, Wikipedia requires articles to conform to certain standards Neutral point of view is one of those, No original research is another - which this article violates. Have you read the articles linked to earlier - they do explain these points and why this article has been nominated for deletion noq (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it appears to have been made up to make a point. No evidence of encyclopedic notability. MilborneOne (talk) 22:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The concept is notable as the independent third party sources in the article show. The lack of neutrality in the article can be dealt with by incoporating the other points of view. Sole Soul (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is an essay, it is a soapbox, it is a coatrack, it's many things and none of them even resembles even a hope of a good article RadioFan (talk) 12:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for goodness' sake. Deb (talk) 12:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete soapbox article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have expanded the references to show the paragrpah including the phrase winner takes all - in most cases the authors put the phrase in speech marks - hence denoting an unusual use of the phrase that requires an explanation - hence an entry on wikipedia is appropriate for explaining this. As for soapbox argument, - any explanation of issues could be called that, but it is still a useful addition to Wikipedia in summarizing all the issues in one place to describe what the phrase means and why it is appropriate. Maybe a name change to winner takes all (children) or (child custody) would be more appropriate? User - bubblyIan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubblyian (talk • contribs) 18:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While I admire your efforts but its not wise to stand in front of growing snowball speeding down a hill.--RadioFan (talk) 18:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Concept is well-covered in Adversarial system, Child custody, Fathers' rights movement, Parental alienation syndrome, (and even Parents' rights movement, which should be merged, no)? Edit there. Abductive (reasoning) 06:30, 4 February 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) 00:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Puntland Independence Movement[edit]

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

A search reveals no sources other than the Wikipedia article and mirrors of it. This includes searching Google's news archives Dougweller (talk) 13:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As Dougweller says, no sources can be found. All Google Search results are Wikis, there are no hits for GNews/GNews Archive/GBooks/GScholar. I can find no indication that this organisation even exists, as looking at non-reliable sources, I can't even find any blogs which mention it! The only place which I can find is the website listed in the article - which is not a reliable source! Anyone can create a site at Google Sites. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Also could not find any independent, reliable evidence of notability. --Quartermaster (talk) 14:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG - my searches are coming up empty too. ukexpat (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no RS, no article. LeadSongDog come howl 17:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no google, google news, or google scholar presense at all, not a notable group per long established standards. --Jayron32 19:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not supported by any reliable sources, looks like a hoax. --Scoobycentric (talk) 18:01, 29 January 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 Tnxman307 (talk · contribs); reason was "Mass removal of pages added by Womblethereof". Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel Mayer de Rothschild[edit]

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

Not notable, uncited Off2riorob (talk) 12:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another possible hoax by this user. Trying to create a lineage that does not exist. Burke's Peerage has a (2d Nathaniel Mayer; born 1836; died 1905) but Rothschild not (de) Rothschild so yes this looks suspicious. Polargeo (talk) 12:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete hoax Polargeo (talk) 16:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've caught a bit about this collection of articles. Definitely something odd going on. But there was someone by this name who died in 1905, not the same facts as in this article. Per the NY Times[18], the text is: "Another Rothschild Dead. Baron Nathaniel Dies in Vienna--Ex Head of Austrian Branch. Vienna, June 13 (1905)-Baron Nathaniel de Rothschild, brother of the head of the Austrian branch of the firm, died this morning. He had been seriously ill for a long time. Baron Nathaniel Mayer de Rothschild was the leading representative of the Rothschild house in Vienna up to the time when illness incapacitated him for business. At present the Vienna house is headed by his brother, Baron Ferdinand de Rothschild. Baron Nathaniel's death follows three weeks after the demise of Baron Alphonse de Rothschild, who was the head of the Paris House."--Milowent (talk) 17:07, 27 January 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 Tnxman307 (talk · contribs); reason was "Mass removal of pages added by Womblethereof". Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rothschild Estates[edit]

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

Possible hoax Off2riorob (talk) 12:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete confirmed hoax per email to myself reported on ANI. Polargeo (talk) 16:56, 27 January 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. Weak arguments for inclusion. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 08:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Minnesota hip hop musicians[edit]

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

List with too narrow a focus, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Minnesota rap musicians - this is essentially a recreation, with most of the same artists listed, the same editor involved, with obvious promotional intentions (Note that it used to be longer until I've removed all entries with highly doubtful notability). Amalthea 11:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In that there is nothing notable about being "a hip hop musician from Minnesota" (or a country music artist from Michigan, or a rock musician from Nevada for that matter), this doesn't merit its own article. This is what's meant by an "indiscriminate list", a mediocre recital of names with no information to set one item apart from the next. If it's kept, can you at least describe their Minnesota connection? Like who's from Minneapolis, who's from St. Paul, what their Minnesota connection is, etc. If it has to be done, do it well. Mandsford (talk) 13:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks like a vanity article or fancruft. --Quarte t 18:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Theres more that can be added to it, give it sometime. I dont understand how this cant be kept when there are a bunch of other articles like this on other places of musicians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollathag (talk • contribs) 22:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Improved as I took a look from the last time. Probably can use a few touches but I think its good now. BigTyEditor (talk) 02:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)BigTyEditor[reply]

Keep ~ It's safe. It's 'NOT that bad'. WikiiFreakk (talk) 09:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC) WikiiFreakk[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Music of Minnesota. Seriously. Abductive (reasoning) 06:33, 4 February 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) 00:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Key Diego[edit]

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

Up-and-coming rapper for whom I can find no significant coverage. He had an oblique one-sentence mention in Metromix Detroit, and he gets a moderate number of results on the typical non-reliable music sites, but I can't see anything that would meet WP:MUSICBIO. His claim to have been on a WB comedy show isn't borne out by anything I can find at IMDb or anywhere else. Autobiography. Glenfarclas (talk) 11:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nomination - the artist, although promising, is not relevant yet. McMarcoP (talk) 11:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Not finding significant diverse and reliable sources. Risker (talk) 04:05, 30 January 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. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 17:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sexuality of Robert Baden-Powell[edit]

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

This article is a content fork from Robert Baden-Powell which has two paragraphs on allegations that he was gay as well. It quotes at excessive length from the one book filled with speculation that powell was gay (written long after powell's death) and appears to be the subject of some agenda driven editing. It is a classic content fork as well as a coatrack. While there might be bits of Baden-Powell's life that could stand being broken out (Robert Baden-Powell's impact on scouting say), what we have here is the creation of a forked article to give undue weight to a fringe set of speculation. Forks like this most crucially undermine WP:NPOV by hiving off a set of controversial and unproven claims and treating them as a topic of their own. There can be no "neutral point of view" when this is done. Witness the article as it currently stands "Baden-Powell liked boys, he sometimes talked to them when they were naked after swimming, sometimes he slept apart from his wife, he admired the male form OMG he was a homo who molested underaged boys!" Encyclopedic, this is not.Bali ultimate (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If one scholar had made this case, it would be unsuited for an article. But now several have (at least according to the article), and it appears to be a subjec of controversy in Baden-Powell scholarship. It may well not be true, but he's no longer living, and the fact that it's being so heavily debated suggests it's worth a fork. 7triton7 (talk) 11:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously, talkpage was just working out a concerted effort to allow editors interested in verifying sources a bit of time to look through a handful of books addressing this subject. The main article is quite clear the subject is notable so after an effort to distill which sources were best and how to apply them - and allowing fresh eyes at WP:RSN to weigh in on any disputes a better article would either be produced or if a lack of sourcing was an issue a possible re-merge to the main article would be the next step. Instead nom has chosen the route of most disruption and drama which is unfortunate coupled with their generalized disparaging remarks against other editors on the talkpage. It's unhelpful and certainly unneeded. With more eyes the talkpage was turning more constructive but as long as we're here if anyone has ideas on what the best sources are for this material please feel free to comment. The article talkpage may be best but here is fine as well. -- Banjeboi 11:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Several hundred GScholar hits and 100+ GBook hits suggests that sourcing indeed exists. -- Banjeboi 11:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you mendacious or just lazy and irresponsible? Yes, if you type "Robert Baden-Powell" sexuality into google scholar you get 435 "hits." But did you look at the hits? Almost none of them are about Baden-Powell's sexuality -- instead the represent the random, unconnected proximity of two phrases. For instance, first hit says: "It was to Lieutenant Robert Baden-Powell's disadvantage (however he later, characteristically, manipulated it to his benefit) that the early decades of his ... A pastoral escapism is openly celebrated in the less conventional work of the sexual theorist Edward Carpenter, and in the..." This means that the word "sexuality" is in that book, but not in relation to powell. Or take this from the second page: "Baden-Powell in its formation and rapid ... By emphasizing sport, Fine tells us about the male sex role (the more appropriate term is gender role), socialization, character development." Get the point? Baden Powell is the subject of 1,000s of articles and hundreds of books (defined as ones where he gets at least a chapter) yet how many books are solely dedicated to the topic of his sexuality? As far as i can tell, just the jeal book. You've just thrown up a smokescreen.Bali ultimate (talk) 11:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work in achieving a collegial and cooperative environment. I'll let others decide what sources may be the best. This subject has been discussed extensively on the main article before a split for size was made. Lack of reliable sourcing does not seem to be an issue. -- Banjeboi 12:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is apparently the 4th AfD. -- Banjeboi 11:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added details of previous AfDs, but I do not know why it shows some more than once. It did that on the last AfD. --Bduke (Discussion) 11:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, the renaming from 2nd to second, etc serves up duplicates. -- Banjeboi 12:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fourth AfD? Seems that a lot of people really don't agree that it is notable in its current form then. DiverScout (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Actually that would be synthesis and OR to assume someone's, let alone several editors' motivations. It's quite clear this is uncomfortable information for some of the current editors campaigning to delete the article but luckily we don't censor to sooth discomfort. -- Banjeboi 11:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no evidence there are sufficient references here to build an article on - and I mean a proper article, not just a glorified stub - nor, given the scant biographical information surrounding Baden-Powell's sexuality available, are there likely to be so. Passing speculation from biographies does not a Wikipedia article make. What we currently have is simply a content fork that could just as easily be summarised in a couple of lines at the main article with a good deal more accuracy and less flannel. Whether or not this is the product of someone with an agenda, I don't know, but it really feels like it. Moreschi (talk) 12:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Historiography is the ongoing process of analysis of often limited or conflicting data in order to develop an understanding of probable past events and causes. To naively dismiss that process as "speculation" or to imagine that absolute certainty exists shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what historians and biographers do. That also feels like an agenda, an unconscious one more troubling than any avowed agenda. Haiduc (talk) 12:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I totally agree with Moreschi, non biographical speculation about someones sexuality, it is more that enough covered in the main article already. Off2riorob (talk) 12:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, the main article's current content seems awfully POV with emphasis added to how a biography collaborating with one of his relatives made no mention of any homosexuality. Is that really surprising? I think not. It then goes on to state how "his mind was filled with thoughts of her. His whole being was stirred as it had never been before." This has evolved from what was there: The orthodoxy of Robert Baden-Powell's sexuality has been brought into question by his principal modern biographers, who have found a great deal of evidence indicating he was attracted to youthful men and to boys. Nonetheless, Baden-Powell is thought to always have remained chaste with his scouts, and he did not tolerate Scoutmasters who indulged in sexual 'escapades' with their charges. We seem to be going to great lengths to dispute "his principal modern biographers". Just a thought to keep in mind while edit-warring starts to remove more content from this article. -- Banjeboi 13:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- From 2005 discussion that resulted in this article being created - Jeal's biography (one of the sources cited above) is one of the definitive works on Baden-Powell. It is very well sourced and of the highest academic standard, so most of the labels above (nonsensical, lacking legitimacy, libel, speculative, loose, inappropriate) are far from accurate. Although it is true that Jeal's conclusion on Baden-Powell's sexuality is somewhat controversial, this is probably due to general controversy around the issue of homsexuality. Jeal is not the only researcher to have reached this conclusion, nor are his conclusions unreasonable. However, given the controversy, perhaps this subsection should be removed from the Baden-Powell page onto a separate page, e.g. a page about Tim Jeal's biography of Baden-Powell? -- Banjeboi 15:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The extensive quote in italics above is one wikipedia editor's opinion from 2005. His assertions are unsupported (i.e. "highest academic standard" "definitive" etc...)Bali ultimate (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - So for the record you are familiar with all the notable biographies on Robert Baden-Powell and what they have to state on the subject? If not perhaps we should listed to those who are. -- Banjeboi 16:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, I have read most of them, and most of Baden-Powell's published writing (both Scouting and non-Scouting) and have a pretty heavy academic qualification that would be appropriate to such a study. I have my own opinion about the reasons for the inclusion of comments relating to B-P's sexuality in these texts (and my own opinions on the matter they explore) - but I'd not claim that my opinion is any more important/valid or correct than any other editor. What any Wikipedia editor thinks about a book is really of no importance. Let's not cloud the water by quoting each other! :) DiverScout (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually to produce a good article, we would hope that several editors would be quite familar with the main sources and would help compare and contrast what likely should and should not be included. To dismiss the same sources used on the main article out-of-hand is disingenuous at best. We let the sources speak for themselves and editors familiar with them are invaluable. -- Banjeboi 11:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This appears to be an article based upon one person's book, strung out with a couple of mis-interpreted quotes from BP's own book. People nowadays may be into fitness and appreciate the male form, but does that mean they are aa repressed homosexual? By all means include that there has been debate about his exuality in the main Baden Powell article, but a seperate article simply put in place to question his sexuality? No. This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid newspaper. To quote from the main R B-P article: 'Jeal claims that Baden-Powell was a "repressed homosexual"; but also states that no documentary evidence exists to prove that he ever acted on his sexual orientation.' Some people may believe it but there is no evidence to support the allegation. Even many of the more far fetched conspiracy theories can at least find something vaguely resembling evidence. Arnie Side (talk) 13:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. The problem is not so much here unencyclopedicity as such - sexuality of X articles can be legitimate pieces, either based on scholarly work (which "Sexuality of Adolf Hitler" can and should be), or based on major popular culture notoriety (sexuality of Jesus). But I fail to see how this gets close to satisfying either criterion. Moreschi (talk) 14:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As mentioned on the talk page, there is vast amounts of coverage of this in the news media. That makes it notable by Wikipedia standards. The article was created as a fork from the main article. It list the claims, where they came from, and counter arguments for them. Dream Focus 14:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You simply can't build a decent encyclopedia article off passing mentions in popular media, not without incorporating vast amounts of WP:SYNTH anyway. From looking at the talkpage I saw a singular paucity of RS being presented that actually pertain to the topic, while additional the content that was being proposed was simply a coatrack stick to beat the American Boy Scouts over the head with. I'm sorry, but much as I sympathise, Wikipedia is not the platform for that. There have been decent biographies of Baden-Powell written: the consensus seems to be that he may possibly have had some homoerotic inclinations but anything else is simply unprovable. That could be summarised in so many words in the main article without all this ridiculous palaver, which I'm starting to think has little to do with Baden-Powell and much more to do with contemporary gay rights politics. Moreschi (talk) 14:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It isn't popular mentions in popular media, its detailed mention in major newspapers. It has nothing to do with gay rights, that not making any sense at all. And there is no consensus he had any homoerotic inclinations. The article list the issue, those accusing him, and counter arguments to their ridiculous claims. Dream Focus 11:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article essentially amounts to the following: "Dude #1 says he might have been gay but maybe not, Dude #2 says he probably wasn't, and Dude #3 couldn't be arsed to bother mentioning it one way or another." In other words, nobody knows, and unless something truly extraordinary happens, nobody ever will know. The evidence is extremely slim at best and entirely circumstantial. While the subject is deceased and thus not technically covered under BLP, it still seems unreasonable for Wikipedia to speculate on his private life, especially when the evidence we have is next to nothing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a gross misrepresentation of both the sources and the article history. That editors who wish to scrub non-heterosexaul content have edit-warred to remove and degrade the article doesn't mean the issues can't be resolved. If the article has to be protected so be it but we don't rewrite history nor do we claim the best or at least leading biographies on the main page to be fringe or otherwise compromised on a sub article. -- Banjeboi 15:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The separate article seems awkwardly disproportionate to the rest of his coverage.--Pink Bull 15:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with some material being merged. This is a totally over-the-top and unrequired agenda-driven entry. The short passage in the main article that notes the unsubstantiated possibility that Baden-Powell may have unknowingly had some homosexual tendencies that he never acted on, wrote about or used as an inspiration for his art work does not seem to require the level of coverage it has been given. A short entry, how it relates to the arguments being made with the Boy Scouts of America and a couple of links should be enough for something that has no real bearing on the man's life or his personal notability. I realise that some non-heterosexual editors feel strongly that they want to emphasise this content, and some heterosexual editors wish to bury it totally, but undue weighting is currently being given to an exceptionally marginal matter. If the content is being drawn pretty much solely from Jeal's text, and wider commentary on how these observations actually fit in with the time that B-P lived is still being refused on grounds of OR, perhaps it should be in an article with a title relating to the text, linked from a short section on the main B-P page. DiverScout (talk) 17:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non biographical speculation about someones sexuality is inappropriate here. JBsupreme (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am concerned not so much by whether BP was in any way homosexual, although that is of interest in trying to understand this impressive man, but more by the seeming homophobia of a number of the comments above. I suspect that a lot of the opposition to the article is from those who are closely connected with the Boy Scouts of America, a body with a strong public anti-homosexual image. It would explain their concern with any suggestion that BP had gay tendencies. To those who see homosexuality in a less negative light, that suggestion about BP would be of no great concern. There are vague references above to the article being agenda driven, but exactly which agenda isn't mentioned. The only agenda that I can guess at is that of those who oppose BSA's position on homosexuality. So it is actually those wanting to defend BSA who are agenda driven here, whatever that really means. The literature exists. It is now widely known about (at least partly because the suggestions in it led to its opponents talking about it so much). The article is therefore valid. HiLo48 (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me, but what the cuss are you talking about? "I suspect that a lot of the opposition to the article is from those who are closely connected with the Boy Scouts of America". Is this supposed to be some kind of troll? JBsupreme (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The possible homophobia of some editors is surely not a valid reason to keep an article and more than the homophile (not sure that that is is right word to describe active promotion & advocation of homosexual issues but it seems like the closest I know) attitude of others? DiverScout (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - This whole page appears to be driven by homophobia. It is present in the first sentence where the word allegations is used, rather than something like speculation or discussion. Allegations has a negative connotation that would only exist for someone who sees homosexuality as a bad thing. HiLo48 (talk)
      - Are you saying that everyone arguing for the deletion of this article is a homophobe? Because that would be... bad.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Easy card to play though, despite the confusion over whether the issue is a) that Baden-Powell did not have sex with adult men and was thus clearly a repressed homosexual or b) Baden-Powell did not have sex with boys and was thus a repressed paedophile. pablo_hablo. 19:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Am I saying that that everyone arguing for the deletion of the article is a homophobe? Of course not! That auggestion is clarly bad though. Misrepresentation is not a mature way to discuss things. I was simply pointing out that the article appears to have been created by a homophobe. The rest of the "deletes" have just followed that lead, perhaps without noticing the homophobia. HiLo48 (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you wrote: "This whole page appears to be driven by homophobia." A about 20 people have argued for deletion so far. The clear implication of your statement was that all of these people are homophobes. No matter. Humpty Dumpty would approve.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologise for not making that clearer. I intended no implication apart from the motivations of the person who created the page. That is what I meant by "driven". HiLo48 (talk) 08:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; the minimal amount of speculation by some of his biographers about this man's sexuality should go in the main article, or possibly the article(s) on the individual biographer(s) but not in a stand-alone piece. I am not seeing the 'seeming homophobia' that HiLo48 is. (Full disclosure: I have no connection whatsoever with the "Boy Scouts of America" or the "Boy Scouts of Anywhere Else"). pablo_hablo. 20:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Disclosure - Fair enough, for the record I also have no connections to the Boy Scouts of America, indeed I vocally oppose their views on the matter of their treatment of homosexuals. I also have no interest in the sexuality of either B-P (or the other editors). I do maintain, however, that, in the context of the notability of Robert Baden-Powell, allegations relating to his sexuality do not merit the attention they are being given here. DiverScout (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think that anyone here who is endorsing that this article be kept must hold some sort of anti Boy Scouts of America agenda. (SEE HOW FUCKING RIDICULOUS THAT SOUNDS?) JBsupreme (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh shut up, you homophobe! pablo_hablo. 20:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete A worthless article that exists only to repeat an unsubstantiated theory posed by a single biographer with a revisionist history agenda. This should have been thrown out a long time ago. Warrah (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not just a single biographer and how do you know he has a revisionist history agenda? --Bduke (Discussion) 20:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Jeal is the only biographer who is going out on a limb to suggest (not prove, suggest) that Baden-Powell was a repressed homosexual. It doesn't appear that any of B-P's other biographers are willing to go that far. Putting this spin into his life story is revisionism.Warrah (talk) 11:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient for standalone article. Dlabtot (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Side a: There are scholarly books that discuss this issue. Side b: There is no hard proof of this, just speculation and theories. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- JBsupreme - not so much a troll as trawling for information. I have learnt that when one is negotiating things it's likely to be most successful if the true motives and goals of all the participants can be ascertained. Many people won't declare such things up front. Sevaral of the Delete posts above seem pretty thin on substance. Approaches like mine can be confrontational in the short term, but usually bring out more honesty about the real aims of the various participants in a discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The point is that that speculation has risen over decades certainly to a notable level. -- Banjeboi 11:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no shortage of sources for this article. In fact the extent of the sources resulted in the section in the main article on Baden-Powell becoming too long. This fork was a perfectly proper fork to handle this. We now have more sources. Recently it was mentioned on the talk page that the suggestion that Baden-Powell was homosexual was first made in 1979 by Piers Brendon in Eminent Edwardians. In fact I was reading that book yesterday while this AfD was started. Reference on the talk page is also made to Scouting Frontiers: Youth and the Scout Movement’s First Century, a scholarly account of the first century of scouting, which apparently discusses Jeal's views. That book is on delivery to me. Rosenthal is mentioned but reference to his book, The Character Factory, a scholarly account of Baden-Powell and the origins of the Scout Movement, is not even referenced now, although I think it was at one time. This is far from one person's (Jeal) views, and Jeal has also been widely noticed. This is a difficult article. On the one hand we have members of the Scout Movement who can not face up to the suggestion that their beloved founder might have been gay (for example the section on B-Ps main article on his sexuality is frequently blanked with no explanation). On the other hand we have the gay lobby that wants to make too much of it. I believe we can follow a middle way, that is the wikipedia way, by following the sources carefully. The internet is not that helpful. The sources need access to a library. Too many people have waded into this debate, first on the talk page and now here, without looking at the sources. I was getting these sources together to start an improvement drive on this article, when this AfD was proposed, and I would like to finish it, although it may take time. BTW, both Tim Jeal and his book Baden-Powell (book) have articles on wikipedia, but I do not believe this article should be merged there as Jeal's book is much wider and it would give undue weight to one chapter. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the whole article gives undue weight to (mainly) that one chapter which is either some kind of forensic psychoanalysis or speculation! pablo_hablo. 20:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs improvement and it has been degraded, but it seems to me that every biographical article on Baden-Powell since the late 1970s mentions this aspect of Baden-Powell. At least I know of no exceptions. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, at about the weight proportional to its representation in the article on Robert Baden-Powell. This is a content fork to provide detail of undue weight on a subject of minor speculation, but no verifiable information. Two paragraphs in the main article is what this should be.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a very large article in Wikipedia on Jesus. None of the information about him in it is verifiable. HiLo48 (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article originally just pretty much spouted Jeal's views and allowed no counters to be made. In fact counter-arguments were agressively removed with editors (including me) being told to leave it alone so as not to upset the "gay lobby" (I always wonder whether that is the name for a room at the front of my house...). The fork is totally out of balance in terms of its notability in relation to the life of the individual. It is, however, pretty much the only thing that most people seem to make comment on with regard to Jeal's book which would suggest that it could be far more sensible to locate the more detailed commentary on Jeal's reasoning there. Giving Jeal's views in an article about Jeal's book just seems a lot more appropriate. Similar treatment could then be given to the other notable texts with links from a short overview paragraph in the main Baden-Powell page. The information stays on Wikipedia, people can read what each text proposes in a format that allows them then to see where the information comes from and we dispose of an article that has no real sustance of its own. DiverScout (talk) 21:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what makes this thing weird and maddening. I have never been and am not now a member of the scouts ("am not now and never been a member of the american communist party," too). I don't care who people fuck. Period. But what we have here is a whole article that boils down to this: "Some people have theorized that Baden-Powell had homosexual desires that he never acted upon or commented upon publicly." Let's assume that's "true" (truth value unknowable of course in the absence of some new diary/letter etc... coming to light, which seems unlikely): Who cares? Is this something crying out for its own spin-off article as a coatrack for people angry at the homophobia of a lot of modern scouting organizations? Is it crying out for a spinoff for people who just know that he wasn't gay so much as a child-molester (a subtext to all that "naked boy" nonsense?) No rational encyclopedia with editors skilled in the humanities would even consider a separate article on this. Mention? Yes. It's currently about 5% of the text of the main article (i excluded the lists), with its own subsection (one of 7) that addresses it. Which is about what a rational encyclopedia should do (particularly an open edit one that has a constant POV problem).Bali ultimate (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares? - WP:WHOCARES ; No rational encyclopedia - WP:UNENCYC, WP:NOTPAPER. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I !=voted to "keep" the article in a previous AFD, but I am persuaded by Moreschi's arguments above that this is a content fork built on too slim a foundation to justify an encyclopedia article. Edison (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The rule in Wikipedia is to give the state of science. All scientific scholars regard it to be an important item and all agree he was homosexual. That is in the article, properly referenced. The article also mentions arguments which question this opinion (most from me), dangerously approaching to be not allowed original research. But that is the limit. It is not allowed to delete an article because you don't agree with science. Then do research and change the scientifice opinion. Then Wikipedia will follow. DParlevliet (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)— DParlevliet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Scientists and psychohistorians they may be, but none of them have anything other than speculation. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. There is no science here. pablo_hablo. 21:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could be, and I partly agree. But as editors we are not allowed to judge scientific scholars because that is personal opinion. We are only allowed to give the content of publications which are widely regarded to be scientific. That is Wiki rule. If you want to fight their opinion you must use the scientific way: write articles which are better then theirs. Wikipedia does not allow to use its platform for this. DParlevliet (talk) 22:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What "scientific scholars" are you referring to? Jeal is a novelist and writes biographies. Has he published in peer reviewed scientific journals, and does he have a doctorate in a science? Is he a member of a science faculty at a university? We are not required to blindly repeat everything every biographer states, when it may be speculation. Edison (talk) 22:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"All scientific scholars regard it to be an important item and all agree he was homosexual. " No, they don't. A couple of recent authors of commercial bibliographys have attempted to suggest that he may have had homosexual leanings. That is all. Several others have gone against this, and their views are no less deserving simply because they published prior to Jeal et al. DiverScout (talk) 07:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the writer but what he wrote which is referred too. If you want to check their status then check the wikipedia page of Jeal and his book. Those meet the demand of Wikipedia for reference. It is scientific research that you check that yourself first before you dispute a reference. "Several others have gone against this": then add them to the article. DParlevliet (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please correct or delete the excessive unnecessary redirects in the box at the top to previous Afds, thanks. I would do it but I would likely break the wiki, the two repeated redirects appear to not be needed. Off2riorob (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator is criticizing and debating scholarly sources. The topic is amply sourced. However, the article as it presently stands after the edits of the past few days has become a mockery of intelligent and responsible editing and will have to be repaired when and if cooler heads prevail. Haiduc (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lean Keep: The last nomination was a 'keep' and nominator doesn't explain why consensus should have changed. It does seem a bit much to have a separate article about this, but that's an organizational question.--Milowent (talk) 04:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I note that both this article and the Sexuality section in Baden-Powell's article fail to draw a contrast between homosexuality and pederasty; this should be rectified regardless of whether this article is kept.--Father Goose (talk) 07:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, this is important and many nuances really should be dealt with dispassionately. Unfortunately the discussion that was taking place got highjacked by this AFD/edit-warring. There is a good article here but the drama does need to be reigned in one way or another. -- Banjeboi 11:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - largely per Moreschi above. It's basically a synthesis of opinions previously laid out in two books, both of which seem largely unsubstantiated. At worst, merge with Robert Baden-Powell, at best just delete it - Alison ^❤ 10:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Moreschi. Jacina (talk) 10:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing of substance here. - Schrandit (talk) 12:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Schrandit is right! There IS nothing of substance here any more since the article has suffered a hatchet job over the past few days. So how do you people have the nerve to come in, deface an article, and then submit the dregs for deletion??? This is the stratagem that you are trying to impose on Wikipedia, and you are trying to pull it off by ganging up on the article and bulldozing your way through it. Let's see if you succeed. Haiduc (talk) 13:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, "you people"? pablo_hablo. 13:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EXAMPLE: Here is some of the original text:
While early works on the life of Baden-Powell tended towards the hagiographic[2], two modern biographers, Michael Rosenthal of Columbia University and Tim Jeal in his book Baden-Powell, have reached the conclusion that he was probably a repressed homosexual.[2][3] Baden-Powell "…consistently praised the male body when naked. At Gilwell Park, the Scouts' camping ground in Epping Forest, he always enjoyed watching the boys swimming naked, and would sometimes chat with them after they had just 'stripped off.'"[2] Jeal cites an account by Baden-Powell of a visit to Charterhouse, his old public school, where he stayed with a bachelor teacher and housemaster who had taken large numbers of nude photographs of his pupils. Baden-Powell's diary entry reads: "Stayed with Tod. Tod's photos of naked boys and trees. Excellent." In a subsequent communication to Tod regarding starting up a Scout troop at the school, Baden-Powell mentions an impending return visit and adds: "Possibly I might get a further look at those wonderful photographs of yours." (According to R. Jenkyns, the album contained nude boys in "contrived and artificial" poses.)[2]

