The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Insufficient secondary sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1714 revolt of Chameria[edit]

1714 revolt of Chameria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

I have tried to check the entire web but unfortunately there can't be found something under this or a similar title. Even the Albanian title: Revolta e Çamërisë e vitit 1714, gives zero results in google [[1]] (apart from wikipedia nothing) and googlebooks [[2]]. To sum we have:

• Complete lack of any kind of sources (primaries&secondaries&tertiaries).
• Even if there was some kind of rebellion in this region that is sporadically mentioned in Albanian historiography (English has for sure nothing to say about it), I hardly doubt if this was considered a Cham rebellion. Sounds like the usual pov to promote national agendas in Balkan related articles.Alexikoua (talk) 06:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since almost 20 days passed and there was no improvement in the article, I've initially placed the -verify- tag some days before and finally now it's time for afd.Alexikoua (talk) 07:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of the article is not always online to bring the page of the book. However the appropriate tome of the History of the Albanian People by the Academy of Sciences of Albania from which this article seems to have referenced can be read online here. This is the 2002 version of the History of the Albanian People, the first one was in 1959. It is still used as a textbook at a University level in Albania. The article creator has correctly sourced. The article is missing background and aftermath, but those things can be added easily, because there is plenty of info in the History of the Albanian People book. I will improve the article in the next week, however I suggest the article be retracted from AfD as inadeguately listed here. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 07:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a dead link [3].Alexikoua (talk) 07:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Review please although you can't ctrl+F there. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 07:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way is this the only single source that can be found?([[4]] what's this by the way?). If we can find at least one non-authoritative book (not initially published by an authoritarian authority like stalinist Albania of 1959 [[5]]) that confirms this it would be ok.