And this is what the "rescuers" have butchered it into:
Robert Baden-Powell's sexual orientation has been brought into question by two biographers, Michael Rosenthal[1][2] and Tim Jeal. They contend that Baden-Powell had homoerotic interests, based on their analysis of circumstantial evidence. [...] Tim Jeal in his 1989 book Baden-Powell claimed that Baden-Powell was a repressed homosexual.[4] Jeal based this on the fact that Baden-Powell had publically praised the nude male form and sometimes talked to boys that had stripped naked for swimming.[4] Jeal also cites Baden-Powell's praise of a friend's photos of naked boys.

Jeal based his conclusions on FAR more than what you make him out to have done, and sets out years of research in hundreds of pages of evidence. But your "new" version grossly misrepresents Jeal and makes him sound like an imbecil. And THIS is what has been submitted for deletion? Who are you trying to fool?! Haiduc (talk) 13:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article has evolved through a number of editors, despite the attempt of one or two to own it. That is what Wikipedia articles do! If this article is intended to be an in-depth description of Jeal's views your original text is fine. It is not, though, as it is presented under a wider title to which Jeal is merely a contributor. That is one of the reasons why I keep saying that Jeal's comments, arguably one of the most notable aspects of his book, should be located on the page relating to that text. The Baden-Powell article should retain it's mention of the allegations, with a link to the articles on the appropriate texts. The sexuality page is really not required as there is no real evidence relating to Baden-Powell's sexuality to realte it to - only the opinions of various people (both authors and editors), most of whom never even met him. DiverScout (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete massive undue weight, and synthesis. Essentially an essay given that the vast majority is speculation. Was going to afd this myself. Viridae ^Talk 13:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. ~~We don't have a 'Sexuality of X' article for anyone else, and nor should we.~~ While not a BLP, this article should be treated in the same spirit: if Baden-Powell was still alive it would be totally unacceptable, and it isn't any more acceptable for his being dead. Robofish (talk) 13:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore: this article is essentially a content fork devoted to a fringe theory. It should be mentioned briefly in the main article; creating a separate article for it is seriously undue weight. Robofish (talk) 13:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is Sexuality of Jesus. But that's rather a different case.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actualy, we do have "Sexuality of..." articles for several peopls - William Shakespeare, Abraham Lincoln and Adolf Hitler, to name a few. And since the BSA makes sexuality an issue, the sexuality of the founder of Scouting is of interest. HiLo48 (talk) 19:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected! I still don't think we should have this article, though - just because something is 'of interest' doesn't mean it deserves its own article, particularly when (as here) there are additional concerns about neutrality and undue weight. Robofish (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : I would usually !vote for a merge in such cases, but the Baden-Powell main article seems enough too long to allow that. The subject has been covered in several sources in detail, and as such there's no reason to delete it -we ought to report it. The subject is not living since long time, so WP:BLP concerns are of course moot. WP:UNDUE applies to articles individually, not to WP coverage: I agree it's quite quirky to see so much attention on Baden-Powell sexuality, but it's not to me or to anyone else to judge subjects of articles. It can be a fringe theory, but we do of course cover fringe theories extensively in Wikipedia, of course, if they're notable (provided they're presented as such an keeping NPOV). The fact that there are few or none other "Sexuality of X" articles it's a WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument and, if anything, only tell us that more articles like this one could be needed, if backed up by enough RS to merit an article in itself. In the end, what counts is if the subject has been covered by multiple independent RS. Since it is, it meets WP:GNG and every other consideration -merging, trimming, etc.- can be dealt with editing, per deletion policy and WP:PRESERVE. --Cyclopia^talk 13:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And of course, if consensus goes against you, you've already copied the article over to a shadow site, haven't you? Because you know better than anyone else about whether the internet needs this around? ++Lar: t/c 06:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete This should be merged with hte main article. There seems to be very little here we have two biographies (by the way who is Michael Rosenthal?), what exacly does Michael Rosenthal say on the subject (Mr Jeal seems to try and have it both ways, that he was homosexual but there is also evidance he was not)? This seems a very poor collection of inuedno that even its authors do not seem to be that sure of.Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are already two paragraphs on BP's sexuality in the main article that summarize these claims. Here [19].Bali ultimate (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough there there can be no reason that I see to keep this. Changed to delete.Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, as little more than a POV-fork. Unit Anode 15:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Moreschi and Alison. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, necessary for comprehensive coverage. Everyking (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Comprehensive coverage" is not a valid "keep" rationale. Unit Anode 16:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why would comprehensive coverage not be a valid keep rational? If you can't cover everything in the main article, you make a side article to hold it all. That's how things are done. Dream Focus 19:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would also say that comprehensive coverage hardley applies to the use of two sources, one of which does not even seem to be that convinced.Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Moreschi and Bali ultimate. Article is based on an unconfirmed theory. - Josette (talk) 16:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Moreschi and Alison summed it up well. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete synthesis of opinions - and frankly not notable enough for more than a paragraph in the bio.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The existence and length of this article gives undue weight to a relatively minor and unimportant bit of theorizing about Baden-Powell. It therefore violates WP:NPOV, which is a Foundation policy. A sentence or two, maybe a paragraph, in the main biography is really all that this theory warrants. *** Crotalus *** 17:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look a compelling argument to me: citing policies is one thing, actually doing it properly another. Now, we have articles (lots of them!) on fringe theories: see Category:Fringe theory and Category:Pseudoscience for example. There is nothing violating WP:NPOV in the existence of such articles per se: what is important per WP:NPOV is that the topic is dealt with in a NPOV way. How the existence of an article can violate WP:UNDUE also baffles me, since undue weight is a consideration applied within an article, not to all of Wikipedia. --Cyclopia ^talk 17:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is undue, or rather WP:UNDUE because it is a completely unnecessary content fork giving UNDUE weight to speculation of a small minority. JBsupreme (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1)It is a content fork of what? Of the main article on BP? It doesn't seem redundant with it, it seems to focus on an aspect, which is different. 2)Speculations of small minorities can be notable, and can deserve articles on their own. UNDUE means to avoid giving, of an article subject, a biased view by giving an opinion more weight than necessary. That is, within the article. But it doesn't mean avoiding coverage in other articles: indeed, using separate articles is the way to go to cover a detailed aspect of a subject without incurring in UNDUE. Cold fusion is fringe speculation of a small minority of the physics community: yet it is an obviously notable subject, and we have a pretty massive article on it. If a fringe speculation meets WP:GNG, we can -and should- cover it. --Cyclopia ^talk 22:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A small minority? What about the massive news coverage? Dream Focus 20:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't even glance over all the massive hits you claim you found on this, did you? If you had, you would have found this from the fourth on the list -- "he resourcefulness of judges is something to behold but it is still a stretch to find anything in Scout lore remotely encouraging of practising gays. B-P took a dim view of any kind of carnal activity - or, as he put it, "beastliness" - especially when practised by certain types of young men with their "pink socks, fancy ties and well-oiled hair." I'm fairly confident that a large number of the remainder are of a similar nature. What was your point again, Walter? (addendum DF's previous post had links, this one does not. Not sure what happened there.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating what was said on the talk page, many major newspapers do feature articles about this, and not just in reference to the books alone. Google news search shows 166 hits in one search [20]. Discussion about the specific news sources was started on the talk page [21]. His sexuality got plenty of news coverage and was mentioned in notable books, so the article has a right to exist. Dream Focus 20:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
HiLo48 has erased my talk page comment. [22] I just added it back in. Don't erase others messages, that against the rules, and ridiculously rude. Dream Focus 20:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed this. I have no idea how that happened. It wasn't intentional. I know it's against the rules, and just plain silly, to remove senisble Discussion points. I hvae chastised others for doing so. Many apologies. HiLo48 (talk) 10:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add that major newspapers feature things that give the impression that Baden Powell was a pedophile, such as The Roanoke Times [23]. The article reads:

"Lord Robert Stephenson Baden-Powell, British soldier and founder of what became the worldwide Boy Scout movement, was supposedly a repressed homosexual pedophile. He was devoted to the moral and physical development of newly pubescent boys. At his Scout's camp in Epping Forest, he enjoyed watching the boys swim naked, thinking it healthy. He also appreciated photographs of nude boys taken by an old male friend, A.H. Tod.

While glorifying the youthful bodies, the line apparently was not crossed and Lord Baden-Powell remained physically chaste. It is ironic that avowed gays are not now permitted membership in the Boy Scouts of America."

We need a Wikipedia article to denounce the slanderous and ridiculous claims made by others, who take things out of context. This article exist not to slander the person farther, but to offer counter arguments to the often repeated claims. Dream Focus 20:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder where they got the quotes from... That said, nice though the thought of it is, Wikipedia won't be changing lazy journalism any time soon.

I intend to make a start on adding a brief synopsis of Jeal's views on the matter onto the book's article this weekend. As this would be required to solely state Jeal's opinions and relate their notability to the BSA situation I'd appreciate oversight from other editors. If anyone starts first though, I'll be delighted to help them out. DiverScout (talk) 21:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elleke Boehmer, literary historian and editor of the 2004 edition of Scouting for Boys, quoted in US News & World Report that year: "Baden-Powell was a deeply, deeply asexual person. If he was homosexual--and there's insufficient evidence to say--then it was so repressed as to be nonexistent."[24] (just emphasizing this is a fringe view, unsupported by hard facts).Bali ultimate (talk) 21:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Insufficiently broad as to justify a stand-alone article. - Philippe 22:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as both content fork and insufficient for a standalone article. Subject is already convered in main article, and none of the sources cited in this AfD suggest it is worthy of expansion, let alone WP:SUMMARY treatment. I see nothing in the current version worth merging. It is amazing that this has survived 3 AfDs. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect back to BP. Clear POV fork - sleeping outside is now evidence of homosexuality? Only 3 or 4 biographers are listed, and one of them devotes hardly any space at all to the topic, to judge by his quotes. Most of the article isn't even directly about homosexuality. --Gwern (contribs) 23:22 28 January 2010 (GMT)
Delete We shouldn't have a huge article on this one topic becuase it is very disproportionate to the rest of his life.--Tonalone (talk) 01:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have a huge article on the rest of his life in the main article. This is just to discuss the rumors and offer counter arguments for those who keep mentioning them in the mainstream media and elsewhere. Dream Focus 03:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to the main article. It should be mostly a redirect as the topic is well covered in the main article....a redirect can't hurt but otherwise a delete is in order..no need for a 2nd article. --Stormbay (talk) 02:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For those of you who say merge, how much would you have merged? The main article already gives undue weight to the accusations, without showing counter arguements that they are nonsense. I saw eliminate the nonsense in the main article, replacing it with just one sentence and redirecting here. "There are some unproven rumors about Baden Powell's sexuality, which are discussed here:" and then link to this article. Dream Focus 03:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I said merge but read the whole comment! --Stormbay (talk) 03:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was refering to the others who weren't so detailed. Dream Focus 03:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find it very difficult to use the term "rumors" about a very long discussion in what is very likely the most important biography of Baden-Powell that has been written and one that has been widely noticed. They might well be unfounded, but they are certainly notable. --Bduke (Discussion) 03:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then what word should be used? Dream Focus 03:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One word will not do. They are well reasoned speculations of a professional biographer. We can look to see what those who comment on Jeal have to say. I am waiting to see what Scouting Frontiers: Youth and the Scout Movement’s First Century has to say (see my comment above). My copy should arrive soon. --Bduke (Discussion) 04:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If its undue wieght in the main article how can it deserve its own page? That seems to be saying that its so silly we can't mention it in the BLP, but can have a whole artciel on it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not need an article about unfounded rumors about someones sexuality and the content at the main article also could be summarized in a sentence or two. Off2riorob (talk) 03:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please write this summarization to show us then. I don't think you can discredit these wide spread rumors, without mentioning exactly what the accuser said, and for those not already convinced its nonsense, listing a counter argument to it. Dream Focus 03:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge anything sourceable back to main article, which is 52 kb long and has plenty of room. Reads as a speculative/essay type-piece. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Others have said it above, but essentially content fork to give undue weight to a particular issue. Can be covered in the main article, in proportion to the amount of coverage the topic has received. Quantpole (talk) 09:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Moreschi and Alison. Ironholds (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - blindlngly obvious fork of the main article. Users don't get to create new articles just because their material is rejected in the main one. Tarc (talk) 14:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Tarc, this is a fork, and the main article is sufficient. One has to wonder why this was even forked. Or maybe not. Violates WP:UNDUE. ++Lar: t/c 15:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was forked because it was getting too long on the main page, there discussions about that. So someone created a side article for it. Dream Focus 18:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, that assertion is directly contradicted by Haiduc's edit summary in the fork's creation; "starting article by importing deleted text from main Baden-Powell article". Tarc (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was then a merge proposed and a discussion on the B-P main page talk page [25]. There was consensus to oppose the merge. The article changed. That was 2 days after creation. Over the four years it has certainly been better than it is now. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete - per Moreschi and Starblind. Something minimal in the main article should be more than enough to cover this, unless we're intending to hold a postmortem grand jury trial on his sexual preferences or something... really, it's not that big of a deal, in the grand scheme of things. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One has to consider motives. Debaters often hide their real ones. It's a big deal to BSA defenders. It suggests that the founder of the Scouting movement may have been ineligible for membership of their association had he been around today. He would not have had a problem in most of the rest of the world. HiLo48 (talk) 20:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baden-Powel did not set up the BSA (I don't bleive he rode one either). Please assume the same kind of good faith as you would ask.Slatersteven (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that BP set up the BSA, and I wonder why you responded as if I had. It's repsonses like yours that show that there has to be more to this discussion than just what many people say on the surface. You got it wrong, either accidentally, deliberately or subconsciously. It's the second time an almost identical response has been given to me in this discussion. I've seen many similar "errors" by others. Even if I assume good faith, I cannot assume careful reading or logical thought. It is important to point out such things. I am concerned about the large number of responses here that are worded in very similar ways. If, and I emphasise, if, an orchestrated campaign was underway, it is exactly the sort of thing I would expect to see. One has to wonder..... HiLo48 (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No you did not, but you seem to be implying (if I may make assuptions about your agenda) that if he were to try and join an organisation with which he has (and would have had) no links he would not be allowed to because of acusations of homosexuality. Hoever if he were alive today these accusations would not exist (there is such a thing as libal, and given the basic assertion of PedoHomesexuality he would have a very strong case), nor could he be blocked from membership based uypon an unproven acusation (as he was not openly gay his pecadilos would not have been a bar on membership of the BSA),Which is the point, he had no links to the BSA, nor is there any reason to think he would have nor is ther any reason to assume they would ban him. Nor does the BSA adhear stritkley to his view of scouting (if we assume that the modern movment outside the USA refelcts his vision) in more way then just its attitude towards sexuality. If I may again make assumtions about intend, you seem to be determiined to prove that there is a hidden homophobic agenda behind the move to delete this page, even though he (if I may labour the point) not have been baned as he was not openly gay thus there is no reason for nay partizan of the BSA to fear this. Moreover the BSA was established in 1910 (say 30 year before mr Badden-Powels death), there appears to have been n o attmpt made by either the BSA or Mr Badden-Powel to install him as a member (either then or latter). There is no reason to assume that this is (or was) an issue for the BSA (as they have no link to Mr Badden-Powel, beyond inspirtation). It seems that it is those promotingtthis idea who beleive there to be this issue, and who insist on raising it. By the way as I am not American why should I care about what happens to the BSA?.Slatersteven (talk) 23:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Content is already summarized in RBP main article, and is barely shorter than this spin off. So it is clearly a content fork, but is it worth keeping? The sources as represented present content so speculative as to be nearly unencyclopedic. I mean, I almost laughed, he's saying that based on *what*?. Given the intensity of that corner of scholarship which tries to identify anything nonheteronormative in famous historical figures, if this is the best that can be done the topic is clearly non-notable, deserving one or two sentences (not paragraphs) in the main article at best. Basing this much prose on such indiscriminate ponderings is extraordinarily undue. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a POV content fork. 2 says you, says two 21:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this, one of the purest examples of a POV fork you can get. A minor historical figure's sexuality isn't some vast topic that requires an entire article to discuss - if it isn't worth mentioning in the main article, it's not mentioning at all. Fran Rogers (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with the fury of an angry god insane POV fork firstly, secondly since when was it part of wikipedia's goals to promote the outing of anyone? An article purely on the speculation of someone's sexuality based on anecdotal evidence at best is a dangerous precedent to set. The mention in the main Robert Baden-Powell article is bordering on insanity as well. There's absolutely no justification to have an entire article based on outright speculation even if said speculation comes from reliable sources. This is unencyclopedic writing at its finest. Nefariousski (talk) 00:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - so, reading this I think I'm either starting to understand some the arguments being made (or am just slowly going insane). Baden-Powell was a homosexual because someone who never met him said so in a book, even though Baden-Powell never wrote anything about homosexual attraction, drew a homoerotic picture, there is no evidence he ever had a homosexual relationship or even considered such a relationship and that anyone who is proposing that this article should be deleted is a homophobic supporter of the BSA's policy against homosexuals, whether they know it or not, support, oppose or know nothing of the BSA's policies and regardless of their own sexual identity. Does that about sum it up? I know that there are some people who really believe that this article should be here and I am honestly reading their views in case they can change my opinion, but could we drop the random accusations of homophobia please? DiverScout (talk) 00:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The arguments against keeping this have been made much more eloquently above. We've got two suspect and minor mentions, and then the GLBTQ.com mention (what makes this chap notable, by the way?) It's unsubstantiated claims and speculation from two books that does not merit an article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suggest all of you who are voting to keep read the article on James Buchanan which has a very well written "Personal Relationships" section and then ask yourself if there should be an additional article speculating on Sexuality of James Buchanan. If you answer yes feel free to create it, if you answer no then re-evaluate the possibility of your personal feelings against Baden-Powell's organization / BSA policy clouding your judgement in keeping this travesty of an article. Nefariousski (talk) 00:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if there are enough sources to deserve treatment, I'd be all for an article on Sexuality of James Buchanan. I have no feelings whatsoever on Baden-Powell, and I couldn't care less about BP himself. I care about the fact that this speculation, no matter how odd and outworldlish it can be, has been published in WP:RS, and as such it is notable. --Cyclopia ^talk 22:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not gay. I am an active member of Scouting. I admire Baden-Powell immensely. I see no reason to delete the article. This is because it is of interest that there has been writings on this matter. Wikipedia is precisely for consolidating the writings of others in one place. From a Scouting perspective it makes no difference to me what BP's sexual interests were. It means nothing in a global Scouting context if he was gay. The article is not libellous. I know a number of great Scouting members who are gay. However, it would mean a lot to one major western Scouting organization, the BSA. I am more interested in knowledge than the sensitivities of a discriminatory body. HiLo48 (talk) 00:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What is the BSA's offical stance on Mr Badden-Powels sexuality. Is it a publicly stated issue for them? Given that he would not have been banned under thier rules is there any reason to suppose this is an issue with them (given the evidance that he was openly gay or an avowed homosexual or known to be gay? does not exist, it is just an accusation). The artciel may not be libellous, but what about the sources? Would we have this artical without them. I will now formaly ask that accuastions (closet or otherwise) of Homophobia or supporting the homophobic stance of a given group stops.Slatersteven (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accused of being homosexual?! How is that different from being "accused" of being heterosexual? How is that NOT a homophobic statement??? Haiduc (talk) 01:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, stop. I have a couple of friends from back in high school that are gay. They wouldn't like it at all if you accused them of being heterosexual. Are they then heterophobic? You really need to stop turning this AFD into some kind of crusade, Haiduc. Unit Anode 01:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's this concept called "outing" in which someone who is not openly gay gets accused of being homosexual. This tends to deeply offend and upset said person and is often done out of malice or retribution to discredit the person. If an admittedly gay person were accused of not being genuinely gay I'm sure they would be less than thrilled with said accusation as well. This isn't an issue of homophobia. This is an issue of having integrity to not write supposedly encyclopedic articles about speculation and conjecture. I personally don't care if Baden-Powell was gayer than a barrel of penises. Even if he was dancing naked on a parade float during pride week in San Francisco or was a secret self hating gay man or a child molester for that matter, none of those would be justification of a wholly seperate article. This article was obviously created out of spite over the BSA and their stupid anti-gay policies and as such should not exist. If consensus is reached to keep this article then I say we all go watch the movie Outrage and then have a free for all with new articles about the speculated sexuality of everyone mentioned in the film. Why stop there? How about articles for every homosexual person who at one time or another was accused or speculated to be a child molester. This is a dangerous door to open just so someone can make a protest/attack article. Nefariousski (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But that door is already open. Wikipedia has articles on the sexuality of William Shakespeare, Abraham Lincoln and Adolf Hitler, to name three. Why should it stop there? HiLo48 (talk) 02:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apples and Oranges for one. The Lincoln article is largely about criticism of speculation and actually discusses there being evidence (Primary sources) regarding his sexuality. It's not written based on the "assumptions" of people whom were born after he died based on conjecture and second hand stories. The Hitler article is more about the actual controversy and takes a neutral stance only by discussing the fact that actual controversy exists. The Shakespeare article is obviously WP:Fringe if not WP:Bullshit and is being reviewed as such right now. Nefariousski (talk) 03:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd not seen WP:Bullshit before. "Giveaway signs of complete bollocks are phrases such as emerging theory and widely disputed." If there was ever a page that descibes this article, this must be it. As to being "accused of being homosexual", I think that the mention of activities such as the spite outing of celebrities rather explains it. This is an article based purely on opinion making an accusation. There is, as has been said, nothing to prove that Baden-Powell was that way inclined. Like the poem on the above Wiki opinion page there is nothing behind the words. Just partisan screed, or opinion masquerading as fact.

The repeated accusations of homophobia against editors does little other than make me more convinced that this is an agenda-led article unworthy of Wikipedia. DiverScout (talk) 10:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you call it accusation? An accusation is a negative thing. Is it a negative thing to you to see a suggestion that someone is homosexual? Does that mean that you think negatively of homosexuals. Can you see why homophobia has been suggested? HiLo48 (talk) 10:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bluntly, no I don't. I might believe that the accusation is wrong, but that is a totally different thing to a persons sexuality. When, as in celebrity outing, a public statement is made that a person is homosexual without firm foundation that is an accusation. I'm afraid personally see this as an attempt to hijack the discussion and scare off potential contributors. If there is real notability in this article I'm sure there must be better ways for those who believe in the article to defend it other than than to hide behind semantics. I'd also offer a friendly caution that calling other editors homophobic is also certainly an accusation - and as, unlike Baden-Powell, we are all alive I really suggest that some of you think very carefully about the statements that you are making on a public forum about living people. Now let's stop clouding the issue, leave the personal comments against other authors aside, accept that there is no huge conspiracy going on and get back to debating whether this article should be on Wikipedia. DiverScout (talk) 10:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But as soon as someone says anything that shows that they see being called a homosexual as a negative thing, they are being offensive to all homosexual people. Homophobic is admittedly too strong a word. We need a better one for people who just think being called a homosexual is a bad thing. This discussion must center on whether the existence of the article is justified, and whether it validly refelcts the sources. As soon as it ventures into the realm of saying that being called a homosexual is bad, it is dangerously off track. HiLo48 (talk) 11:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this should focus on the article rather than sematics of the discussion. I've not seen any directly homophobic posts here, but I have seen what I feel to be heterophobic ones... I would also point out that the article actually accuses Baden-Powell of pedophile tendencies rather than just homosexual ones. That certainly is an accusation. Despite the fact that I openly declare myself PC-0 my intention is not to offend, so would you find implication a better choice of vocabulary? DiverScout (talk) 13:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then how would you word the unproven innuendo then HiLo48? I agree that my wording in one respect was wrong, but if your assertion is true (that this is a BSA/homophobic conspiracy) then it is (in their eyes) an accusation. Moreover at the time of his alleged actions it was a criminal offence, thus it is an accusation of illegal activity. Of course you will point out (correctly) that there is no accusation that he committed buggery, or was a practising (or fully accredited) homosexual, which is the point not even the sources say he was just that he might have been. As such your suggestion that this is some homophobic BSA inspired conspiracy is patent nonsense he would not have been subject to censure even at the time (even if these allegations had been made then, rather then long after his death), and there is no reason to assume he would now. You attempts to bully and intimidate users and the wider project by basically saying if you back this you hate gays is both offensive and I believe dishonest. It is clear that you have a BSA bashing agenda. That the purpose of this page is to act as a tool in that agenda, it is a soapbox and a whip , whose sole purpose is to show up the BSA.Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unproven innuendo is a statement that takes issue with Jeal et al. If that is your desire, get yourself a doctorate and convince a major publisher to print your theories. Then and only then can you stand shoulder to shoulder with Jeal and other reputable scholars. Until then we are just wasting time and electricity with this type of "argument." Nor is B-P thought to have committed any "criminal offence." Mere desire has NEVER been a criminal offence anywhere. Finally, it has recently become fashionable for groups engaged in thuggish behavior to accuse their victims of being the bullies, presumably on the premise that the best defense is a good attack. But let's not throw sand in people's eyes here with that kind of sophistry, shall we? Haiduc (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're no "victim", Haiduc. You've been bullying people with your false accusations of "homophobia", so please step down from your high horse. Unit Anode 16:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do Jeal et al say that he was Homosexual? Or that he may have been, but that they are not sure? Now I again ask how would you word it? Moreover all this is degenerating into is attacks on how users are trying to say that this is an unsubstantiated, unproven and unsure (in the sense that the sources do not seem to be able to make up their mind themselves) statement about possible homoerotic interests, rather then explaining why this article needs to be kept and explaining why the BSA is such an issue) users are instead attacking other users and casting assertions (without direct accusations) about homophobic intent. I said he did not commit an offence, that is the point he was not (an had not been accused) of being an active homosexualist and as such the argument about the BSA is fascicle and spurious it is an attempt to deflect this debate away from the quality of the article and instead to impune the reputation of users who object to its presence in order to use moral bullying to force its retention. I agree that the bullying should stop, and that vague and game playing attempts to imply ulterior motive should stop. I am happy to do so, I hope others do as well.