I trust that the book has been correctly scanned in that website, because I don't think the creator of the article took it from there. Btw, user:Balkanian's word was just given reviewer status. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 12:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the entire bibliography according to googlebooks, googlescholar seems to completely ignore (for example this leads to irrelevant results) this authoritarian-only sourced 6-lines confirmed event. Of course if a decent source can be found, we can reconsider. Alexikoua (talk) 10:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The History of the Albanian people was written in 2002 by a group of people in the Academy of Sciences of Albania. In 2002 Albania was NOT a stalinist country as 12 years earlier pluripartitism had entered Albania. It was not a republication of the same book, but a revised version, so I have no idea why you would bring totalitarian issues. In addition, the studies of the Academy of Sciences of Albania were all based on primary and secondary sources, with both historians and Ottoman documents of the time preserved both in Istanbul and Tirana. Furthermore, not everything is on Google. Albanian inhabited territories have a huge history of wars and upheavals, so it isn't strange that due diligence is more burdensome for this kind of events. This is not a reason to bring things to AfD though. It just disrupts our editing process. You know fully well Balkanian's word's work and you should have AGF'd him more on this I sense. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 12:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please focus on the specific topic and avoid wp:or. The specific url: doesn't contain any bibliography. Moreover, are you sure that this a work of 2002? This is 'nowhere' to be seen [[6]]. To sum up: a 6 line text taken from a link we didn't know its credibility doesn't seem to be enough for the creation of a separate article. We need something to confirm this rebellion, but even Albanian speaking bibliography in googlebooks/googlescholar doesn't mention this.Alexikoua (talk) 13:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(took off indent) I am focusing exclusively on the topic. You should be familiar with tertiary sources and their use. This book is a typical tertiary source (undergraduate level textbook). Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 21:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tertiary sources have bibliography but this has not. Moreover, it doesn't say that it is a 2002 version. It's probably much older (80s as it says) which makes it highly unreliable as stated above (moreover, where is the title? I see no book title in this url and probably is a fraction of a book). If this is really the one and only 'source' that briefly mentions this event I hardly doubt if it is enough.Alexikoua (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alexikoua have you taken a history class? Because I have and my books didn't have bibliography, neither in Albania nor in the USA. The link says that it's a new edition, but Balkanian's word is saying that he took it from the History of the Albanian People, 2002 version, you are not AGF-ing him. It doesn't say 80s, it's saying that the first edition was in 1959, the second in 1972, the third in 1983 and the current one (from the link we don't know but BW is saying it should be 2002), is another year. It is a fraction of the book which has several tomes. The fraction is called "Turkish Presence in Albania". As a tertiary source it relies on secondary sources. But of course we can't work on them because you Greeks like to see this very long paragraph and prevent us Albanians from editing in Wikipedia by bringing to AfD every single article we create. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 00:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for wp:agf alone isn't argument, especially if the same user has misused several authors in order to promote an extreme nationalistic pov.Alexikoua (talk) 13:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no source of note to substantiate this even as an event.Megistias (talk) 20:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This event is covered in the textbook History of the Albanian People by Academy of Sciences of Albania. Cheers. kedadial 00:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No coverage whatsoever in reliable English (or non-English) language sources. History books of totalitarian regimes are not reliable sources. Many, many history books have been written about the Ottoman Balkans. The fact that none mention this event cast doubts on whether it actually happened. Athenean (talk) 00:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The history of the Balkan countries is full of wars and upheavals agains the Ottoman Empire. Every single event in particular is not covered by the world historigraphy, and the reasons may be many, but we have tertiary Albanian sources for that. The source is published by the Academy of Sciences of Albania, the highest scholar authority of Albania. I see many articles in Wikipedia that are not sourced with English sources, many of them go to DYK. Good faith is presumed for these articles and their presence in wikipedia enriches the encyclopedia. The 19th century Albanian National Awakening movement and the League of Prizren did not come out of nothing. On the contrary, there were many resistance movements, spontaneous or organized, like the 1714 revolt and other organized revolts, which prepared the terrain for the 19th century's important fight of the Albanians against the Ottoman Empire. As a result these revolts are extremely important events to show the background of the 19th century Albanian National Awakening. Indeed this article is currently poor, but once that we have some more articles to show its background, we'll be able to bring the Albanian National Awakening to a higher article class.--_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 13:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sulmues, you should please focus on this afd, which is virtually unsourced. Disrupting the proccess in repeating abstract comments leads to nothing.Alexikoua (talk) 14:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Could you please not accuse me of disruption? I above explained to you the difference between a secondary and a tertiary source and noted how a tertiary source can successfully be used in Wikipedia. We are relying on a single reliable source, this is the only argument that you have. Take a look around in Wikipedia and delete all the articles that rely on no sources or only on one reliable source and you'll have gotten rid of one fourth of the articles of the 3.2M ones that WP contains. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 10:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nothing to substantiate information as to create an article. This is a non-event. Megistias (talk) 17:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete. I'm basing this not on any knowledge of the history of Albania, but on Wikipedia's sourcing policy - WP:PSTS says "Our policy: Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources." That sounds to me as if tertiary sources can be used, but only if primary and secondary sources are also available, so I think we would need at least one secondary source in order to keep this article -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: If anyone has a YouTube registration (I don't), perhaps they could contact the person who uploaded this and ask if they have any sources? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The video was created at 28 May while the article at 24 May. The creator of this video probably used wiki as source since he copy-pasted parts the text [[7]].Alexikoua (talk) 16:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good point. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Source is reliable and article is notable.--I Pakapshem (talk) 12:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:I_Pakapshem is indef topic banned according to this case.Alexikoua (talk) 23:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No book or something can confirm the event. I know this game, is it Total War?CrazyMartini (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I found this [8] which seems to be the source for some of the statements in the article about events in 1708 and 1714 involving the "Cameri". This one, unfortunately, is a snippet view, but there may be more comprehensive sources. Mandsford 19:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commment That's the same source that is already used in the article. It is moreover from the 1980's, when Albania was a totalitarian dictatorship, so official sources such as this should be taken with a grain of salt. Athenean (talk) 20:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, the event is not supported by other sources therefore it seems insignificant enough. A Macedonian (talk) 22:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. --Tadija^speaks 19:16, 25 June 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) 03:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Visconti Triplets[edit]

Visconti Triplets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Utterly without reliable sourcing, subject fails WP:PORNBIO (not even a relevant claim of notability, no indication can satisfy the GNG or any other specialized guideline; no GNews hits to useable sources (tiny number to PR and blogs. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom, fails GNG & PORNBIO. EuroPride (talk) 16:26, 17 June 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, default to keep. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac D. Smith[edit]