Delete I looked at the current article and this old version from 22 December 2009. The content in both cases is idle speculation. It is true (and verifiable) that a couple of people have written their opinions regarding the sexual interests of Baden-Powell. But an article with "homoerotic interests, based on their analysis of circumstantial evidence" in the lead fails the encyclopedic-value test. The article is a battle between the "yes he was" and "no he wasn't" positions: the image shows the subject with wife and children, yet we learn that the subject slept on a verandah (to avoid sleeping with his wife!). It's just rubbish and should be deleted because the article cannot be improved as there is no possible way for reliable sources to research the issue. If there were sufficient real-world drama concerning the claims, there could be an article on the controversy (only if some good sources are available please). However, this article is inherently unsuitable for an encylopedia because the only material available is wild speculation (did Baden-Powell admire the male body as a sexual object [who cares?], or did he admire it for the beauty of nature: the finest creature made by God?). Johnuniq (talk) 02:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obvious pov content fork; it's all well-said at this point. *Ignore* those who don't get this. Already covered in parent article. Jack Merridew 02:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SOAP - too concerned with spinning history for political purposes. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a pointless fork that could easily be covered in his bio. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Two authors analysis of circumstantial evidence is not a an encyclopedic article. Ward20 (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete,~~ Merge and Balance Forgive me, I am probably repeating what has been said already but I don't have time to integrate my thoughts on this with all that has been said before. Merging this article into the the main BD article would create WP:Undue and WP:POV (no doubt why it was forked off). Merge it into Baden-Powell (book) and cut back on the emphasis this issue already receives in Baden-Powell In my view those who wish to keep the amount of information collected on this small facet of the BD biography have the burden to build up the rest of it so the balance is restored. If it weren't for the bias against homosexuality in the world this discussion would be moot. That clearly indicates a POV problem. WP is not here to promote an agenda. Jojalozzo (talk) 23:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probably, merge -- Last time, I said "Given that he founded the Boy Scouts, this has not unnaturally given rise to some controversy, which is much better dealt with here than the main article" . It might be better dealt with separately, but none the less it's a bad principle. We have no logical justification for keeping a fork like this for him or anyone else. The main article will of course need to be carefully watched to maintain NPOV on this topic. Bduke in his analysis of how and why Wikipedia should cover the matter has it exactly right, but he is wrong in that it takes an separate article to do it. has in right. As for some other arguments, One. it is simply not true that " there is no possible way for reliable sources to research the issue. " -- there are going to be RSs on this and every other historical topic. Not that there will be sources to settle the question, aany more than other historical questions, but there are and there will be properly qualified people analyzing the subject. Two. Nor is he a "minor figure" Three. Nor is it a matter of "who cares?" -- if people did not care intensely because of the conceived relevance to current policy of the organization there would not be this intense a controversy in the fist place. Four. Discussing the sexuality of public figures is a legitimate and essential part of history, as is discussing every other aspect of their personalities and behavior. Discussing aspects that were taboo at the time the person lived is perfectly acceptable and even necessary. Sexuality is not something that needs to be concealed, and the facts and the perceptions of them did and does affect people's lives, and the attitudes others had and have towards them, and towards their legacy. Five "outing" does not apply in the reprehensible sense to those people whom the prejudices of society can no longer harm. If the question has been discussed, we can include it. six It is false that "We need a Wikipedia article to denounce the slanderous and ridiculous claims made by others" -- WP does not exist to support or refute propaganda, or to right moral or historical wrongs, except to the extent that presenting neutrally the facts of responsible discussions is the best way to help people approach the truth of anything and everything. DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There has been too much drama here. Thank you DGG for a balanced view. I too would like to sum up. I argued for keep as it was last time it came to AfD. However, I recognize that consensus has changed. The argument that pretty well convinces me is that the material can quite well be covered in the main article and that a separate article is giving more weight than the sources justify. Other arguments for deletion trouble me. Many talk of "POV fork" or even "obvious POV fork". It is certainly not obvious. Of course with a topic like this there has been problems. However over 4 years many editors have tried in good faith to develop an article that expands on the summary in the main article. This is perfectly acceptable in general and is not a POV fork. It would be if the article gave a different POV from the main article. That has not been the intention. However, the difficulties that has resulted perhaps indicates that this article is taking the material too far. The other thing that troubles me is the trivialization and ignorance of sources. Having studied Jeal, it is quite clear to me that it is the source that should be taken more seriously than any other for articles on Baden-Powell. It is the only full independent biography of the man. It is also the most recent biography. It is clearly very well researched and professional. We need such independent reliable sources. Biographies written by Scouters are not independent. The authors have a conflict of interest as Baden-Powell was their friend, founder and Chief. They can give some insights and useful material, but we are the poorer if we have to rely on them. I am leaving my "keep' !vote, as I still think with proper use of sources, some of which nobody has yet used, a good article can be made. I will however accept "delete" for the reasons I give above. However, I hope the closing admin will make it very clear that this AfD gives absolutely no consensus for any editor to move over to the main B-P article and try to get the section on "Sexuality" removed. Let the drama cease. --Bduke (Discussion) 08:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Concluding this is a fine idea, seeing that no real ideas have been presented for discussion. Attacks on the quality of the work of otherwise valid sources are not within the scope of our work here. And such attacks multiplied twenty or however many times over, are not more credible nor more cogent. As for merging the material back into the main article, I have no opinion either way, I am content to have the matter discussed in full either in a separate article or in the main article. But be forewarned that by merging the material back we are leaving ourselves open to the accusation of giving the topic undue weight. Is that not why we spun this off into its own article, because there was too much meat on this bone to properly cover it within a very general biography? Is that not how Wikipedia grows, by branching material out when enough is gathered to stand on its own? And what could be more interesting than to have an analysis of the life of an important and still influential figure that shows quite clearly that the motivation of his life-long work with boys and very authentic love for boys was indeed a very rounded and balanced kind of love that did not in any small-minded way exclude the erotic, emotional and affectional aspects yet did, high-mindedly, exclude the sexual aspects? This adds a great deal to the understanding of the man, so that we now know not only what he did but also why he did it. And this is what some people are trying to cover up?! Haiduc (talk) 09:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Quoting Haiduc: that shows quite clearly that the motivation of his life-long work with boys and very authentic love for boys was indeed a very rounded and balanced kind of love that did not in any small-minded way exclude the erotic, emotional and affectional aspects yet did, high-mindedly, exclude the sexual aspects? I'm probably taking this to an admin in a minute. Do i have this correct? You're basically confirming that your original research and creation of this fork was to show that BP wanted to have sex with boys and that it's "small-minded" when most of us dismiss the urge to have sex with underaged boys as the desires of paedophiles?Bali ultimate (talk) 22:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Haidoc says nothing of the kind. He says that BP did not want to have sex with boys. What about "yet did, high-mindedly, exclude the sexual aspects" do you not understand? Why take it to an admin. This admin does not see anything to worry about. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that this should be concluded. The available opinions do not present any evidence one way or the other for Baden-Powell's sexuality. The fact that the debate is being twisted into a "straight vs. gay" argument by a couple of editors has not helped proper discussion to take place, but I think that enough reasoned argument for its removal has been given. There is not enough factual evidence here to generate a proper encyclopedia article, and filling Wikipedia with opinion pieces is not the way it should grow. There is no evidence that Baden-Powell was sexually attracted to boys. Jeal looked hard through the source materials for signs of homosexuality, especially in connection to his letters to "The Boy" but found none. All that was left was speculation on circumstantial evidence. Attempting to push this speculation into a full article is inappropriate. That said, I have argued that the brief mention of the issue should remain on the main B-P page, and that a synopsis of Jeal's thoughts on the matter should be added to the article on Jeal's text where they would be correctly presented as his opinion rather than as encyclopedic fact. I have attempted to do so, but the entry was deleted before it could be completed under the statement that it was POV. I would stress that it was text describing Jeal's arguments from an earlier draft of this article that was copied onto the article on Jeal's book then deleted as POV by a proponent of this page. No counter-arguments or opinions were copied over. If Jeal's views are too POV for his own article...? DiverScout (talk) 09:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG: Of course any historical topic can in principle be researched. However (and assuming the article gives a reasonable synopsis of the book which forms the basis for the article), the research so far is nonsense: more than 70 years after the death of the subject, and based on tea-leaf divining such as praise of the nude form, the authors claim Baden-Powell was a repressed homosexual ("repressed" meaning there is no evidence). I grant that my WP:OR in claiming this is nonsense cannot be used in the article, but we are allowed to use common sense in evaluating whether an article is suitable. A reasonable conclusion is that it is not appropriate to base an entire article on such a flimsy case (although there could be an article on the controversy if it were really controversial). Sure, mention that Tim Jeal (a British novelist, and biographer of notable Victorian men) has written a book making certain claims – but do that in the main article, not in some dedicated fork which can never (barring extraordinary new evidence) be more than a report of Jeal's claim with accompanying wild conjectures. Johnuniq (talk) 10:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to see this closed, and the material moved (or at least retained) on the main Paden-Powel page. I do not believe that there is sufficient evidence or sources to warrant a separate page (as has been pointed out this page is smaller then similar sections about other public figures on their main page). I apologise if I got a little heated, and drifted of topic, but I do not like being called Homophobic (however obliquely).Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I would not matter if this irrelevant item would be handled in a few lines in the main topic. However it is a fact that it is very controversial, mentioned in a lot of publications, so readers want to know and therefore a encyclopedia like Wikipedia should give an answer. If it is transferred to the main article, then fully in the version before the edit war. As mentioned this was edited intensively and resulted in a good and not to extended equilibrium between those who agree and who oppose (is has been much larger in the past). It gives the present common scientific view (by Jeal) and in the second part careful some good arguments against Jeal, leaving the choice to the reader. Official that is not according Wikipedia rules, but given the controversial nature I think a good choice. However I agree with Haiduc that the effect is contrary, because much more readers will be confronted with this and because of it size will overestimates the importance. The present is better: a few lines in the main article (indicating it is not really important) and a special page for those who are interested. So it is no fork, it is like a lot of other articles which handles scouting-related items in more detail, which otherwise should be in the main article. Also this item will remain attracting war's as last week. It is practical to keep that in a separate article, other then load it on the main article, which can loose its featured article position for this. Then finally: look to the list of reasons to delete: none of them applies to the article (it is certainly no fork according Wiki description). So what reason can an administrator have for deletion? Therefore, for practical reasons I remain my "Keep". DParlevliet (talk) 15:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This subject is already handled in the main topic article. I'm still not seeing a reason for this to get a standalone article. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's a very strange comment. There are many reasons given above. A reason is a reason, whether you like that reason or not. One of the better ones (at least to me) is immediately above, from DParlevliet. HiLo48 (talk) 20:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not the main article could lose it's featured article status should be neither here nor there when it comes to deciding whether or not this article is appropriate. That Jeal gives a view is undisputable, but the constant insistance by some that his view is somehow beyond reproach until someone manages to publish a new biography that directly challenges him is bunkum. That Jeal has put forward a theory based on a dearth of evidence does not negate the fact that the only actual concrete evidence of Baden-Powell's sexuality is that he got married and produced children. That Jeal has used circumstantial evidence to imply a degree of homosexuality does not mean that an encyclopedia article professing to be about Baden-Powell's sexuality, not Jeal's opinion on the same, should not provide balance and context to those statements. If editors want to create an article that just presents Jeal's views they should do so on the existing page relating to the text. I do think that it should also be noted that when I attempted to copy the synopsis of Jeal's arguments from this article to the article on Jeal's text it was DParlevliet who immediately deleted it as POV content, so I must profess to a bit of confusion about how this same material is now being given such strong support in this location. As has been repeatedly said, this proposition is covered in sufficient depth in the main article and this fork is really not needed. Let Jeal's claims go to Jeal's book's stub article, which has been needing to develop for years and where it can be accurately presented as one author's conjecture. The other texts, if notable, should then be treated in the same manner. As these articles should be accurate, academic synopses of those specific texts there would be no further scope for edit wars, conflicts, lobbying by those with agendas and unfortunate misunderstandings. DiverScout (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. In addition, I strongly disagree with the statement given by another user just above: "It gives the present common scientific view (by Jeal)". The whole point of my objection to this article is that Jeal is not qualified to assess repressed homosexuality, and there is no "science" of that subject. Jeal writes novels and biographies and on that basis he can be quoted as a reliable source regarding some fact that he records. But there is zero evidence that anyone can do more than speculate about whether a person is a repressed homosexual (given the total lack of information beyond Baden-Powell praising a friend's photos of naked boys, identification with an all-male culture [apart from his wife and three kids!], and sleeping on a verandah). Johnuniq (talk) 23:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also common view of what, that he might have been Homosexual but there is no evidance? That is about as un-scientific as you can get with out saying a wizard did it. Also common view amoung whome?Slatersteven (talk) 13:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & moreschi who make the arguments why this should not be kept. Eusebeus (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BDuke. There are plenty of sources. This is not the case of a POV fork, where this article says this, that article say that. Sure, there is a WP:NPOV challenge in this article, in collating and summarising what others have said, but that is a worthy challenge. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT TO ADMIN: This discussion was not properly included on the January 27 AfD log; instead, the 1st nomination (from 2006) appeared (see old version). I've now fixed it to satisfy Step 3. Glenfarclas (talk) 00:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Content fork. Epbr123 (talk) 11:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV pushing. Sumbuddi (talk) 13:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment has been made above about Scouting Frontiers: Youth and the Scout Movement’s First Century, a scholarly account of the first century of scouting. It is a set of articles arising from the first conference of academic historians of Scouting and Guiding. Nobody else has mentioned this, yet is an important source. I have finally got a copy. Jeal is only mentioned once and the author of that chapter, while clearly thinking that Jeal got in wrong, feels that a detailed discussion is beyond the scope of his article. However, he does say "However, in the almost twenty years since he presented his case, not a single published scholarly critique of his argument has been presented, though it begs for one". Both parts are important. The first to say that Jeal is notable as he has been much noticed, he has not been properly refuted. The second to say that he may be refuted in the future. This is part of a full page on Jeal, so Jeal has clearly been noted by academic historians. --Bduke (Discussion) 07:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like an excellent source, and hopfully that article on Jeal can be added to the page on his book to which it is referring. DiverScout (talk) 07:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or to put it another way no one has bothered to discuss it. Its so notable it been ignoredSlatersteven (talk) 14:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is completely wrong. As Brock puts it in that source "While the professional history community generally considers Jeal's conclusions on this topic to be speculative, the mainstream press seems to have taken them as fact". It has been very far from being ignored. Many have bothered to discuss it. His point, in the very next sentence, is the absence of a scholarly critique of Jeal's argument. That Jeal is widely believed to be correct, possably in the absence of that scholarly critique is notable and should be discussed on wikipedia. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My point was supposed to be (I badly worded it) that no scholer has taken this up as a serious sugestion. That serious scholers have not botherd with this. How Its so notable that no major accademic (even the one quoted) can be botherd to repudiate it, thats its not worth the time an energy. One accademic historian has noted jeal, and he decides to leave it to others. In 20 years its been commented on by a single serious accademic.Slatersteven (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where would you begin and from what point of view? The above-quoted author would like Jeal to be critiqued, but the absence of a critique does not diminish Jeal. It may be that he has so thoroughly made his case that it cannot be shot up. As for the author's opinion that professional historians consider Jeal to be speculative, that is HIS opinion. But it can certainly be mentioned in the article, as such. It could be balanced by mentioning the bit about the mainstream press accepting Jeal's conclusions. Haiduc (talk) 21:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be specualtion, all we can say it that it has not been done, not why.Slatersteven (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside the issue of whether Jeal's case can be 'shot up'; it is primarily Jeal's case. Most references to Baden-Powell's sexuality quote Jeal. Jeal's view should mentioned on Baden-Powell's biog, and expounded on either Jeal's page or a page for Jeal's book.
Note also that to say (as Haiduc does above) "the motivation of his life-long work with boys and very authentic love for boys was indeed a very rounded and balanced kind of love that did not in any small-minded way exclude the erotic, emotional and affectional aspects ..." is disingenuous; there is no reason to suppose that it included those aspects . pablo_hablo. 21:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV and content fork. Marauder40 (talk) 16:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This article doesn't need to be separate from the other article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are two paragraphs on this speculation already in the main article.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:FRINGE theory that's not notable enough for a separate article. We do keep fringe theories here, but only when they receive significant commentary, which is not the case with this one. A total of three sources are used, two of them primary for the purpose of advancing the theory, and one commentary from a web site. This is an unjustified fork of Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell#Sexuality, which summarizes both print sources. The only thing lost here is commentary from a web site that's a red link, GLBTQ.com. Pcap ping 06:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Content fork that can easily be handled within the main article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 09:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A non-notable fringe theory. The relevant section of the main article, which is featured, has a sufficient coverage. If a man has a wife and three children, he obviously is not from LGBT stock. Besides, the main article does not label Baden-Powell with some LGBT category. Brand[t] 13:37, 3 February 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) 00:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Jeter Cocktail[edit]

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

Unreferenced, non-notable cocktail per WP:GNG, can't find any mention of subject online, appears to be WP:COATRACK article for non-notable bar. Proposed deletion contested by creator. MuffledThud (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 11:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable drink, WP is not a recipe collection. WWGB (talk) 11:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:MADEUP and non-notable. Glenfarclas (talk) 11:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any coverage in reliable sources to document this drink. Non-notable, not to mention WP:NOTHOWTO would remove most of this article. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 11:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No specific notability claim for the cocktail - or even for the bar in which it has been created. McMarcoP (talk) 11:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Unnotable, and violates WP:NOTMANUAL. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete following WP:NOTHOWTO perhaps transwiking to another project or howto is appropriate andyzweb (talk) 15:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet WP:GNG, plus WP is not a manual. Transmissionelement (talk) 18:28, 1 February 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) 00:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Avon Plate F.C.[edit]

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

Non-notable amateur social/pub team. NB Sources include a book about the club, but it was written by one of the club's founders/officials and published by a self-publication press, so I think it can be disregarded as far as establishing notability goes -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sunday League teams need to have specific (and sourced) claims for notability, that don't appear in the article. McMarcoP (talk) 11:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Avon is a non-notable amateur club. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable Sunday league team. (Also, wouldn't they be smaller than Bristol Rovers F.C.? Or was it written by a Bristol City F.C. supporter? I know that's not a reason for deletion, but it's worth pointing out.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing here to suggest to me that this FC is notable. JBsupreme (talk) 23:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – questionable and unreferenced facts and history sections, claims to be being third major club after Bristol City and Bristol Rovers are laughable, as there are several teams including Mangotsfield, Brislington and Bristol Manor Farm who compete at much higher levels in the National League System. This is a non notable Sunday league football team. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:03, 30 January 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) 00:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monarchist-democratic state[edit]

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

Unreferenced, non-notable neologism per WP:NEO, definition offered appears to be synonymous with Constitutional monarchy but can find no mention of this term online in WP:Reliable sources. Proposed deletion contested by creator. MuffledThud (talk) 11:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 11:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - besides being a very poorly written article (which is not a reason for deletion in itself), I could find no sources about the expression, clearly a synonym for "Constitutional Monarchy" and probably a made-up one too. McMarcoP (talk) 11:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article's creator should consider that a "monarchist democratic state" is more or less what is described in constitutional monarchy ¨¨ victor falk 06:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per ^^^ JBsupreme (talk) 09:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to constitutional monarchy. There have been a few instances of reliable sources describing constitutional monarchies as "monarchist-democratic",[26][27][28][29] so this is a plausible search term, and redirects are cheap. I also note that there has been a Monarchist-Democratic Party in Italy,[30] a Monarchist Democratic Imperialist party or movement in Germany[31] and a Monarchist Democratic Council in Serbia.[32] Phil Bridger (talk) 18:06, 1 February 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) 00:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Radicalization[edit]

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

This article has been little more than dictionary entry for several years, the recently added text is almost all referenced from a single primary source, and the article is now a short essay. Wnjr (talk) 10:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - poor article; valid concept. This is not a dictionary definition since the page deals with the concept not the word. Looking around there are plenty of reputable sources from which the article can be developed.[33][34][35][36][37][38] etc. We don't delete bad articles, we improve them. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, then improve: As the originator of this quickly-hacked-together stub article replacement for a dicdef, I know it's a poor article, but it's a poor article on a valid, highly notable subject (see http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=radicalization for over 24,000 citations from Google Scholar using the term, many of which have radicalization as their main subject, and http://news.google.com/news?q=radicalization for evidence of coverage in around 1200 verifiable reliable news sources in the last few weeks alone), complete with two source citations to demonstrate notability. As such, it needs improvement, not deletion. -- The Anome (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, and rescue, per Anome, assuming someone adds at least a few of the found citations. Bearian (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the cited sources as external links for now, as well as a rescue tag. See WP:BEFORE. Gosh! Bearian (talk) 23:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Click the buttons up top of the AFD. Google news search shows 9,660 results where newspapers have used that expression. Google book search shows 2,660 results. And Google scholar shows 24,200 results. Dream Focus 06:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Poor quality of an article is no reason for deletion; article subject is eminently encyclopedic. ¨¨ victor falk 06:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep Article has been considerably improved since the nom, and per the above there are easilly sufficient sources to raise it to FA standard if so desired. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Close for all above and the article is now in the rescue process andyzweb (talk) 15:21, 1 February 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. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of basic geography topics[edit]

This is listcruft that has become a magnet for original research and unsourced content. Barebones links to other articles do not provide any context to the reader in the form of commentary, criticism or analysis that are the hallmark of encyclopedic content, and the rationale for deletion is threefold:

This list of loosely associated topics fails WP:NOT#DIR. Whether the topics listed can labeled as basic geography topics is a matter of subjective opinion, not verifiable fact;
"Basic geography topics" or "Basic topics in geography" is not a recognised subject matter by the world at large in accordance with WP:NAME. The title could easily be changed or duplicated by "List of basic topics in geography", "List of topics related to geography" or "List of geography topics", which may indicate that this list is a content fork from the article Geography and its sub-artles, which addresses the over arching geograhy related topics directly and in detail;
The definition of a "basic geography topics" is neither defined nor the subject of any reliable secondary source that would its inclusion as a seperate standalone list article in accordance with WP:Source list;

There would be no loss by deleting this article from the standpoint of Wikipedia, as the categorisation of certain topics as being geography related already catered for by the Category:Geography and its related taxonomy of sub-categories.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I have to say that the nominator laid out the points for the deletion of this very clearly. Per the nominators reasoning.--CrohnieGal^Talk 12:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editors should be aware that this AFD is specifically tied to discussion at the Village Pump and may wish to read further rational behind it there. --MASEM (t) 12:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, possibly rename:

1. As a fairly specific list of key geographical concepts, it's not exactly a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization or a repository of loosely associated topics. How exactly does it violate WP:NOTDIR? From WP:STAND: glossaries (annotated topical lists) are an established aspect of Wikipedia, and some lists can yield an encyclopedic page, such as List of English words containing Q not followed by U.

2. I'm sorry but I fail to see any validity in the "content fork" argument. According to your logic, we would have to remove the vast majority of Wikipedia's listings, if not all of them. Should List of European countries be deleted as a fork of Europe? I think not. From WP:CFORK: Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another. This does not make either of the two articles a content fork.

3. I see nothing in this list that distinguishes it from Lists of film topics, Lists of mathematics topics, Outline of physics, and hundreds of similarly titled pages. If the root problem of the page lies in its name, the article can easily be given a more precise and unambiguous title.

4. As for Category:Geography, WP:CLN clearly states that [c]ategories, lists, and navigation templates are three different ways to group and organize articles. The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping. — Rankiri (talk) 15:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Outline of geography per Rankiri - espec. #3. Ben Mac Dui 18:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - valid list. Should be moved to a better title to be subsequently agreed. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)}[reply]
Keep. This is a part of the Outline WikiProject, and is part of a naming dispute (and a move-war, so don't rename it yet, though it should be consistent in the end).
The (outline) name is quite standard too, see outline of geography -wikipedia (google) - the 1st result is from the University of Wisconsin, and the 4th result from the U.S. Department of State, with thousands of results overall.
The nom knows there is (and has participated in) an RfC being drafted at User talk:Karanacs/Outline RfC draft, to discuss this and related matters. It would have been helpful to mention this, or the VillagePump discussion. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is supposed to have several alternate navigation streams, including, searchbox, outlines, categories, and indexes/TOC. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:NOT#DIR does not apply to listings of existing contents of Wikipedia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is news to me. Is there any policy or guideline that you could refer me to? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some things are too obvious to need the statement. Start with WP:NOT#DIR. The intention of application is pretty clear. Wikipedia, like any large resource, *needs* navigation aides. Do you really think that Portal:Contents should be deleted because it is essentially a directory listing of the contents of the encyclopedia? Now if the page did in fact contain large amounts of unsourced content, which it doesn't, you might have a case. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its not obvious, in fairness. Regardless of whether a lists of loosely associated topics is linked to other topics or not, it is still an undefined list. A list of artibitarily chosen topics loosely assoicated with geography is what this list is comprised of. What is lacking is a defintion for this list to establish its credentials in accordance with WP:Source list. Otherwise, it is possible to argue that everything under the sun is loosely assoicated with geography. The fact that no one can agree on its name is symptomatic of this. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Obviousness" can be a loaded, complex and subtle thing. Something is often obvious because you've always believed so, with no firm logical basis, but no challenges to date.

In many ways your complaint makes sense. I think that the answer is that these lists are not well suited as navigation aides for the content of the encyclopedia, for the reasons you give and even at least a couple of others. The category system also fails at helping navigation for many needs. I think that WP:outlines offers the best hope for substantial improvement in providing organised navigation of the encyclopedia. (If there are other possibilites, please speak up). I'm certainly disappointed in the lack of progress at WP:Outlines, largely due to defenders of established Lists, but I am hopeful that The_Transhumanist (talk · contribs) will succeed with his intention to see software development to enable implementation of his conception of outlines. In the meantime, my thoughts strengthened by your arguments, are that lists should be converted to outlines. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I accept you have a valid point about the need for navigational support, but my view is that categories and portals provide this outside of the mainspace domain that is regulated by a framework of policies and guidelines. The problem I have with the inclusion criteria for lists in the absence of notability is that the rationale for their existence is purely subjective. Without reference to any external source, it could be argued, using subjective arguments as a reference point, that both a List of basic geography topics and an Outline of basic geography topics should be exist simultaneously to serve what ever purpose their creators think is useful at a particular point in time. Notability, on the other hand, provides a rationale for existence, as well as verifiable evidence to support a list's title and definition for all time. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I previously adopted the view that Outlines should have its own namespace, because of some point about "Portal:Outline of ..." getting too long for something. I think we could agree that Lists should be converted to "outlines", and moved out of mainspace, and be subjected not to WP:N, but to a requirement that the topics are covered within wikipedia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Outline of geography. The outline system is a sensible and well organised mapping to the contents of the encyclopedia. Agree with nominator that "List of..." is not a good name, it is too tempting to add topics directly. With "Outline", it is more clear that the contents are derived from the existing content of the encyclopedia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1. The nominator does not seem to understand wp:not#dir; a list is, ipse facto, a directory of links to wikipedia articles. 2 What is the problem? That's what redirects for. I don't have an opinion if any of those titles would be better. As we do not have several such lists about geography, this is purely theoretical and irrelevant. 3. "The definition is not defined" Are you serious? This is handwaving with policies. 4. It's OK with redundancy. Categories and lists fulfill different navigation needs. ¨¨ victor falk 07:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep - but yes a clear nom. Rich Farmbrough, 07:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Snowball keep Useful navigation page consolidating a subject. Just needs more referencing and work and possible renaming to Outline of geography. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:11, 29 January 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, G4, substantially the same as the article deleted by AfD earlier today. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 15:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jahia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Promotion for non-notable software product by SPA. I have not found any significant independent coverage. Haakon (talk) 10:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jahia is used at more than 300 web-sites and portals all over the world. Among them there are govrnmental institutions, banks and other. Please follow http://www.jahia.com/jahia/Jahia/cache/bypass/Home/customers/customers_database to read some customers of it Antonschastny(talk)
Please read Jahia coverage at Open Source CMS Market Share Report 2009(CMS wire with Water & Stone) at http://www.cmswire.com/downloads/cms-market-share/ Antonschastny(talk)
Question How different is this article from what was deleted this morning? Bradjamesbrown (talk) 11:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 11:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would appreciate it if someone could check on the deleted revision, if it's almost identical might I suggest speedy per G4? Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 13:07, 27 January 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) 00:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cough-variant asthma[edit]

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

This page was previously redirected (Talk:Asthma#WHAT_HAPPENED_TO_the_.22Cough_Variant_Asthma.22_page_.21.3F.21.3F.21.3F) and has not been edited since it was created as a stub in the previous discussion approximately a year ago. It has remained a stub. As I have noted in the Asthma talk page, this is not an official diagnosis, but rather a descriptive diagnosis of Asthma with no significant differences in pathophysiology or treatment. It contains no content worth even merging with the Asthma article.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Wrin (talk) 09:59, 27 January 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. --Pgallert (talk) 13:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur de Rothschild[edit]

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

Not notable, citations appear to lead nowhere, possibly hoax Off2riorob (talk) 09:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Deletion rationale incorrect it is not a hoax. [39] Baron Arthur de Rothschild seems to have existed. Polargeo (talk) 09:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks he does at least appear to have existed. Off2riorob (talk) 10:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not just existed but multiple hits in the google news archives. And this level of internet coverage for someone who died in 1903. A withdraw of this AfD would save time. Polargeo (talk) 10:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just from a quick scan of google news archives alone we have Stamp collector Lewiston Evening Journal 1894 and The Day 1898 who published a book on the subject. Also noted as a prominent philatelist Guardian 1892. Wintered in Monaco [40]. Bequeathed valuable artworks to The Louvre, The Day, 1904, collections of rare tapestries New York Times 1926. Obitury in LA Times and NYTimes, Herald Tribune. Yachting patron NYTimes 1894 and here, etc. Polargeo (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I withdraw this AFD could the next Admin passing please close it for me, speedy keep. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 12:44, 27 January 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 Tnxman307 (talk · contribs); reason was "Mass removal of pages added by Womblethereof". Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew de Rothschild[edit]

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

Not notable,only primary citations Off2riorob (talk) 09:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has also been suggested that this article could be a hoax. Off2riorob (talk) 09:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~I strongly suspect this is not a hoax~~ [41] but I will offer no opinion on notability at present. Needs more investigation Polargeo (talk) 10:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay this may be a hoax. I can find no mention of him in Burke's Peerage and the usual news avenues are drawing a blank on him. Polargeo (talk) 12:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax. Website for his company appears to have no significant history. Also need to speedy Rothschild Estates as a hoax (same creator) when this is confirmed. Polargeo (talk) 12:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 27 January 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 Tnxman307 (talk · contribs); reason was "Mass removal of pages added by Womblethereof". Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan de Rothschild[edit]

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

Not notable, only primary sources Off2riorob (talk) 09:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has also been suggested that this article could be a hoax. Off2riorob (talk) 09:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Possibly speedy as this looks like it is a hoax (see also Andrew de Rothschild). Polargeo (talk) 12:18, 27 January 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) 00:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Green (artist)[edit]

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

Delete. Unsourced BLP which lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 07:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A perfectly run-of-the-mill illustrator, with no significant independent coverage that I can find, though there are a moderate number of hits to his own web site, sites that plug his work, sites where his work is published, etc. Article gives no sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only hits are to the artist's own website or on supporters' websites, no third-part independent coverage can be identified. McMarcoP (talk) 12:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 27 January 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) 00:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cory thomas[edit]

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

The subject of the article does not appear to pass the requirements on WP:BIO. Rockfang (talk) 07:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG. JBsupreme (talk) 08:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Delete - Only claim of notability made is membership in a non-notable band. —LedgendGamer 08:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails any claim of notability. McMarcoP (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I also can find no evidence of notability beyond social networking pages. Also, in the unlikely event that this article is kept, someone should do a move so his surname is capitalized in the article title. This ain't Twitter. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:17, 27 January 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 per consensus regarding the subject's notability in the Cambodian popular culture. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 04:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meng Keo Pichenda[edit]

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

Delete. Zero hits on Google News archives. Before someone cries "systemic bias", I am more than willing to accept non-trivial coverage from non-English third party party publications. I'm not finding any evidence of that though... JBsupreme (talk) 07:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete unless extensive sources (in any language) can be presented to prove this musician's notability. McMarcoP (talk) 12:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Seeing the sources mentioned below, I change my position to Keep and suggest that such sources are referenced in the article. McMarcoP (talk) 10:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - looking through Google, I see a lot of videos, but no news stories. Many of the other Ghits read like "The Best of Engrish Online." It appears that she may be notable from her many TV appearances. Bearian (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Check the profile at Womad. According to this profile published by SrokKhmer.fr she is considered one of the most popular artists in Cambodia today. She is also mentioned among singers, who "introduced new musical styles to the country". However, this link is only passing mention. Her name appears in the Encyclopaedia Of Southeast Asia And Its Tribes. Unfortunately, I can't search in Khmer language. --Vejvančický (talk) 08:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning to keep. Note! She is also known as Meng Keo Pichdu, Meng Keo Picheta, and Meg Keo Pich Chenda. We're very hampered by not having machine translation of Khmer. She is said here and here to be a singing star. Ah, now here's a full Cambodia Daily news story from 1998 about her:[42] Fences&Windows 21:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If anyone can read Khmer, her name is ម៉េង កែវពេជ្ជតា, and here's a search:[43]. These are stories about her:[44][45] Fences&Windows 21:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked the seven recently active Khmer-speaking en.wikipedians to help with this AfD. Fences&Windows 22:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I insist to keep the article. I am Cambodian who is working in Khmer Wikipedia. As of my knowledge, Meng Keo Pichenda (her "calling" name, used widely amongst Cambodian people to refer to her)or Meng Keo Picheta(her formal name, as the name written in Khmer"ម៉េង កែវពេជ្ជតា"would pronounce) is one of popular singers in Cambodia in the 1990s. Nowadays, even she has less activities on TV or music world, her songs are still popular amongst Cambodia music listener.--គីមស៊្រុន (talk) 05:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google News doesn't search any Cambodian news sources. Searching Google for ម៉េង កែវពេជ្ជតា produces a good number of hits, including front page hits from Cambodian news web sites like camnews.org and cen.com.kh. --Roger McCoy/រ៉ាចើ (talk) 07:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this is a notable Cambodia singer who is well known in Cambodia. Sources exist in Khmer but please remember that countries like Cambodia are not likely to have a wealth of info online yet about most topics. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we can keep this page, because the person mentioned is a notable person in Cambodia at least. However, it needs more sources, whether they are in English or Khmer (Not that I'm volunteering.)PikachuGyeong (talk) 22:27, 1 February 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) 00:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warwick Dunnett[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Warwick Dunnett

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

Non-notable poker player whose biggest claim to fame is to have been the editor for a compilation of poker strategies. ---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!}

Weak delete I couldn't find much apart from some fantastic sounding PR articles. Certainly the waffle about the pilot career can be trimmed down. I'm interested to hear from the substantial editors, perhaps they have better resources that could be added to the article. Hazir (talk) 07:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The entire Poker players category needs a good cleaning. Who is up to the task? JBsupreme (talk) 08:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD about Warwick Dunnett. If hope your vote is based on the merits of this article. Hazir (talk) 08:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notified wikiproject Poker about this AFD---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 01:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am open to being convinced but it's all too thin at present. For example, a news archive search produces just this. Also, I don't think his tournament record is yet good enough for notability. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Concur with nominator, not significant enough coverage in reliable third-party sources. Risker (talk) 04:13, 30 January 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 withdrawn. Issues with this article have been resolved. JBsupreme (talk) 05:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kota Harinarayana[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete. This fellow has been tagged as unsourced since April 2007, and no substantial corrections to this problem have been made since then. Whether or not this is a WP:BLP problem may be arguable to some, but if it cannot be sourced to reliable third party publications then it must go. JBsupreme (talk) 07:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- –SpacemanSpiff 09:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- –SpacemanSpiff 09:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. On basis of article passes WP:Prof #3 and #6 but has a grand total of 5 GS cites: 500 are usually required for WP:Prof #1. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep (since we aren't addressing notability in this AfD, I don't think I need to comment on that) –SpacemanSpiff 21:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Vice chancellor is head of a university, and is thus intrinsically notable by WP:PROF. The history of the article is interesting, for the nominator here started out by removing content properly sourced to the official web page, which is acceptable for routine facts about a career. Incidentally, Xantippe is totally wrong when she asserts we use a numerical cutoff for cites in GS to judge notability DGG ( talk ) 00:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - VC of a University plus a Padma shri awardee -A VC of a Indian State university is the de facto highest administrative position. The chancellor of all state universities is the governor of the state and the chancellorship is ceremonial. Padmashree is a national level award given by the Govt of India. Thus Satisfies WP:PROF criteria #6 and #2 respectively--Sodabottle (talk) 04:01, 28 January 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. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 08:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flogging a dead horse[edit]

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

This is merely a dictionary entry that already exists in Wiktionary. Other than unnecessary verbosity, it offers absolutely nothing outside of standard dictionary fare: meaning, etymology, usage, and related phrases. Delete under WP:DICTIONARY. Bueller 007 (talk) 07:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 07:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A5 CTJF83 chat 07:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NAD. Daa89563 (talk) 07:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We're not a dictionary. I know that's a newsflash for some. JBsupreme (talk) 07:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We're not a dictionary and yet this article has been around for six years, most of Wikipedia's life. Common expressions are different than just words. Dream Focus 21:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic appears in numerous encyclopedias such as The Visual encyclopedia of nautical terms under sail and Oxford illustrated encyclopedia. Our article goes substantially beyond a dictionary entry and the article's title is not a word but a phrase. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep the wictionary version is a stub compared to this article. Very extensive history which just needs to be referenced. Ikip 02:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Beating a dead horse is a common expression, or used to be when I was younger. The article is not just a simple dictionary entry. Also, almost no one ever uses the wiktionary, never has, and never will. Dream Focus 05:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, because too many people have added common words and expressions to Wikipedia. We're trying to fix that. Powers ^T 13:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia is not paper. WP:PAPER There is no limit in space. Those common expressions have been around for years now, as old as Wikipedia itself most likely. This article was created on the 28th of September 2004. Dream Focus 21:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not arguing on the grounds of lack of space. But even though we are not paper, we have inclusion criteria, because we don't want to be everything. We only want to be an encyclopedia. We don't want to be a dictionary or an idiom guide. Powers ^T 23:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a glossary of idioms. Powers ^T 13:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is a repository of knowledge, including references to long-time usage of established idiom, and third party interpretations thereof. This (somewhat archaic) idiom is clearly more than a terse dicdef. Power.corrupts (talk) 20:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dicdefs need not be terse. Powers ^T 23:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Definitions and usage examples belong in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 21:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, substantial cultural and historical currency. Everyking (talk) 07:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Everyking -- Agathoclea (talk) 10:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major idioms of this sort have enough usage and information about them to be notable, and with the possibility of far more information than Wiktionary will include. DGG ( talk ) 03:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is far more than a dictionary definition. It goes into the history of the idiom itself, which is encyclopedic content. Specs112 (Talk!) 01:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is much more than WP:DICDEF. The term has strong historical, cultural and social connections. WWGB (talk) 01:21, 4 February 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. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 08:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert A. Flutie[edit]

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

Non-notable businessman. ^Bongo_matic 07:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find a few passing news mentions for his company (as in, "so-and-so, who is repped by Flutie Entertainment, will be joining..."), but even those make it sound like his brother Michael is the guy in charge. No significant coverage of Robert himself, as far as I can tell. Glenfarclas (talk) 07:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have the strong suspicion that this is nothing else than a CV. I couldn't find any meaningful mention of this person in external sources. McMarcoP (talk) 12:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changes have been made, more references have been added. An info. box has also been added. Sorry about the mistake this is my first time …let me know if there’s anything else needed. --- Scott Bernberg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottbernberg (talk • contribs) 06:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC) — Scottbernberg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

There are still no references to any reliable third-party sources that give significant coverage to the subject, or to any sources that provide evidence of the subject's meeting any other inclusion guideline. ^Bongo_matic 01:55, 4 February 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. Cirt (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Make a mountain out of a molehill[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous result was "keep", however, this is a perfect example of a dictionary entry, as it offers nothing other than the meaning of the phrase, the etymology, usage examples, and equivalents in other languages. This entry already exists in Wiktionary, and it should be deleted from Wikipedia according to WP:DICTIONARY. The arguments used in the previous debate were invalid appeals to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or "this is interesting". Bueller 007 (talk) 07:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and switch yah, dictionary style entry, --Quek157 (talk) 07:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 07:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NAD. Daa89563 (talk) 07:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious dictionary material, and yet we are an encyclopedia. Interesting that this was kept last time. JBsupreme (talk) 08:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't see any compelling reason to keep. In theory, we could make a mountain-sized article out of any molehill-sized cliché -- one could just as easily write an article called "making a big deal out of nothing" or "blowing things all out of proportion" or any other euphemism for overreacting. I wouldn't even make this a redirect to anything, because it doesn't even work as a search term. Mandsford (talk) 13:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is more than just a dictionary entry. It is a full article. It goes beyond an initial article with reliable sources explaining its origin and other info, thereby establishing notability. And yes, words and phrases can be notable for articles.

WP:NOTDICDEF states that:

1.)"Although articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic, they should provide other types of information about that topic as well." This article does just that. It is indeed an encyclopedia article.

Item #1 also states "Articles that contain nothing more than a definition should be expanded with additional encyclopedic content, if possible." One thing it does not say here is that they should be deleted.

Item #2 states that "in some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject."That is the case here.

Reply. It says "An encyclopedic definition is more concerned with encyclopedic knowledge (facts) rather than linguistic concerns." There is NOTHING in the article at present that is not a "linguistic concern". It gives the meaning, the etymology and similar phrases. ALL of these are "linguistic concerns", and ALL of them are part of a dictionary. If you can add something like the HISTORICAL IMPACT of the phrase, as in the case of mokusatsu, THEN the word becomes an encyclopedic subject. Bueller 007 (talk) 03:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2.)So far, I am the only one who has stated this should be kept. There are several other deletes. But deletion debates are not based on voting. All the deletes so far have been people who have said the same thing over and over, just varying the words - that it is a dictionary entry. Pretty much like the same old "just not notable" or "just a policy" arguments. So far, no one has elaborated like this why it should be kept. Hellno2 (talk) 14:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of all of us who say "the same thing over and over, just varying the words", I'd point out that WP:NOTDICDEF supports putting this type of article in Wiktionary rather than in Wikipedia. Quoting from that page, a Wikipedia article is about "a person, or a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc. that their title can denote. The [Wikipedia] article octopus is about the animal: its physiology, its use as food, its scientific classification, and so forth" while a Wiktionary article is about "the actual words or idioms in their title and all the things it can denote. The [Wiktionary] article octopus is about the word 'octopus': its part of speech, its pluralizations, its usage, its etymology, its translations into other languages, and so forth". There are thousands of common phrases that are used in English and that should be explained somewhere, and the preference is in the dictionary counterpart to Wikipedia (which, unfortunately, is not easily accessible). "Don't have a cow, man" is the same concept as "Don't make a mountain out of a molehill", but it's a (unnecessary, in my opinion) redirect. Mandsford (talk) 14:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Don't have a cow" is not quite the same, nor is hyperbole. The concept is distinct and that's why it persists over the centuries. A closer equivalent is to strain at a gnat but we don't have an article on that Biblical (mis)quotation which is itself the subject of much scholarship. There is much to say about such classical wisdom and to prefer the Simpsons seems ludicrous. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I've known you a long time Colonel, don't always agree with you, but I consider you a friend and I respect your stand on issues. Perhaps it wasn't your intent is to portray me as some type of buffoon, but that's the inference I'm drawing. Mandsford (talk) 01:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a dictionary. Dlabtot (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE. While notable by itself, merely because of its common useage, this has also been the subject of volumes of scholarship about metaphors, as this is one of the oldest ones used in the English language. This is an easy rescue, folks. Bearian (talk) 23:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to make a mountain out of a molehill, pardon the pun, but I've done a bit of work on this article. Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 00:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. You are not at all being honest when you say that it has "been the subject of volumes of scholarship". Your Google Scholar search returns all hits that USE THE PHRASE, not those that STUDY THE PHRASE. Hits include papers just because they include sentences such as "Minorities are most commonly accused of exaggerating (they are making a mountain out of a molehill!)" and papers about spirochaetes: "A mountain out of a molehill: do we treat acute leptospirosis, and if so, with what?" An ISI Web of Knowledge search looking for articles with a title or topic containing "mountain out of a molehill" returns precisely zero relevant hits. See also my detailed rely below to your many highly questionable and misleading "additions" to the page. Almost all of them are misquoted or taken WAY out of context. Bueller 007 (talk) 08:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is already well-sourced and goes beyond a dictionary entry in several ways. In particular, there is much scope to develop our account of this common behaviour type which is so often found here on Wikipedia. For example, I recently encountered a silly battle about passport/visa articles in which the degree of animus seemed out of all proportion to the point at issue. Aesop commented on this in his fables but such foolishness still abounds. As Wikipedia is first and foremost educational in its mission, it should provide a good account of such folly. I shall develop the topic further from a selection of the many good sources which we have yet to add. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article is well referenced and goes way beyond a simple dictionary definition. Certainly not all idioms warrant their own article, but this one does, as it seems to have been studied in depth. PDCook (talk) 01:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous. The depth to which something has been studied is irrelevant. Encyclopedias are not "collections of things that have been studied in more depth than would be found in a dictionary". Look at the OED (or most other major dictionaries for that matter) for collections of phrases that have been studied in far more depth than is offered here. It doesn't matter how well an article is sourced if it simply doesn't belong here. Encyclopedias are collections of concepts. They are emphatically NOT collections of phrases. The fact of the matter is that this is an idiom that does not have a unique meaning. The phrase "making a mountain out of a molehill" carries ZERO conceptual weight beyond that of "exaggeration". The only way in which the two phrases differ are precisely in those ways that are captured by a dictionary, NOT an encyclopedia, namely: spelling, pronunciation, etymology, and usage. Bueller 007 (talk) 01:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So are you going to bring all of these to AfD? Not to suggest that WP:Other stuff exists, but I was under the impression that idioms were concepts. PDCook (talk) 02:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see your argument is equivalent to WP:ALLORNOTHING, which is invalid. Besides, the answer to your question is NO. Some idioms do express unique concepts for which there is no other good term. "Apples and oranges" for instance, represents a particular kind of incommensurability for which there is no other good term in English. The phrase "make a mountain out of a molehill" and "exaggeration" express the same concept. This is why a thesaurus will list them together. Bueller 007 (talk) 03:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So if sometime back in history a word that described Apples and oranges was coined, then that article too should be deleted? I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I guess I'm not seeing why just because there is a synonym for a concept it doesn't warrant an article. PDCook (talk) 03:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. I don't understand your comment. Here's the rationale. Encyclopedias are collections of concepts, not phrases. "making a mountain out of a molehill" = "exaggeration". The concepts overlap completely. Therefore, two articles in Wikipedia are unnecessary. In this case, "exaggeration" gets precedent as an article title to represent that concept because it is the more plain, common term. For example, if someone started a new article tomorrow and called it "objects that are incommensurable on account of them being entirely different kinds of things", then I would recommend that it be deleted, because that concept is already covered in Wikipedia at "apples and oranges". This isn't about deleting things "just because they're idioms". It's about deleting things because they represent concepts that are already covered elsewhere in Wikipedia, because the concept cannot be expanded into an encyclopedia article, or because there's nothing notable about the idioms qua idioms. This idiom itself is not encyclopedic. You simply will not find an encyclopedia that has an entry with this heading. There's nothing in this article that is not properly handled by a dictionary. Bueller 007 (talk) 08:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might be persuading me. But, let's say someone added a sourced paragraph to the article in question about the history of the phrase and its impact on language and culture. How would that information fit into a dictionary? PDCook (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And you're right, that was poor phrasing on my part asking if you would bring them all to AfD. I wasn't suggesting an all or nothing situation; I was trying to express that many idioms can be described conceptually and not just as the words that make them up. PDCook (talk) 04:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep needs sourcing but that is something that can be provided, (maybe you could stubify the article, moving unsourced information to talk?) like the history of the word. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Make_a_mountain_out_of_a_molehill is a mere stub compared to this, with little history of this colorful term Ikip 02:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Much of the information that has been added since this nomination was made is absolute rubbish, and I hope that people aren't making their decisions based on this misleading stuff.