Isaac D. Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable military officer. No sources are provided, and despite some reasonable claims to notability in the article (the list of awards), I can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources. There doesn't in fact seem to be anything particularly remarkable about him. Robofish (talk) 22:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the sources that have been found and added by User:Bearian, I think reasonable evidence of notability has been provided and no longer wish to see this article deleted. However, this AFD should be left open as others have expressed a desire to delete the article below. Robofish (talk) 00:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no problem with this article being deleted. DocYako (talk) 01:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - notability not established, no sources in two years. Seaphoto^Talk 05:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think this noses over the threshold with the awards and other improvements by Bearian; still needs a lot of work in terms of career, and I would like to see the citations for the awards. Good work! Seaphoto^Talk 17:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete: unreferenced, and notability not firmly established. The Silver Star gives me pause, but then, there are no details on the circumstances (when, where, what, etc.), thus the weak in my !vote. The rest seems like your typical sernior officer. bahamut0013^words_deeds 11:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Admittedly, the article was terrible, but I have found several cites in about an hour. He was the same rank as Colin Powell in 1983, and later got his second star. He won a Silver Star; he wrote a major report about the education of army brats; and in 1989, his claims case became a precedent for the DOD. Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found more cites and copyedited the stub. Bearian (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at WP:MILPEOPLE, and I think he passes due to factors: 2. Were awarded their nation's second-highest award for valour (such as the Navy Cross) multiple times; or 3. Held a rank considered to be a flag or general officer, or their historical equivalents (does Major general count?); or 9. Were recognised by their peers as an authoritative source on military matters/writing. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Silver Star is the 3rd highest award for valor (not 2nd), only awarded to him once, and isn't even referenced. Merely being a flag officer isn't enough when one considers the millions of flag officers that have been in the US military in recent years, especially since he lacks any kind of significant commands. He hasn't been recognized by anyone as any kind of source (the one report written isn't unique at all, typically general officers generate reports at the cyclic rate and are mostly written by thier staff anyway). All in all, despite the refs mentioning him in passing, he hasn't done anything notable in his career. bahamut0013^words_deeds 18:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:MILPEOPLE is an unadopted guideline and falls down precisely on this point: just because they were flag officers do not mean that they are notable. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, my interpretation is that flag officers are presumed notable. The sources attest to his notability. Maj. Gen. Smith was a trailblazer. Bearian (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. And trailblazer in what, exactly? Race? bahamut0013^words_deeds 18:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Gen. Smith got his second star before Gen. Powell got his. Bearian (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non notable flag rank officer. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sources in the article would seem to meet WP:N at this point. The citation from the Louisiana House of Representatives certainly counts as a RS independent of the subject as does the ROCKS link. The Silver star and notations in books pushes it over in my opinion... Hobit (talk) 17:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, largely as per Hobit. --j⚛e decker^talk 00:31, 24 June 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. looks like the sources offered have not been accepted as reliable so the consensus is to delete Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Kirby[edit]