First, the paper supposedly claiming that linguists find the phrase particularly notable does not actually state this. The phrase is mentioned ONE TIME in passing, as one of many examples of an idiom that arises from certain flexible verbs. "Mountain out of a molehill" is idiomatic enough that it should be included in a dictionary under "make", they say.

Second, the citation for the notability of the phrase with respect to imagery and familiarity. Further demonstrating the fact that the person who added this information didn't actually read any of it, the phrase is ranked 58th ALPHABETICALLY. (Although it does still place within the top quartile, the commonness of an English phrase doesn't matter. An encyclopedia is not the place for phrases unless those phrases represent unique concepts or can be shown to have had historical impact qua phrase, as in the case of "mokusatsu", for example.)

Third, the number of Google hits is greatly inflated. There is a discrepancy, well-known among lexicographers, between "apparent" and "real" Google hits. The numbers that are returned are often greatly inflated compared to their real values. Often the number of apparent Google hits is orders of magnitude greater than it appears. When you see something that anyone with a wink of common sense realizes is ridiculous, like 3,000,000 Googits for such a long idiom, then you have to try it again on a different Google site or confirm it with Yahoo! or "Bing". Both of these sites confirm 40-50,000 Google hits. (This is not to deny that it's a commonly used phrase, just to point out that it's NOWHERE NEAR AS COMMON as the article stated. And again, the commonness of the phrase is irrelevant if it simply doesn't belong here.

Fourth, another sickeningly misleading claim is that the idiom has been the subject of significant scholarship, based on a laughable Google Scholar search. The results returned include books and open-source articles that merely happened to USE the phrase. An ISI Web of Knowledge search for "mountain out of a molehill" in the title or as the topic of the article returns ZERO relevant results.

Fifth, the claim that it is used as "the primary example" of accentuation is completely wrong. The reference merely happens to list it first among eight such idioms that are listed in no particular order. Others include "nobody loves me" and "everything gets on my nerves".

Sixth, the idiom is not "used ... as an example of how to teach English as a second language", and none of the articles cited claim anything of the sort. One reference mentions it in passing as a SINGLE EXAMPLE of many idioms that one might wish to teach to ESL students in a sample exercise. (May I suggest that a dictionary is a great place to find other such idioms?) The other mentions it as a single passing example of a dead metaphor they see as having potential for English-German language play.

Conclusion: The misinformation that has been added to this article merely so that it will not be deleted is an absolute disgrace. I do not attribute it to malice, but rather to exceptionally shoddy research. I encourage ALL of the people who voted "keep" above to reevaluate their votes in light of the fact that a large portion of the article consisted of nonsense until I cleaned it up. The fact remains that this idiom does not represent a unique concept, is not historically significant qua phrase, therefore it is unencyclopedic and it should be deleted. Bueller 007 (talk) 03:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guilty as charged. My work was shoddy. I was just trying to be helpful. I will stand by the community's decision to Delete if need be. Bearian (talk) 16:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Don't beat a dead horse with this. Its a fine article, more information than a simple dictionary entry, and almost no one ever uses the wiktionary anyway, nor is it likely ever will. Did the starting delete voters discuss this together somewhere? Dream Focus 05:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. No. Closer to the opposite, since a "Rescue" template (basically a sign crying out "come !vote keep at this AfD discussion") was posted on the article after TONS of incorrect and misleading information were added to the article to inflate it. This is the source of all your keep votes above. Bueller 007 (talk) 08:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the rescue tag that I placed on it. Bearian (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The {{rescue}} was restored by User:Colonel Warden, who removed the {{unencyclopedic}} tag in the same edit. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 21:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a glossary of idioms. Powers ^T 13:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Definitions and usage examples belong in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 21:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as anyone notices, while there are about an even number of keeps and deletes, the delete have said little more than "delete" and "dicdef" and other simple things like that. The "keeps" have given more elaborate multi-paragraph arguments in favor of keeping. Hellno2 (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, which tells me the arguments for deletion are much more straightforward, while the arguments for keeping require convoluted logic to get around the plain wording of WP:NAD. Powers ^T 12:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: From my reading, this article is about idioms describing the Cognitive distortion referred to as "Magnification". I would suggest keeping this as a section of a new article about the phenomenon itself. Then let "Make a mountain out of a molehill and the other similar idioms refer to this new article. Jojalozzo (talk) 00:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the term has substantial cultural and historical currency. Everyking (talk) 07:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, exceeds WIKT Agathoclea (talk) 15:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have Flip-flopped again, and while my efforts failed, others have done a much better job of rescuing this article. Bearian (talk) 00:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, already an encyclopedic treatment of the phrase. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major idioms of this sort have enough usage and information about them to be notable, and with the possibility of far more information than Wiktionary will include. DGG ( talk ) 03:48, 3 February 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) 00:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Prinz von Anhalt[edit]

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

The subject of this article does not appear to be notable enough for an article. Basically, he is a wealthy adult who paid money to the husband of a famous actress so he could acquire that last name. The husband of the actress acquired the last name in a similar manner when he was already an adult. Please comment. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 06:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Found no significant coverage of this person in any independent reliable sources. Fail WP:BIO. Daa89563 (talk) 07:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Entertaining character, but not relevant at all. No claims to notability except for having been adopted (as a 35-year-old) by Zsa Zsa Gabor. And even this would make him fall under WP:BLP1E. McMarcoP (talk) 12:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fail almost at every level 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 16:35, 27 January 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. Cirt (talk) 16:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jaime Zea[edit]

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

I'm not seeing how a suburban district mayor of a town comprising 35 square kilometers is inherently notable. Lacking that, I don't see sources that establish notability in the usual manner. MBisanz ^talk 06:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is some very passing mention on Gnews, but I can't find anything beyond that. Happy to reconsider if sources come out. --Cyclopia ^talk 08:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N and WP:V Jeepday (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is the Mayor of an area that has close to 400,000 residents. We have sources (amounting in my view to significant coverage) that confirm this: 1, 2 and 3. Incidentally it seems like he's Mayor again; I'll try to tinker with the article but the Spanish language sources will make that difficult. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What on earth does the area of the place of which the subject is mayor have to do with notability? The mayor of a municipality with a population (the sensible measure of size) of 367,436, who has received plenty of press coverage, pretty clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN criterion 2 as well as the general notability guideline. I'm at a loss to understand how the nominator and others calling for deletion managed to miss this while following WP:BEFORE. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, given that his District is the 6th largest of Peru's 1,833 Districts by population, it falls to the nominator to explain more thoroughly why he isn't notable. Since the article is so short, I would have just merged it to Villa El Salvador, and suggest that as a solution here. Abductive (reasoning) 06:47, 4 February 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. Nancy ^talk 18:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC) _{Note - article has been renamed Richard Baker (UK businessman) Nancy^talk 19:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

Richard Baker (Businessman)[edit]

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

non-notable person. content of the article consists entirely of promoting and advertising a person. Amsaim (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hold for now Article is badly written by a new editor and reads like a resume. However, there is sufficient information in the article to establish notability. A simple Google search brings up multiple independent sources that suggest he has more than sufficient notability for inclusion, for example:

http://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/news/884350/Nectar-card-owner-names-ex-Boots-head-Richard-Baker-board/

http://ashteadgroup.org/Article6.RBInterview.aspx

http://www.adventinternational.com/news/PressReleases/pages/Pressrelease20090820_En.aspx

http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2002/09/20/189736/joint-loyalty-card-dips-into-customer-data-honeypot.htm

~~If no effort is made to improve the article, then delete as per nom.~~

~~Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 14:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment. In my opinion, the article requires a major cleanup or rewrite to become encyclopedic. I would not suggest keeping it in its current state: WP:PROMOTION, WP:OR, WP:BLPSTYLE. — Rankiri (talk) 15:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC) ^{(Explanation below) — Rankiri (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

~~It would require substantial rewriting. Perhaps userfying the article would be appropriate?~~

Keep for now. Let's just notice the editor, and wait for him/her to improve the article. If no efforts would be made, then userfy to the creator. Blodance the Seeker 16:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've tinkered with the article a little, bringing it more in line with other WP articles. It still needs a lot of work, but it's possibly better than it was. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If the article is kept then it needs a better dab as there is already an article on someone else with the title Richard Baker (businessman). Keith D (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about Richard Baker (UK businessman)? Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox (talk) 06:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Makes no claim of notability. Abductive (reasoning) 07:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm a little surprised that the article was placed on Wikipedia, then effectively abandoned by the original author. Mind you, there was a little bit of biting involved... he may have been scared off. The subject is clearly notable under WP:GNG. I've added multiple references to demonstrate this. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 15:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I've rewritten the article. Subject satisfies all relevant notability guidelines. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All WP:PROMOTION and WP:OR concerns have been addressed. Sources like [46], [47], or [48] satisfy the criteria of WP:BIO. — Rankiri (talk) 16:33, 27 January 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 Cher albums discography#Box set compilations. Cirt (talk) 16:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Casablanca Years[edit]

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

Non notable compilation. Kekkomereq4 (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question - we have the review from AllMusic which I'm quite sure is one piece of the notability question. But how many more reliable sources are needed? I can't find anything else on this quickie compilation beyond various music retailing or downloading sites. With just that one review I would vote Delete but consider this to be a procedural question for now. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Cher is unquestionably a notable artist. If her bio article were to have all the worthwhile and properly sourced information about her, however, it would be far too long. Therefore, the editors of the article have properly used summary style. The main article links to a daughter article concerning Cher albums discography, and that article links to articles about particular albums. It's an excellent way to make available a rich level of detail about Cher (which some readers would want) without surrendering to clutter that would impair Wikipedia's value for readers who want less detail. JamesMLane t c 08:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is something of a gray area: compilations by notable artists are generally notable, while reissues of old albums tend not to get ther own articles (though rare exceptions do exist). This is a strange case where the same set of tracks has been released both as a reissue and a compilation. It seems wisest to give it the benefit of the doubt rather than create a whole in a solid discography. It certainly isn't a bad article either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no gray area here. What we have are two reissued albums tossed into one shopping bag. The 1994 release didn't pretend it was anything else, juxtaposing the names ("Take Me Home/Prisoner") and covers of the original albums. Both original albums already have articles; is there something more to say about this chimera? Reviewers say "No", which is why there is not significant coverage of this product. Yappy2bhere (talk) 02:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see now that the entire review and the tracklist that followed it have been copied verbatim into the article. That's sure to end badly. Yappy2bhere (talk) 02:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Cher albums discography; it's a compliation of two albums listed there. Abductive (reasoning) 07:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The lack of significant independent reviews that state more than "This is a compilation ...." suggest that this album is not notable enough in its own right to justify its own page, however there is valuable information about the work i.e release dates & cover pics that should appear either in the listings for Take me home, Prisoner, the album discography or all three. Mighty Antar (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect Just because an artist is notable, doesn't mean every release is Alan - talk 23:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and targeted redirect to Cher albums discography#Box set compilations, so that information might be WP:PRESERVED ^walk victor falk^talk 02:57, 4 February 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 Kebab . –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steam kebab[edit]

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

non notable food. Initially just a recipe, the current version makes no indication of why it should be here noq (talk) 19:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & Wikipedia in not a how-to guide. --Evb-wiki (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, or transwiki if we have some sort of recipe wiki, which I'm not sure of though it doesn't seem so. Glenfarclas (talk) 03:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WikiBooks has a Cookbook. 70.29.211.138 (talk) 11:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if the article can be improved. There are many stub articles about foods and dishes from various countries, quite a few with much less information than this one. (E.g., look at sanyaa.) I don't think this is a subject that's inherently non-notable. Dr.frog (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Merge into Kebab as a variant. Though the cooking style differs from traditional, skewered kebabs, it's a valid and encyclopedic subject. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 17:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note List of kebabs already has a redlink to this food as Buğu kebabı. Dr.frog (talk) 04:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per om nom nom. Or transwiki to Wiki Cookbooks (still, delete). Sounds tasty though. JBsupreme (talk) 07:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Kebab per WP:NOTHOWTO. Fails WP:GNG. Click23 (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Kebab. There is no reason to delete this. Warrah (talk) 04:37, 3 February 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) 00:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xenognosticism[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism with zero Google hits. The author (User:Xenognostic) contested my PROD with the claim, "This page contains directly sourced Wikipedia material, along with the definition of a previously undefined conjunction." Glenfarclas (talk) 06:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; seems to be the author's own synthesis of two existing concepts. If this really "is backed by scientific evidence relating to the study of quantum mechanics", I would expect some reliable sources indicating such. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 07:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NEO. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 08:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the conjunction of the terms is previously undefined, then there won't be sources that document it, and it should be deleted - for now. There is always the possibility that the term will gain traction and coverage, and if so an article becomes appropriate. But we're not there yet. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable neologism, and exactly none of it is sourced. Hairhorn (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable neologism. Entry appears to be an attempt to use Wikipedia to introduce a linguistic innovation. —SlamDiego_←T 05:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Also very unsoured, I suspect this is OR of a very extream kind.Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a related technical term but this usage is OR. Jojalozzo (talk) 22:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Stinks of OR besides being unsourced and a neo. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:01, 31 January 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Big Blue Book[edit]

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

Delete or redir to Little Blue Book. Appears to lack notability for its own article -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Big Blue Books were significant for much the same reason as the sister Little Blue Books: The Big Blue Book series sold a great many copies, and many of its works were originals by “notable” authors, such as Joseph McCabe, Bertrand Russell (An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish, Big Blue Book B-345), and sexologist D. O. Cauldwell. The present article is a stub, and hence lacks a great deal of what one might ultimately want in an article. —SlamDiego_←T 06:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just looking at the first few of these 313 Google Books hits finds this and this. I would urge the nominator to take the few seconds needed to follow WP:BEFORE in the future to avoid wasting everyone else's time in discussing articles on such clearly notable subjects. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Number of google hits does not determine notability for books. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep significant publisher's series. Gcounts are usually meaningless, but this is not true of GBooks, GScholar or GNews, because weach of them are selections, extracted in a meaningful way. They still take interpretation and examination, but its not like GCounts. DGG ( talk ) 03:51, 3 February 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Top Dog Theatre[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. looks a bit like an advert. hardly any third party coverage. [49]. we don't have articles on every local amateur theatre company. LibStar (talk) 05:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems no more notable than any number of amateur theatre groups, none of which are sufficiently notable for a wiki article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:N Jeepday (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:N. The Press website has 3 fairly trivial mentions, but the ChCh Libraries website Papers Index / Subject search says "'Top Dog Theatre Company.' occurs 41 times"[50], and the Highbeam article linked in the article looks to be in-depth. XLerate (talk) 00:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree it meets WP:N, and I don't see why amatuer theatre companies are inherently non noteable. But I also agree it needs a rewrite to sound less like a promo.Winstonwolfe (talk) 03:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the theatre was recognized with an award by a local newspaper, "Best Theatre-Runner Up", that makes it notable in my view. --Mdukas (talk) 08:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

being a runner up in a local competition does not meet WP:ORG. you're simply inventing criterion for notability, WP:ORG or WP:GNG applies here. LibStar (talk) 12:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:N. Just because they are amateur doesnt make them not notable (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Intermark Group. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vazda Studios[edit]

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

Orphan article created by Alexandra.routhier (talk · contribs), an editor who only edited Wikipedia from June 30 to August 15, 2008 to create the above article as well as MSP Intermark. The article reads like an advert and a resume, listing "clients and experience", the company president's prior experience, the specific services the company offers as well as what tools are used to provide these services. Extensive searches to locate reliable sources that mention the company in a non-trivial manner turn up empty, leaving me unable to verify that the company meets WP:CORP. I'll gladly withdraw my nomination if sources can be found showing notability and providing info that can be used to populate the article with encyclopedic information rather than its current advertisment-type information. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 01:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Intermark Group, the parent corporation. Interestingly, an analysis of the googlehits linked above will reveal that most of this article's content actually refers to the parent corporation.--Pink Bull 22:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 05:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Intermark Group per WP:FAILN. Click23 (talk) 20:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Intermark Group per Pink Bull. Per the Google News Archive search, the notability of Vazda Studios seems hinged on Intermark Group. Cunard (talk) 23:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Intermark Group per everyone else's statement. I also agree that WP:FAILN applies here. Buggie111 (talk) 19:38, 28 January 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 WakkaWiki. Merge what you will from the history, but I see little sourceable information that could be merge-worthy. Sandstein 06:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UniWakka[edit]

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

UniWakka is a wiki application that seems to have been under development from 2004 to 2006 or so, but never with any notable usage or references. Yaron K. (talk) 03:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All that I can find for significant coverage is [51]. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 04:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 06:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to WakkaWiki. Multiple books mention it as a derivative of that, but there's not much commentary otherwise. Pcap ping 06:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Pohta ce-am pohtit. LotLE×talk 09:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 05:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into WakkaWiki, does not pass WP:GNG on its own. Click23 (talk) 20:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N without question and the other article subject is not much better. Jeepday (talk) 23:28, 27 January 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 Robert Baker Aitken. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Sangha[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:N (WP:ORG). This organization is not notable. The external links are primarily to websites that promote this organization in some way, and not to 3rd party sources.None of the Google News hits on it qualify as significant coverage; they all mention Diamond Sangha incidentally in relation to the actual subject of the article, which in most cases, is Robert Baker Aitken. Further, none of the Google Scholar hits are about Diamond Sangha. They simply mention it as an institutional affiliation of the author or subject of the article. That means the subject of the article is notable, not Diamond Sangha. If someone can show me a single third-party article that is about Diamond Sangha itself, and not about Robert Baker Aitken, I will be happy to withdraw the nomination. ɳoɍɑfʈ^Talk! 05:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Robert Baker Aitken. He is notable, and he founded the center, the information in the Diamond Sangha article could be incorporated nicely into Aitken's article. The center itself is not notable; the nom says it all. Wine Guy Talk 09:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article indicates it was co-founded by his Aitken's wife, who has her own Wikipedia article. --Pink Bull 01:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We could merge it there, then. Good call. Care to cast your vote? ɳoɍɑfʈ^Talk! 04:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

that's the thing: i'm not sure where to merge the article, into the article on the husband, into the article on the wife, or both. this becomes even more problematic when deciding where to redirect the article name. so i guess, i'm on the record to merge the article, just not sure where exactly.--Pink Bull 04:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ɳoɍɑfʈ^Talk! 14:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This between both this and the last deletion nomination, this article has 2 Delete votes, 1 Merge vote, and 1 Keep vote, with the Keep vote saying "At worst this should be merged." I'd support merging as well, so that's 3 merges and a delete, as a secondary. ɳoɍɑfʈ^Talk! 22:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 05:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Continued from above in reply to Pink Bull) While Anne and Robert Aitken did co-found the center, he was the spiritual leader as Rōshi (Zen Master). Then his Dharma heir took over, who in turn trained the current Rōshi;[52] so the spiritual lineage (Kechimyaku), an important concept in Buddhism, traces back to Robert. He also has a much more significant bibliography, and is a more significant figure in general than Anne. That's why I suggested that the information from this article be merged to Robert's. Wine Guy Talk 06:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

in that case, merge to Robert Baker Aitken.--Pink Bull 15:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect, If someone may want to be WP:BOLD, merge what ever is worth keeping before the closing admin redirects. Jeepday (talk) 23:25, 27 January 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) 00:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Live from the Kitchen[edit]

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

An unreleased album that fails WP:NALBUMS. No reliable source gives a release date for the album. The references consist of an interview with the artist, and links to three songs supposedly on the album. There doesn't appear to be other significant coverage of the album in reliable sources. A mixtape with the same name has been circulating for a year now, so although Google returns hits for "Live from the Kitchen"+"yo gotti", they all appear to be hits on the mixtape. Yappy2bhere (talk) 04:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:CRYSTAL. Also WP:HAMMER. Unreleased, lack of significant media coverage in reliable sources, no firm release date. Skip re-directing because again, it lacks a confirmed release date and significant coverage. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 06:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is a release date for the album, but as it's 2 months away and as there isn't an awful lot to say about the album, it doesn't seem worth keeping it at the moment. Recreation nearer to its release when more details are available would be best.--Michig (talk) 07:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I updated the article with more information about the album. I hope this helps so the article won't be deleted. --NewOrleans4Life (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've restored the AfD message deleted from the article by user:Going Undertakerrr. Yappy2bhere (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article includes a number of sources discussing the release, which - if reliable - would satisfy WP:GNG. It's an unfamiliar subject, so I don't know about their reliability.--Pink Bull 00:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 05:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CRYSTAL, If it is ever released the deleted article can be restored as a foundation if notability and Wiki expectations are met. Jeepday (talk) 23:21, 27 January 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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Klee Irwin[edit]

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

No external sources are provided to indicate notability and Google News doesn't show much beyond press releases from the subject's buisness interests and a couple of random swipes at the man's appearance and demeanor. — Scientizzle 22:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No external sources simply should be listed as verification needed. If other info pitchman are included, Klee Irwin should be included as well since he is on air as much as others on Wiki. The article simply needs to be expanded and sourced.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Postcard Cathy (talk • contribs)
- It would be more helpful if independent, reliable sources were provided. Do you know of any through which we could write an appropriate BLP article that is more than one line? — Scientizzle 15:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very week keep. Googlenews indicates some notability, [53] but it seems that he's seen in a negative light by most reliable soures, so perhaps we should err on the safe side. --Pink Bull 00:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 05:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N per article content, making infomercials does not make notable it makes salesmen. No WP:RS on article. Jeepday (talk) 23:19, 27 January 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Logical Information Machines[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 04:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The article is in bad need of cleanup - it spends more time talking about its products than the company, making it feel vaguely like a WP:COATRACK. But I note keep in consession to Eastmain's contributions to the article. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, weakly, but probably ought to be merged to Morningstar, Inc. once the acquisition is done. And when a business is built around one or two products, they probably should be covered together. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:42, 27 January 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) 00:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Life[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 03:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 04:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find anything of significance either, and I don't think Uprising Records is considered a major indie label. The most I found was a review on the-trades.com, which isn't self-evidently a reliable source and would still not be sufficient in my opinion to make this band encyclopedically notable. Glenfarclas (talk) 07:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Glen, Jeepday (talk) 23:15, 27 January 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 Halcyon Days. This was a difficult decision to make, particularly because the keeps clearly outnumber the deletes/redirects. The main reason for deleting/redirecting is WP:DICDEF and WP:RS; an invalid reason was WP:UGLY. But from the keep arguments I am seeing the following: ad hominem, concern with bad precedent, WP:NOHARM, WP:INTERESTING, and WP:BHTT. Bearian and Ikip mentioned that the article was sourceable, but failed to list any actual ones (WP:LOTSOFSOURCES). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Halcyon days[edit]

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

This is merely an unreferenced dictionary entry, giving the meaning (poorly written and incorrect) and etymology of an English phrase that already exists in Wiktionary, as well as a list of "cultural references". And as we all know, such lists of trivia are discouraged on Wikipedia. Delete under WP:DICTIONARY, and create a redirect to the Halcyon Days disambig page, copying any of this article's worthy trivia items there. (I attempted a very limited redirect/merge with Halcyon Days, but it was reverted.) Bueller 007 (talk) 03:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment half the article is largely replicative of the dab page, couldn't you just WP:BOLDly redirect it as a dupe? 76.66.200.154 (talk) 06:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did and it got reverted. I'm looking for wider opinion on the matter. (And I'm trying to set some precedent for the deletion of idioms from Wikipedia, since I've recently noticed that Wiki contains a lot of crap that really belongs in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia.) Bueller 007 (talk) 07:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Halcyon Days, per nominator. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 07:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (although a delete is just as well I think) in that this is covered more succinctly in the disambiguation page, Halcyon Days, and in that there is no reason to have Halcyon days and Halcyon Days existing as two separate articles. The "Days" article includes a link to Wiktionary and some explanation for a term that people would consult an encyclopedia for. The mention of the myth is in the Wiktionary link, and I can live without the pop culture references. Surprisingly, no mention of the prescription sleep aid Halcion in the pop culture part, the brand name for the triazolam, first marketed under the halcyon like name for the calmness that it promised. Mandsford (talk) 14:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator seems to be on a deletion spree without having established good precedent for the swathe of articles that he is attempting to delete in an intemperate way. This is third such I'm following up and I should really go to bed. As a token, consider Etymological information: can it help our students? which explains that "Thus blackbird needs no 'why' etymology, but a phrase such as halcyon days does. The need for 'why' etymologies is particularly strong in the case of idioms, whose relation as wholes to the sum of their parts is (almost by definition!) opaque. ... Thus halcyon days is described as...". More anon. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE and the Colonel. Again, I must stress that (a) such idioms are perfectly acceptable, and are commonly kept at Wikipedia, and (b) mass nominations are straining our ability to rescue even a few of these. I am currently working on Make a mountain out of a molehill, also nominated for deletion after very clear consensus two and a half years ago. We also have to deal with the threatened deletion of 60,000 BLPs in the next six months. Quite frankly, this sort of deletionist behavior is unfair. If you are going to nominate articles, at least do a Google scholar search first. Bearian (talk) 01:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC) BTW, the precedent is contrary to the nom; several AfDs have ended up as "keeps" in 2007-2008. This would make a terrible precedent, as a hard case in a difficult situation, and I am noting so for the record. Bearian (talk) 01:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs sourcing but that is something that can be provided, (maybe you could stubify the article, moving unsourced information to talk?) like the history of the word. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Halcyon_days is a mere stub compared to this, with little history of this colorful term Ikip 02:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and combine all these related AFDs together to save time. Nothing wrong with a common idiom having its own article. Dream Focus 06:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep The Wikt entry is terse and descriptive (per def), an encyclopedic entry could provide a rich decription including examples of historic and cultural usage of the term. Clear expansion potential, no reasno to delete. Power.corrupts (talk) 20:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Having two articles with the same name (outside of a single capped letter) is a just a mess. The Halcyon Days page is a reasonable Wikipedia disambig and gives all the info it should. Halcyon days, otoh, is just a large pile of trivia on top of a dicdef. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 22:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep major idioms of this sort can be notable, and belong here. for there is more to say than wiktionary permits. If wiktionary were actually an encyclopedic dictionart, man things could go there, but it keeps its content very narrow. DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 3 February 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) 00:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Levitasyon[edit]

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

Non-notable band that doesn't pass wp:MUSICBIO. Mattg82 (talk) 03:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This might not be an independent source (althought it might be), but unless the claims made are outright falsehoods, this band is notable. --96.233.40.199 (talk) 05:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 03:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I am not seeing WP:N or WP:RS Jeepday (talk) 23:13, 27 January 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) 00:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Kroesbergen[edit]

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

An oddly non-notable person, given the claim to fame. No hits whatsoever in Google Books, and only four in a Google News search--of which only two seem to offer what we might, possibly, call significant discussion of the topic, which is what WP:N requires (more than just mention). Drmies (talk) 03:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are a handful of hits for him on Google Books as "Thomas Kroesbergen", but they are just listings. The party website gives a brief bio at [54], but with no independent sources offering any in-depth information, there's insufficient evidence of notability. Warofdreams talk 19:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete -there is some mention but agree with warofdreams, there are no independent sources offering any in-depth information. Wikipedia would not be any poorer without including him in my view,,, Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:50, 28 January 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) 00:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Love Machine (Novel)[edit]

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

Non-notable unreleased book lacking GHits of substance and with zero GNEWS. Appears to fail WP:NOTBOOK. ttonyb (talk) 03:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this book. Joe Chill (talk) 03:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, not notable. It amazes me that the author of this article can't see the difference between an encyclopedia article and a book review and chose to write the latter. --96.233.40.199 (talk) 05:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 10:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sourced notability; even the author himself doesn't have an article. In fact, in accordance with CSD A9, I'd like to suggest that the parallel "an article about a book that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant and where the author's article does not exist" should probably also be added to the speedy criteria. Bearcat (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per the above reasons, really just a lack of notability. It's also in violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, being a "Plot-only description of [a] fictional work" Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 19:12, 31 January 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. The books about him make notability clear. JohnCD (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jay E. Adams[edit]

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

Effectively unreferenced BLP that I had trouble finding any independent sources for. Prodded as promotional with self-interested sources, prod was seconded, and then was contested. Gigs (talk) 03:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, on this one. Noble idea, interesting idea, certainly innovative. But unfortunately, he's not really notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not that this is particularly relevant to your vote, but in what way is advocating discrimination against nonchristians innovative? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse prod, er, I mean delete due to lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable third parties. JBsupreme (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep worldcat lists 20 separate books about him [55], as well as 23 theses [56] How anyone can then say there are no sources for notability escapes me entirely. (I will say I am a little surprised; although I did not expect to find anything, and certainly not this much, I looked anyway) DGG ( talk ) 00:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep per DGG. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. He's one of the key writers in the field. I'll see if I can add some references. StAnselm (talk) 00:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per DGG. Warrah (talk) 04:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've added quotations from Derek Tidball and John F. MacArthur to the article in order to establish notability. StAnselm (talk) 04:42, 3 February 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) 00:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Foa[edit]

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

Two non-notable young businessmen, articles created by User:51Give, which is the name of their "social entrepreneurship business." The most significant coverage I can find on either of them in anything like a reliable source is a one-sentence mention in China Daily (Google Translate version here). Is 51Give a WP:NOBLECAUSE? Maybe, but its principals are not there yet in terms of notability. Glenfarclas (talk) 02:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Both articles read like CVs. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete * looks like spam to me. JBsupreme (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very close to a speedy deletion as G11 for being exclusively promotional. DGG ( talk ) 00:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless we are hosting resumes now. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:55, 30 January 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. Consensus seems to be that WP:NOTNEWS applies here. NW (Talk) 02:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd R. Woodson[edit]

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

All he was arrested for was a multiple weapons charge and a few other things. All he is known for is one event. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The issue of notability was discussed briefly on the articles talk page. The article is becoming rather lengthy from prominent sources which would not be possible were it not of some notability. I say this on the assumption that notability was your rational for recommending it for deletion. And, those weapons that he was charged with possessing are for more than hnting or holding up a 7-11. Supertouch (talk) 02:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are others out there who are likely arrested daily for these types of things. He really isn't all that different from other people who have a massive gun collection and are arrested. A few years ago, a guy nearby my house was arrested with an arsenal, and he wasn't notable by Wikipedia standards. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did he have the breadth of RS coverage that we are seeing here -- already, every major RS in the US, and now those outside the US are picking it up as well?--Epeefleche (talk) 03:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. I wasn't focused on looking for external links on what I already knew though. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you to an extent, that this article is not notable. However, the specter of terrorism, even if one substantiated by a headdress is what adds a healthy dose of notability to an otherwise routine--and perhaps troubling--incident. Supertouch (talk) 03:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In just a few hours since the triggering event took place, this has been covered in depth by what appears to be every major RS in the United States (see the refs in the article for a sampling, or hit google news), and now coverage from around the world is streaming in. Meets WP's notabilty standards. Clearly not local "routine news coverage".--Epeefleche (talk) 04:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is still a one event type of individual. His event just happens to be covered by a lot of world media on a rather slow news day. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many individuals are one-event individuals; especially arrested people. The question is the level of RS coverage. Here, it is extraordinarily broad. When you have 500 articles in the first 50 hours, and the largest RSs are all without exception covering it with multiple in-depth articles, it is notable. BTW, there are 50,000 BLP articles that don't have even one footnote that are on wikipedia. Among those one is more likely to find what is truly non-notable. This article already has more RS coverage reflected that we likely have on the vast majority of existing wip articles.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So go fix those other articles, that has no bearing on this issue. Grsz¹¹ 14:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exists may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this. Here, it is part of a larger, cogent argument.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He was arrested because he carried a gun. This is not notable. Media coverage will go away in a day and than this guy is another prisoner somewhere in the US. --Stone (talk) 10:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Media coverage continued, and spread to Europe, Asia, and South America. His weapons were military-grade, and more than "a gun". Woodson admitted he intended to use the weapons in furtherance of a violent crime. Fort Drum was notified by the authorities. According to a law enforcement source, other items were recovered that could indicate ties by Woodson to radical Islam and a militant Islamic group based in the U.S.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In order to preempt WP:NOTNEWS we need extensive, prolonged coverage. This was news for a day (maybe two) and despite the existence of articles about the subject, he does not pass WP:BLP1E for that reason. Grsz¹¹ 14:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. Otherwise, any event that is two days old would never warrant a wikipedia article. Which is clearly not the case.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes you can estimate that there will be prolonged new coverage. What makes you think that he will be in the news longer than two days? He is not a terrorist and he killed nobody. His 15 minutes of fame are over and thats not good enough for a wikipedia article.--Stone (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is a textbook example of why we have WP:NOTNEWS in the first place. JBsupreme (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless something very much more comes of it. (I was asked my opinion of it before it was listed here, and I advised listing it for deletion). It is however false that we need prolonged coverage before we can have an article, if it appears reasonably likely to be of permanent interest. This is a good example of something that probably does not. DGG ( talk ) 00:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sorry, this is a blatant BLP violation and example of why Wikipedia does not lead. Here we have official evidence and statements he was arrested but not convicted and most tellingly that he is not considered a terrorist. We likely could come up with numerous other things he has been accused of but to be notable as a criminal or terrorist we lack sources of either. Perhaps the article is simply too soon? Maybe he will become well-known but for now we remain not a WP:Crystal ball. -- Banjeboi 03:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, we routinely reflect those who have been arrested but not convicted. See, for example, the suspects in the Fort Hood shootings and the 2009 Christmas Day Bombing. In those cases, as well, the charges are not at this point under terrorism statutes--that is not a requirement either. The wikipedia test is not conviction. Is is coverage in reliable sources, which we have an abundance of here -- literally hundreds, from across the US and around the world, in just three days -- much more coverage than we have vis-a-vis many others who have been at AfDs, and who have survived AfDs specifically because they were considered to have sufficient RS coverage to qualify as notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those people actually killed somebody or attempted to. All Lloyd did was get caught with weapons. The headdress reason for keeping the article is also concerning because it makes it look like he is notable because he was wearing one, he is "associated" with terrorism. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He was caught w/military grade weapons and a detailed map of a military establishment. He wasn't wearing the headdress--it was with his weapons and map. It's not clear that he was associated with terrorism; preliminary conclusions were that no evidence of that had been discovered in the first few hours -- readers can draw their own conclusions, one of which may very well be a "false flag" one, particularly if it turns out he is not Muslim (though of course that is not for us to do -- synthesis, and all that). But no doubt the press/public is interested because of the parallels to the Fort Hood shooting, and other attacks in the past few years on US military in the US.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nadal has about 4 to 5 times daily as many views as Nadal Hasan, according to Wikichecker. I also think that the counts for Lloyd will be inflated because he is up for an AFD and he has a current events tag on his page. In a few days, he will be unknown as people tend to forget this stuff rather quickly. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The plentiful sources attest to the long-term notability. Perhaps the article can be renamed "Lloyd R. Woodson arrest".--Pink Bull 03:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem w/the renaming of the article, if that is a consensus view (assuming redirects for his name to it).--Epeefleche (talk) 03:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps "Speculated planned attack on Fort Drum"? _wjemather ^bigissue 23:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is the same problem with the "murder of" people articles when a murder that reaches international news coverage, but it is argued that the person that was murdered is not notable. Coverage of the person extends back to his Navy desertion days, so his biography is notable in itself beyond this single arrest, especially since his arsenal goes way beyond Nidal Hassan's two handguns. Unlike Flight 253 or Fort Hood, there is no notable location or name for this event besides the name of the man unless it's the "quickie mart attack plot" or some similar title that becomes popular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bachcell (talk • contribs) 04:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:109PAPERS. I'll change my mind if this is still getting media attention in a week, but for now it just seems like another crime story of brief news interest but no lasting notability. Robofish (talk) 14:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would normally say that WP:BLP1E applies, except that there's no event associated with this person. Must have been a slow news day or something, but WP:NOTNEWS still applies. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 09:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Now the initial hysteria has passed, it is clear that unless something major happens, this is a non-notable news story. Indeed, it is a minor news story that has rightly been given no coverage at all in many countries, including the UK. The short sub-section in the Fort Drum article more than adequately covers the subject, and I'm not entirely sure that is necessary either. _wjemather ^bigissue 09:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine the "hysteria" you refer to is the coverage in many RSs of his arrest. RS coverage in hundreds of news articles, even if you view it as hysterical in nature (reflecting your POV), is precisely the indicia we look for to determine if an article is noteworthy. The article itself already reflects coverage -- generally in full-length articles -- by ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, UPI, Fox News, The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, USA Today, the Boston Herald, and Forbes, among others, as well as in France in the Agence France-Presse.