Pierre Kirby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Subject does not meet WP:GNG and/or WP:PEOPLE. Primary sources used in creating this article are Internet Movie Database (IMDb) and Rotten Tomatoes (RT). They list films by the subject, but do not discuss the subject in detail. The films themselves are not exactly notable (WP:NOTFILM). Have searched for sources about the subject, and have found more sites that list films by the subject (and even then they are not as complete as IMDb and RT; meaning the other sites list 1 or 2 films). Other sources added to determine nobility are a blog and fan site (or a self proclaimed movie critic). These are not reliable sources Akerans (talk) 22:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:PEOPLE, people are notable if they have a "large fan base or significant 'cult' following". Pierre Kirby is one of the most well known actors to play in Godfrey Ho's exploitation films, and he has gained a very large cult following. Also, it says that he's notable if he acted in a number of notable films, which he did according to WP:NOTFILM. Two of his films, "Zombie vs. Ninja" and "Thunder of Gigantic Serpent", were even notable enough to have articles here on Wikipedia. As for not having enough sources, that's being worked on. I'm going through Hong Kong film databases right now, so don't delete the article just yet. Rockhead126 (talk) 00:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete He clearly has no notability as a martial artist. The article is a BLP with no reliable sources. The two films mentioned above have both been tagged for a lack of notability and lack of reliable sources. There's also no reliable source to show he has "a very large cult following." Papaursa (talk) 03:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the wild claims can not be verified. Even at IMdB, it says he has had several small parts in minor films. Bearian (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep For Now - Purging the thing now doesn't make much sense. If this had come up before the Cinema Snob started talking about it, I'd agree with the others that the article doesn't have a lot of content. Post-Snob, though, there's a lot of people looking for information on the guy, and what better onus is there for editors to find stuff than a page that has something along the lins of "hey, this thing needs more sources"? I know, I know, the fact that I'm not linking to any policies is prolly going to turn one (or more) editor into a Red Lantern, but basically: keep the page, since a fairly popular web media program just started shining a big light on the guy, and rather than purging the thing, let it grow. But what do I know? (Yes, I know your answer: "the policies". But pfft.) 24.15.168.110 (talk) 04:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can't find any reliable sources that show notability and speculating that he's going to be more popular is WP:CRYSTAL and still may not add any reliable sources. Astudent0 (talk) 13:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep there appears to be one source discussing him in great detail, another in some detail. Don't know the area well enough to say if they are RSes or not. Hobit (talk) 15:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither blogs nor IMDB are usually considered reliable sources. The current policy on BLPs is that they must have reliable sources or they can be put up for BLPPROD, which is separate from the usual PROD (see WP:BLP). Why did you remove the BLPPROD for this article if you didn't know whether or not the sources were reliable? Astudent0 (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLPPROD is only for articles that don't have sources of any type. IMDB is fine for that purpose. This one did at the time the BLPPROD was added. In any case, the problem with WP:RS is it often isn't clear if something is reliable or not. When in doubt I'd prefer discussion over just assuming one way or the other. Hobit (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it does say you need a reliable source. Here's the quote from WP:BLP--"a new proposed deletion process was established, requiring all BLPs created after March 18, 2010 to have at least one reliable source". That said, I'm find with an AfD discussion, although the article still needs reliable sources. If claims can't be verified, they shouldn't be there. Papaursa (talk) 01:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and CINEMA NOCTURNA appears to be a RS. The blog actually looks quite good as blogs go and might be reliable in this context. Hobit (talk) 19:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the Nocturna site itself, I finally got my calling though , I wanted to create a fan based web community of sorts that catered to films that we here in North America. [...] Though my knowledge is surpassed by others that would be my next step, to assemble a core group of fans with great knowledge of many of these films. In other words, its a fan site or WP:SPS. Akerans (talk) 20:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has a group of writers/contributors on staff. I'm not saying it's the NYT, but just because one person founded it doesn't make it a SPS. Hobit (talk) 21:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I meant. I was pointing out the fact the creator considers his writers/contributors as movie fans. For this SPS to be considered reliable his writers/contributors need to work in the relevant field, and he has demonstrated they do not. Hope that clears any confusion. Akerans (talk) 22:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you cite the quote you gave (work in the relevant field). It seems like an odd requirement. For example a NYT's sports writer doesn't work as an athlete. A movie critic doesn't normally create movies. And nothing requires a RS to actually get paid to be a RS as far as I know, but I'm willing to be wrong. Help? Hobit (talk) 00:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Work in the relevant field is from WP:SPS (paragraph two). I take that to mean, for example, a movie critic writes for NYT, and contributes to a fan site in his/her spare time. While they are not being paid to work on the fan site, they have worked in the relevant field, established themselves as a creditable source, and are more qualified to write about movies. Akerans (talk) 01:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I'm arguing that it isn't a SPS. The authors and the person controlling the content appear to (generally) be different. Hobit (talk) 07:58, 23 June 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. Courcelles (talk) 03:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MyTes[edit]

MyTes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

No sign of notability Schuhpuppe (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no sources, notability not established. Seaphoto^Talk 05:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable software - it's just a "skin" for something. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can I write something here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tunlid (talk • contribs) 14:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have arguments for (or against) notability, sure. --Schuhpuppe (talk) 18:34, 17 June 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) 03:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Staffordshire Stallions[edit]

Staffordshire Stallions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Another of the UK university AFL teams. As in previous debates, university sport in the UK gets no independent coverage with a couple of exceptions. For minority sports such as AFL, this is even more so, Coverage available does not meet requirements of 'WP:GNG Nuttah (talk) 21:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable. It's rare that a British university sports team meets our notability guidelines, and this does not seem to be one of those exceptional cases. Pfainuk talk 21:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: As per other AfDs, university sports teams in the UK are rarely notable even within their own institution. The handful of exceptions are confined to soccer, cricket, rugby and rowing. American Football itself is an extremely niche interest subject in the UK, and this team definitely doesn't appear to be an exception to the rule. A quick Google returns little beyond sites related to the team itself and its rivals. The article is completely unreferenced and given the lack of citable material on the team, there is little prospect of being able to reference it.Pit-yacker (talk) 21:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Pit-yacker (talk) 21:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I like it, but that's about all I can say. Not suitable for this wiki. Try another wiki.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 17 June 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. Since the nomination, plenty of sources and information that assert that person is notable were subsequently added. No arguments to delete besides nominator. (non-admin closure) Maashatra11 (talk) 13:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Hirschfield[edit]

Brad Hirschfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

The article is definitely written like a public relations release or advertisement. I was going to try and rearrange the text to make it more encyclopedic, but then realized that there really isn't any notability here. This is no criticism of Brad Hirschfield; many very good people don't have Wikipedia articles about them. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 20:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A highly prominent rabbi, his notability is spelled out explicitly in the article, especially in the cleaned-up version by User:Joe407. As the article already states, he is a leader of of a significant organization, CLAL, the National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership. Repeatedly listed on the Newsweek "most influential rabbis" list (which is in turn discussed in other sources such as The Atlantic [9]. A subject of a Frontline documentary[10] (mentioned in the article), and a 2009 NPR story[11]. Constantly quoted on all sorts of topics--more than 200 hits at Google News archives[12]. I can go on, but this really ought to be enough. The article still needs some cleaning but notability shouldn't be an issue here.--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Arxiloxos, on condition that the third-party sources s/he quotes are incorporated into the article. Yoninah (talk) 08:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clearly notable and adequately referenced. Possibly needs work on style, but that’s not an AfD issue, is it?--Technopat (talk) 23:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Arxiloxos, notability is more obvious now that refs have been added by Arxiloxos. Maashatra11 (talk) 13:23, 19 June 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. Tikiwont (talk) 09:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Sunscreen[edit]

Captain Sunscreen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

"Extremly little-known" = "extremly little-notable" Schuhpuppe (talk) 20:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Tagged G3 (hoax) the publisher is completely unknown to google and the line at the end just confirms my feeling that this is a hoax.--Terrillja _talk 20:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 17 June 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 (CSD G3) by RHaworth. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 20:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Janna Carlton[edit]

Janna Carlton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Could not verify, suspected hoax. Schuhpuppe (talk) 20:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forget it, it's more like a blatant hoax. --Schuhpuppe (talk) 20:31, 16 June 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator and 1 "transwiki" !vote. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nautical metaphors in English[edit]

Nautical metaphors in English (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

uncited listcruft Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (probably dropping "- in English" which will still be the backbone of article material). The subject is well researched in RS, not tangentially but as the subject of books like Ship of State: The Nautical Metaphors of Thomas Jefferson, with Numerous Examples by Other Writers from Classical Antiquity to the Present. East of Borschov (talk) 03:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - obviously needs clean up and a possible rename to list of nautical metaphors, but it's a notable topic. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep with rename per Ed's suggestion. Seems to have plenty of reliable sources. Similar to List of political metaphors. Haus^Talk 04:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to wiktionary and wikiquote looks like it could be used as an appendix at wiktionary, and something that exists on wikiquote (proverbs exist on wikiquote). 70.29.212.131 (talk) 04:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - good start to what are notable additions to the English language. Certainly needs expansion with definitions and better sources, but I can see this being expanded. Seaphoto^Talk 05:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and possibly rename per Ed's suggestion. With the proper sources (maybe the Oxford English Dictionary?) this article has a lot of potential. LovesMacs (talk) 05:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename as suggested--an encycliopedic topic, with available sources. DGG ( talk ) 08:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not sure about the importance in US English, but the presence of nautical terms in British English is very much a notable topic - it crops up on TV quiz shows and all sorts of places. I'd like to see this expanded to actually describe the meaning and origin of the terms, with references. (I've watched it, and if it survives this AfD I'll try to improve it). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Rename - List of nautical metaphors - meets WP:list --Mike Cline (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and possibly rename - List of nautical metaphors - Added wikilinks for two nautical metaphors; this page could bring related articles together with further development. WP:NOTIMELIMIT Djembayz (talk) 13:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Ed and Rename per Mike Cline. - BalthCat (talk) 10:08, 22 June 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. Courcelles (talk) 03:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clean Energy Experts[edit]