Furthermore, contrary to your insinuation, it's clearly more than local news, and there is no requirement of course that the Brits cover it. That said, it also is apparently being covered in The Netherlands,[57][58][59] Hungary,[60][61] Canada,[62][63], Poland,[64] Brazil,[65] Pakistan,[66] Taiwan,[67] and the Spanish-language Univision.[68] You may have missed those as you were looking for coverage outside the U.S.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask you to not misrepresent what I said. Nowhere did I say this was a local news story. I stated that the press in many countries including the UK have not reported this incident at all. That still stands. These are news providers that pick up all the major news wires (AP, Reuters, AFP, etc.), but they have chosen to ignore this story. In addition, based on gnews, there has been barely any coverage in the past 2–3 days. The hysteria (yes, my POV) was due to the initial assumption that the guy was some kind of terrorist, which has since been dispelled. Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT, volume of news coverage is not an indicator of notability, and the widespead reporting that you cite is simply routine coverage. _wjemather ^bigissue 23:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If all you meant to say was that the incident has been reported on in the U.S., France, The Netherlands, Hungary, Canada, Poland, Brazil, Pakistan, and Taiwan, but not in the U.K. to your knowledge and some other countries, that is not especially strong support for your vote. IMHO. As to what the initial coverage was due to -- you've no basis at all for your statement. Indeed, the earliest indication was that Woodson did not appear to have a link to a known terrorist group or a terrorist plot, but it was stressed that that was only a "preliminary finding." Second, later reports have indicated that Woodson admitted he intended to use the weapons in furtherance of a violent crime (that just came out Friday), and that other items were recovered that could indicate ties by Woodson to radical Islam and a militant Islamic group based in the U.S.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Comment. This appears to be an attempt to censor what on the face of it appears to be yet another plot of a violent attack on an Army base, so far every one including Little Rock, Fort Hood, and the underpants bomber motivated by the Jihadist belief that US soldiers must be killed according to Islamic decree. The suspect has already admitted intention to commit crimes with the small arsenal that he had. The fact that the FBI has pronounced this not a terrorist act so quickly makes this notable, and likely that like Fort Hood, the statement is a cover-up that there is enough evidence pointing to terrorism to make it worth doing a cover up. The authorities will NOT comment further on what the guy said. This is a significant event, even if it dies down remains a notable event as part of a pattern of violence against military and civilian targets by Jihadists, even if it proves to be a false link (and so far there have been no false positives)Bachcell (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The user already voted "keep" above. This vote is not needed. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt he meant to header it a Comment. I've made the change for him above.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes, if that's the way that it works. Now information says that he intended to commit violent crimes, and evidence points to islamic extremist connections. This is not just your normal neighborhood police blotter when sombody's car got broken into down the street. What is the real motivation for voting to suppress what looks like yet another attempted attack similar to Little Rock, fort Hood, and fort Dix??? How many of these people are still convinced Fort Hood had no connections to terrorism, as the FBI and Army have unbelievably concluded? Bachcell (talk) 05:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend sticking to policy discussion and moving away from vague mumblings about conspiracies. Ridernyc (talk) 05:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTNEWS, notable for one event that the media tried to sensationalize. Article is already turning into a POV nightmare for one event. If there are new developments, and if there is continued in depth coverage recreate the article. Ridernyc (talk) 23:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a topic of ongoing public interest. Woodson may be notable only for one event, but in the absence of any obvious target for a move or redirect, I think it's appropriate that his name should be the article title. This clearly goes way beyond an ordinary "guy gets arrested for unlicensed gun collection" news story. Wikipedia is not news but we do have many articles on notable events which have been reported in the news, and rightly so; and significantly, we also have a neutral point of view policy which is enforced usually quite effectively through collective editing. Maintaining this article on a notable subject serves the public interest. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 08:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Zero gnews hits for over two days would indicate interest has gone away. There is a POV issue with regards speculation and conspiracy therories related to terrorism. The article's creator and it's major contributor are both pushing this issue and have done so both in this article and others by insisting on links to islamic groups and other attacks such as Fort Hood. I have contested some additions which have been reverted, and attemped discussion but other than the two editors mentioned, there is no-one else seemingly prepared to engage in the discussion, so natural collective editing consensus is not happening here. Finally, WP is an encyclopedia, it is not here to serve the public interest. _wjemather ^bigissue 09:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't it? I thought that was kind of the point of a free encyclopaedia.Contains Mild Peril (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - After the first event (the arrest, which was broadly covered), the second series of events (the court appearances) was also broadly covered. "No gnews hits in two days" is hardly a wikipedia notability test warranting deletion -- if it were, much of wikipedia would be deleted. Plus, it was just yesterday that this was covered in an editorial, and it has been the subject of articles by the newspapers with four of the five largest circulations in the U.S. (among others) --Epeefleche (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP provides a service to the public, that of an encyclopaedia. Serving the public interest is an entirely different thing.
      News stories require more than routine coverage to meet criteria for inclusion. Google news hits, as I stated, is an indicator of long term coverage, one of the criteria that could be met. Widespread routine coverage is specifically not one of the criteria, but editorials are. However the single one you cite is a critique of the Obama administration and not an article about this Woodson or his arrest. Any mention of him is incidental to the piece. _wjemather ^bigissue 18:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In today's world, one lives with a sensationalization of events that are rather trivial. This one is just that. So what if he had guns? I'm sure that if he didn't have a headdress, there wouldn't be an article on him. Fox News could've reported it in a different tone than the BBC, so there is also a bias that must be contended when writing an article. I actually just Googled his name, and this page came up. I think we should consider a neutral view when writing articles, as his is also full of a lot of fluff. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:00, 2 February 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iconics[edit]

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

A company developing industrial automation software. Author's name suggests blatant COI. Scant evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 02:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. References are included with the article. A reference doesn't have to be primarily about the company to be valid. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Independent references are adequate and reliable. LotLE×talk 03:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Lulu. Minor, but there are independent refs. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep /* Iconics */ I say keep, refs are independent from other sources and they talk abouttechnology used within industrial automation --Timdonaldson33 (talk) 21:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timdonaldson33 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is essentially a PR brochure; notability is a side issue. And at any rate, references like Automation World and Treatment Plant Operator Magazine - Dedicated to Municipal Wastewater Professionals would appear to be media of limited interest and circulation. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then that would be a copyediting issue (and fixed by editing rather than deletion), not one of notability.

Nor is a limited circulation trade magazine barred from being RS. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. All spam should be deleted, whether it qualifies for speedy deletion or not. Trade publications of limited interest and circulation have circulations often no larger than a local newspaper. They cover trade related businesses and events in more minute detail than general interest publications do. This means that they cover run of the mill businesses that fall within their interest. And they frequently repeat information given to them by business insiders with minimal critical attention. So no, trade coverage does not necessarily result in notability. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article is in accordance with Wikipedia's policy for NPOV (Neutral Point of View). The entry is educational, providing an accurate discription of what the firm ICONICS does. If author(s) are motivated by profit, he/she could be more immoderate. Other vendors in the Industrial Automation space have similar Wikipedia entries; knowledge of ICONICS history, products and services is relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.15.133.9 (talk) 14:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep organizations are notable if 1 - the scope of their activities is national or international (verifiable list of global projects included in entry) in scale, and if 2 - information about the organization and its activities can be verified by third-party, independent, reliable sources (see links to Microsoft and publications). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.15.133.9 (talk) 15:48, 1 February 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 and redirected to travertine, which already contains more information on travertine flooring than the most recent version does. Prior version read like a sales brochure and was a likely copyvio; stubbed version had no context. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Travertine flooring[edit]

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

Article had 3k of content a month ago, deleted to a one-liner by two edits from different anon IPs, on the very probable grounds of being lifted from commercial advertising. The big content was a reasonable stub, but too suspicious to restore. The small content is too poor to let survive. I've AfDed this rather than speedying it, just in the hope that someone might pick it up and rework it (In which case, keep it), otherwise it ought to be deleted. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I do love how the nom basically tries to use this forum for cleanup though. ;-) JBsupreme (talk) 08:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fair target for speedy under WP:CSD#G1 as a fragment, but without doing legwork to trace the source I couldn't #G12 it for obvious copyright. As the topic itself is clearly worthy, I'd be annoyed if I'd worked on it myself and someone then speedied it. Prodding it wasn't going to achieve much, as there clearly aren't many editors watching it.

If someone has the time to go back to December, use that as a source rather than as content, and copy-edit it to remove the copyvio problem, it's probably saveable - but I've not got the time to do it. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect in the interim to travertine, which currently contains more information about the use of this stone in architecture than this does. The subject may be worthy of an article, but this current stub has no context. There were more informative versions in history[69] but they read like unreferenced sales brochures, and the subject seems to be better covered at the article about the stone itself. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirection and adding a short section on use for flooring sounds good to me. We can recreate without salty prejudice if anyone wants to in the future. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the past versions are suspected of being copyvio, this should be deleted before redirect. This seems to be the fairly clear Right Thing to Do here, so I will probably just do it in a few hours unless strong objection is made. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:51, 27 January 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) 00:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nagaruban Arumugam[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable doctor who got news coverage after being unfortunate enough to be cut down in a car accident. No other coverage. No notable achievements for being a great surgeon or researcher, or a notable health bureaucrat. Getting a condolence from the local member of parliament is not enough, as they send out hundreds of congratulations/condolences each month for constituents eg, doing well in a high school exam, getting selected in a state youth sports team, turning 100 years old, a local sporting/ethnic/religious club opening a new building, etc. We are not going to have an article for every police officer, firefighter, state emergency service volunteer etc who was killed in action, bushfires, etc, politicians routinely attend funerals of these people YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sad, but Wikipedia is not a WP:MEMORIAL. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only coverage is about his death. Sad, but not encyclopedic in my opinion. Turgan ^Talk 02:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:ONEEVENT. Joe Chill (talk) 03:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Noted extensively in the parliament for his services; noted in the editorial of a state-wide newspaper. It is "encyclopaedic" for the people and the communities that benefitted from his service. Hence it is in the spirit of Wiki to keep this article. 6billionth sapien (talk) 03:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nominator. I can only agree with the comments already made: this is sad, this man sounds like a fine individual, but is not notable (see WP:ONEEVENT). -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 04:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per nom. Aaroncrick (talk) 05:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, both WP:MEMORIAL and WP:ONEEVENT apply in this case, sadly. JBsupreme (talk) 07:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article was at DRV a week ago: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 19. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator and earlier comments from other editors. Warrah (talk) 20:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was the proposer at 1st AfD. I've looked really hard at merging, but given the "grueling" hours that Nagaruban Arumugam was working before his car crash was 50/week, and that the mention in the Australian Parliament was a one-liner in a multi-column question by a backbencher trying to make a point about health funding in his electorate (no parliamentary condolence motion, no further mention by that or any other member since), this is totally a WP:1E and not worthy even of mention in Medical resident work hours. There has been no coronial attribution of crash, particularly to exhaustion which would justify mention in Medical resident work hours. In short, not notable due to WP:1E and as best I can tell not worthy of even a mention in an encyclopedia. Josh Parris 02:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the member for Parkes spoke for several minutes on the matter; my recollection of the material was incorrect. Then the member for Port Adelaide expressed, on behalf on the government, condolences to the family of the doctor that the member for Parkes spoke of. On that same day, condolences were expressed in the parliamentary record for 1,053 other people. My opinion is unchanged. Josh Parris 02:16, 2 February 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 Military of Malaysia. The original reason for deletion isn't really valid. The keep arguments are overall stronger than the delete arguments, but fail to address the issue brought up that the article is a content fork that gives undue weight to unrelated events. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysian Military Scandals[edit]

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

POV fork and attack page in violation of BLP Monkeyassault (talk) 01:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: what page is this forked from? Can you provide some more info on this AfD? andyzweb (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is laughable as this is not a biography of a living person or a violation of it. The user Monkeyassault in all honesty is a Malaysian government stooge and cybertrooper. Roman888 (talk) 04:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is forked from Najib Tun Razak. Roman888 has a history of behavior like this. Last month he created another POV fork called "Scandals of Najib Tun Razak." It was merged into the main article. This is just a reincarnation of that fork. Monkeyassault (talk) 04:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is apparent that this individual continues to dabble in censorship and whitewashing whole sections of articles that does not paint the Malaysian government in a good light as seen in other articles. Already deletion of the article was declined by a administrator in the first place - [[70]], thus making this individual continues to abuse the system by making repeated postings of template deletions. Roman888 (talk) 05:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal attacks are quite inappropriate. Please refrain from this kind of behavior. Monkeyassault (talk) 02:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Understand this, you also have a history of deleting whole sections of articles that do not paint the Malaysian government in a good light. And you also have a history of repetitively posting deletion templates which to me is waste of time and resources. The first request to delete the article was denied and yet you persist with this behaviour. I have talk to numerous individuals who have agreed with my assessment.Roman888 (talk) 08:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article was declined for speedy deletion. The admin who declined mentioned the possibility of bringing this to AfD as is the standard practice. Nothing nefarious has happened here. If you have issues with any of my edits we can discuss them on the appropriate talk pages on their merits. Personal attacks are not acceptable. Monkeyassault (talk) 09:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, since you also have a history of making personal attacks. I take issue with editors who continually disrupt, delete and destroy whole sections of articles. Furthermore I don't see any consensus being made with discussing any issues with you, because of your past behaviour. This discussion for deleting the articles will go no where, is my case in point. Roman888 (talk) 13:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, possibly speedy, deletion rationale does not apply. IMHO this nomination is on the brink of disruptiveness. Could both parties nevertheless keep their cool in this discussion, please? --Pgallert (talk) 13:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just being an article on "scandals" isn't POV. There's clearly enough here for a topic and it is well sourced.--Mkativerata (talk) 18:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the articles about the branches of the military they relate to, especially Military of Malaysia. This is clearly a subtopic of that, and seems a bit too much like a collection of information. I previously moved a section about the missing jet engines from the Najib Tun Razak page to the Royal Malaysian Air Force page and can see the same happening here with the rest of it. I'm also not sure why it contains a link to Murder of Shaariibuugiin Altantuyaa either. This doesn't seem to belong at all, so I can see why Monkeyassault thinks it is intentionally POV. Also, "scandal" is a known word to avoid, so if it does stay it needs a less POV name. --Spinosaurus aegyptiacus (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The section in the Military of Malaysia article has less information that that of the Malaysian Military Scandal article. They do not cover the issues about the Sukhoi, submarines and patrol boat articles. The link to the murder is pertinent to the case, and only covers one part of the article. If you read correctly the words to avoid can be used provided there are facts or media references to back it up. Go and read it before you make any more of these comments. Roman888 (talk) 08:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Adequately sourced about notable events. ¨¨ victor falk 08:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge anything useful into related article - gives undo weight to subject by being stand alone as most of the events are not related. MilborneOne (talk) 11:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —AustralianRupert (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a grab bag of incidents with no common theme (other than misbehavior in Malaysian military purchasing and assets management). While the incidents have notability and definitely belong somewhere on Wikipedia, lumping them together like this isn't really appropriate. I'd suggest that this be userfied or sent to the article incubator rather than be deleted outright so that the content can be reused. Nick-D (talk) 04:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge with military of Malaysia. Qajar (talk) 08:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Military of Malaysia. All notable, but this POV spin is not the right way to present it. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:05, 3 February 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) 00:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Julien Abbott[edit]

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

Appears to be non-notable. Only nine google hits for search ' "Julien Abbott" power racer', and (apart from this page) only one of these appears to be relevant. Google has no hits to verify the information currently in this article. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 01:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 01:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The only internet source I can find that could possibly be referring to this person on google is this link which seems to be selling some power racing memorabilia signed by one "Julien Abbott". This suggests to me that this article is not a hoax, but that this is the only source around suggests to me that WP:SIGCOV is not satisfied by the subject of this article. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 01:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unsourced BLP. I am also unable to find anything to satisfy myself that this passes WP:GNG. Turgan ^Talk 02:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced BLP for instantaneous deletion. JBsupreme (talk) 07:41, 27 January 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. JohnCD (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Zfat[edit]

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

Bringing this to AfD as a PROD is likely to be contested. No real notability established. Seems to be an attempt at self-promotion. Nymf _talk/contr. 01:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral at this point, leaning toward Delete~~. All the sources in the article currently are first party sources, and there seems to be a lack of significant coverage in independant, reliable sources. As such, as I currently see it, it fails the General Notability Guideline. However, if someone can produce some independant, reliable sources to establish notability, I'll consider a keep vote. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 01:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Delete: After searching through the references, including those recently added by the primary author, and searching through google results, I can find nothing to indicate significant coverage of the subject of the article. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 00:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG from what ;ittle I can't find. Turgan ^Talk 02:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Primary author has added independent references 3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 15. Poisonivyjones (talk) 04:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete simply penning articles about famous people does not make you notable. coverage has to be about the article subject to be considered in depth coverage. no in depth coverage [71] LibStar (talk) 05:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a common mistake people make here. If I write up a bunch of articles about famous people, that does not, in turn, make me famous. JBsupreme (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to also have issue with WP:COI, Jeepday (talk) 23:07, 27 January 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) 00:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IRCjr[edit]

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

Delete. Freeware application which fails GNG. JBsupreme (talk) 00:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 01:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 03:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Joe. smithers - talk 04:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 08:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If Joe doesn't find it notable, I will not either. Trusting his judgment. Miami33139 (talk) 14:57, 30 January 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) 00:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GT85[edit]

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

A non-notable product. Wikipedia shouldn't list every type of penetrating oil on the market. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unilease for a similar AfD. Wizard191 (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice as we recently did for Unilease. If there is nothing in the way of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications then we should not be hosting this. JBsupreme (talk) 00:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Primary sources are not sufficient, no sign of notability. 23:05, 27 January 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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infobot[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable software script which fails GNG. JBsupreme (talk) 00:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<infobot> huh? 10:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 03:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article would appear to already contain valid book references, and seems to have some claim to actual historical significance as Internet incunabula. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article contains multiple independent and reliable sources which clearly reach notability. LotLE×talk
- That is categorically false. The article has two citations and this article does not "clearly reach notability" by a mile. JBsupreme (talk) 08:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, several references seems notable Jeepday (talk) 23:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? I only see two references cited in this article, both of which refer to a fork of Infobot ("blootbot") and neither of which really meet the definition of non-trivial. Oh, and the second reference is just a sourceforge link, so its not really a third party reference at all. [72] I have to ask, what are you talking about? JBsupreme (talk) 08:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - References do not have to be inline per WP:CITE#General reference. You forgot to mention the two books given in the article. The inline refs are only for the blootbot fork. The rest of the article is supported by:

“

General references

Paul Mutton, IRC hacks, O'Reilly Media, 2004, ISBN 059600687X, pp. 159-164
Kevin Lenzo, Infobots and Purl, chapter 13 in Jon Orwant, Games, diversions, and Perl culture: best of the Perl journal, O'Reilly Media, 2003, ISBN 0596003129, pp. 115-125

”

Keep, part of IRC culture that lives on to this day. purl is on practically every channel on irc.perl.org with more than three people and has been an institution for years (though she's now a flooterbuck, it's nice to document her history). 76.98.130.178 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:15, 29 January 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. NW (Talk) 18:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bip IRC Proxy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

DELETE PER WP:BIP... just kidding. This was nominated roughly four months ago with a no consensus result. Some people asserted that a blog article was sufficient for sourcing. I contend that it is not and would like to bring this before the community once again to see if we can finally achieve consensus on this, one way or the other. JBsupreme (talk) 00:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per my comment in the first AfD and the fact that the sources were blogs. Joe Chill (talk) 01:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 03:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:GNG - it's not really notable, and a blog post is not WP:RS, despite popularity. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails WP:N and WP:RS. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 08:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Apart from the listed 3rd party sources, I can find a few others: [73]; [74]; [75]; [76]; etc. LotLE×talk 19:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Blogs and forums aren't reliable sources. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 10:41, 28 January 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. NW (Talk) 18:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Karate Guard[edit]

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

The Karate Guard is not one of the original Tom and Jerry cartoons because it is not sourced that it was released theatrically, and I seriously doubt that this is one of the main cartoons. Also, there appears to be only one source on here, and, although it meets Wikipedia's requirements, it is not very fitting here. StevenMario (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - article may requite additional sourcing, but this is not grounds for deletion. The short definitely exists, and is clearly notable due to its direct connections to Joseph Barbera (which is not in doubt, as reviews and listings for commercial releases mention it). TheRealFennShysa (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Maybe so, but it is, in my opinion, not one of the original shorts because it wasn't made during the Golden Age of American animation.StevenMario (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, your opinion about whether it "counts" or not doesn't determine notability. Your doubts about it being a "real" cartoon are mistaken and unfounded. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, nomination seems POINT-y and I (and others) are beginning to see doubts about the wisdom of unblocking nominator vindicated. Steven, if I were you I'd focus on proving that I could find sources for the apparent OR edits. Daniel Case (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep, seem notable barely Jeepday (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Is there such thing as a weak keep? I don't know if it counts. StevenMario (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

tho I have no opinion I, I often say 'weak keep" , meaning on balance i think it should be kept, but if you think otherwise,couldn't say you;re not being reasonable & I wouldn' t argue the matter, as distinct from plain keep, where if you think otherwise, I think you probably arent judging it right. (and similarly for weak delete. DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 3 February 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 Wrong venue; please use WP:RFD. NW (Talk) 02:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pingu episodes removed from rotation[edit]

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

Nothing but a useless redirect page and it seems unfitting. IPs are going to keep restoring this page unless it is deleted. StevenMario (talk) 22:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:CSD#Redirects R3 Jeepday (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close, this should be at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, not here. Glenfarclas (talk) 00:37, 28 January 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.