Clean Energy Experts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

MyEnergySolution.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Looks like ad to me, but not fully sure. Schuhpuppe (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, spam. Nakon 20:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Listed MyEnergySolution.com, same company. Nakon 20:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a spam ad. Two entries were made for Clean Energy Experts. One under "Clean Energy Experts" and one under "Clean Energy Experts, LLC." As creator of both, I wanted to delete the "Clean Energy Experts, LLC" entry but could not figure out how so I created the "Clean Energy Experts" entry. The company is based on Los Angeles and the corporate EIN is 27-0156055. If anything, please delete the "Clean Energy Experts, LLC" entry. Feel free to email me with any questions or concerns regarding this posting and I will answer then ASAP. Thank you. Lajollanorris 20:45, 16 June 2010

• Delete, recently formed enterprise with nothing in either article to suggest it might meet WP:COMPANY or WP:WEB. Could probably be speedied under A7. Cassandra 73 (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: entry revised to include 3rd party sources, Lajollanorris 22:25, 16 June 2010

• Only one source was added to both articles, a link to a seminar one of the founders was speaking at. Cassandra 73 (talk) 21:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: MultiFamilyPro is a great, high profile seminar series. Wiki needs material on small enterprise companies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazybo (talk • contribs) 21:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User has not edited outside of the article nominated in this AFD. Nakon 22:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional 3rd party link included, Lajollanorris 23:56, 16 June 2010

You've already !voted "keep" above. Nakon 22:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable, looks like it was created by one of the people (Norris) in the company. Seaphoto^Talk 05:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I consider this a candidate for speedy delete, first as A7 for no indication of notability, and possibly also G11, entirely promotional. DGG ( talk ) 08:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable company. The references given are either primary sources or references in passing. Nothing is actually about the company itself, so all that has been established is its existence, not its notability. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. When the text is this spammy, notability is not an issue: The goal of Clean Energy Experts is to accelerate the adoption of cost-effective environmentally beneficial energy solutions.... - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as spam. -- Whpq (talk) 15:03, 21 June 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 per WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 22:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beautyshop Music[edit]

Beautyshop Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Could not find any reference to this anywhere, suspecting hoax or at least lack of notability. Schuhpuppe (talk) 20:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Barbershop music - not a hoax, per this sources- [13]. It seems simply to be a term for female-only barbershop singing, and has no real notability. Claritas § 20:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I created the redirect. --Schuhpuppe (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's at the closing admin's discretion whether to redirect or not, so wait until the discussion's finished. There may be coverage which establishes notability which neither of us have picked up. I've reverted your edit. Thanks. Claritas § 20:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not familiar with en.wp's procedures yet. --Schuhpuppe (talk) 20:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Barbershop music - per Claritas. – Voceditenore (talk) 17:55, 20 June 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) 03:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Piecepack[edit]

Piecepack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This is a non-notable subject matter that is unreferenced. The external links are self-published sources. Miami33139 (talk) 19:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I can't find any RSes. Hobit (talk) 02:35, 17 June 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 Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dallas Elementary School[edit]

Dallas Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable school. There is no school district article or education section of the appropriate city to redirect to. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:31, 16 June 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. I have discarded the meta discussion about organising masonic articles as the relevant issue for this discussion is simply whether the subject of masonic temples is notable. To be notable the usual bar is sources that specifically discuss the subject in detail. There have been no sources produced that meet this criteria so the consensus according to policy is that this is not a notable topic for an article. This is not a super vote this is assessing the arguments and seeing what the most policy based arguments are. We do not keep articles by assertion and we do not keep articles because they are mentioned elsewhere in another context. Individual buildings may well be indpendantly notable, in which case we should write separate articles for them. None of these however, add up to keeping an article where specific sources have not been produced Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Masonic Temple[edit]

Masonic Temple (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Notability of the topic can not be established through reference to reliable sources. I am the initial creator of this article. When I created it, I assumed that the topic of Masonic Temples was notable. However, after an extensive search, I have not been able to locate reliable sources that are independent of the topic that actually discuss the topic. I have found several sources that use the term... but none that discuss it in any depth. The closest I have found is a three paragraph sidebar in "Freemasons for Dummies". I had hopes for William Moore's Masonic Temples: Freemasonry, Ritual Architecture, and Masculine Archetypes, but that focuses on interior design and decoration and not on the buildings themselves. I am therefor forced to admit that my assumption was wrong, and the topic is not notable after all. Please note: there is a related AfD discussion for List of Masonic buildings Blueboar (talk) 19:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete This probably qualifies under G7, since not only has the author requested deletion, but the rest of the history indicates that the information has been placed elsewhere. The interior design of a building can be notable, of course, even if the outside isn't. A large part of secrecy is to have an outward appearance that attracts no attention. Mandsford 19:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CSD G7?! Are you kidding me? If you actually read G7, you'll notice it says it's only applicable if "...the only substantial content to the page and to the associated talk page was added by its author..." This is obviously not the case, and this article doesn't even come close to meeting any speedy deletion criteria. SnottyWong talk 19:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the basic assessment is wrong. I suppose the Detroit Masonic Temple is just trying to blend in. PeRshGo (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Mandsford changes his !vote to Keep below. SnottyWong talk 13:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep - Blueboar is escalating his disruptive behavior with this set of articles by starting this AfD. He has started multiple merging/moving discussions on various pages while at the same time nominating other articles for deletion. I am not sure what his motivation is, but this AfD is purely disruptive and is just wasting everyone's time. Just because Blueboard was the initial creator of the article doesn't mean anything, he does not own the article. All of the concerns that Blueboar has about this article can be fixed with normal editing. Many of the buildings that this article describes are listed in the National Register of Historic Places. If the exact term "Masonic Temple" is not the correct term to use to describe these buildings, then a move request should be made to move the article to the correct name. There is no reason to nominate this article for deletion. SnottyWong talk 19:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep AfD is not cleanup. Artw (talk) 19:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't cleanup... it goes directly to GNG... no sources discuss this topic. Blueboar (talk) 19:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep This is nothing more than Blueboar trying to circumvent consensus. The article isn’t turning out the way HE wanted so he wants it deleted. “My way or the highway” has no place on Wikipedia. PeRshGo (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, keep this one. Out of Masonic Temple (disambiguation), List of Masonic buildings and Masonic Temple, I think that the original problem was that there were three separate lists which appear to be two more than are actually necessary. Needless to say, the opinions that any editor has about any another editor are not anything that needs to be vented here. Mandsford 22:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I too agree that we currently have more lists than are needed but I see no merit in pretending something is what it is not for the sake of proper procedure. PeRshGo (talk) 23:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, and question process: "Delete" is actually my !Vote, if the process for making decisions on the linked articles and dab pages and categories related to Masonic buildings is to be done one by one, spread out over many AFDs and Merger proposals. I am confused what related articles exist as of now. But, the AFD on List of Masonic buildings is headed for a "Keep" decision, and it is the oldest list-article (and source of most of content currently here, copied in) and I support its general name. There only needs to be one list-article probably and that is it. There is no need for a separate article defining the term "Masonic Temple". If that is a defined term, then a Wiktionary entry can be checked or created and linked from the disambiguation page about places named "Masonic Temple". Otherwise, there is little or no sourced content here, and whatever useful discussion about the Mason's terms vs. public terms should be included as a sentence or two in the Freemasonry article. This is more or less the same as my opinion about Masonic Lodge, currently a separate article. For other fraternal organizations, I believe there is one big article about the organization giving some of its terminology. For Boy Scouts and other organizations, there is also just one article i think, not separate ones defining what is a Girl Scout Troop vs. a Girl Scout Council vs. a Den or whatever. So, I don't like the AFD being opened separately from any one comprehensive proposal, but my own comprehensive proposal would currently include merging this topic into Freemasonry and the List of Masonic buildings. But, when/where is there to be a central discussion for comprehensive proposals? I have previously tried to promote such, but i am overwhelmed with the AFDs and separate discussions everywhere. --doncram (talk) 00:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Folks... this is simple... are there independent reliable sources that discuss this topic? Yes or no? If yes, what are they? If no, then the article should be deleted. I am sorry that you dislike the nomination and feel it is in some way "disruptive" or "out of process" or "against consensus" for me to nominate this article... but raising an issue like this is what AfD is for. Blueboar (talk) 00:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For an article of this nature there doesn't NEED to be sources that discuss commonality. The fact that there are hundreds of Masonic Temples that are individually notable make the topic its self notable. Trying to take down this article on grounds of notability is ridiculous. PeRshGo (talk) 02:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at google hits alone. A search for "Masonic temple" -wikipedia yields 933,000 results. A search for "Masonic lodge" -wikipedia yields 1,220,000 results. An awful lot of people seem to like taking pictures of these mundane, non-notable objects. There's also a decent amount of news about them. Let's look at a couple of books on the subject:

• The Art and Architecture of Freemasonry
• An encyclopaedia of freemasonry and its kindred sciences
• Detroit's Masonic Temple
• Masonic temples: freemasonry, ritual architecture, and masculine archetypes
• Masonic Architecture.
• The secret architecture of our nation's capital: the Masons and the Building of Washington D.C.

Are we still arguing about notability? SnottyWong talk 03:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... because not one of those sources actually discusses Masonic Temples as a distinct topic or in any depth. (I would suggest you actually go to a library, as I did, and look at the sources and stop assuming things based on a google search and your opinion). Blueboar (talk) 03:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, all of those sources discuss Masonic temples. How can you possibly argue that they don't? I'm preparing for the imminent wikilawyering: SnottyWong talk 04:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because I actually went to a library and looked at them (well... ok... I have not seen Moses Redding's Masonic Architecture yet, but I have been able to check the others, and they don't discuss the topic of "Masonic Temples"). Blueboar (talk) 11:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They don't discuss "Masonic Temples"?! What about the one that uses "Masonic temple" in its title (Masonic temples: freemasonry, ritual architecture, and masculine archetypes)?! I have been to the library too, and I can confirm that all of these sources discuss Masonic temples in one way or another. SnottyWong talk 13:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize, of course, that Masonic temples are buildings, right? And what are the most interesting and notable elements of buildings? Their architecture, interior design, common uses, etc. Multiple sources which discuss (at length) the architecture of such buildings, the interior design of such buildings, and the common uses of such buildings do establish the notability of these buildings. In your opinion, what else would you need sources for Masonic temple to discuss in order to pass your interpretation of WP:N? SnottyWong talk 14:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Very weak keep, but if this article is kept, the contents of Masonic Temple (disambiguation) should be merged into it. Considering the widespread use of the name "Masonic Temple" and the fact that there seems to be a little bit of WP:RS information on the meaning of that name, there appears to be some justification for saying that this is a notable topic that should be the subject of a short article. However, most of this article is a wikilinked list of buildings that have "Masonic Temple" in their names; and Masonic Temple (disambiguation) is also a wikilinked list of buildings that have "Masonic Temple" in their names. The distinction between the two lists is not at all obvious -- surely there is no need for two separate lists of buildings that have "Masonic Temple" in their names. --Orlady (talk) 04:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Let's end this AfD and start a merge discussion. SnottyWong talk 04:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per Mandsford's comment at 22:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC). I don't have a strong opinion about what the resulting article should be titled. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No sources no article. TFD (talk) 06:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As a Brit (and non-Mason), I'm unfamiliar with the term (Masons hereabouts meet in "Lodges"). However there do seem to be a number of verifiable Masonic buildings in the USA that are described as "Temples". I'd appreciate an article that clarifies whether this is a regional or a functional difference and offers me both explanation and etymology.

Good point. I think that can be easily done. PeRshGo (talk) 12:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with that... I tried... no sources. Blueboar (talk) 12:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the term is minor, we only require notability not "major notability". There are already a number of wiki articles describing "Temples" with good references to support their naming as such. Arguing from the existence of numerous notable articles using the name "Temple" to a general article on the term itself is acceptably self-evident, even to our policies. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, and possibly merge with List of Masonic buildings. There's around half a million GHits for "Masonic temple", so to claim the concept is non-notable seems ludicrous - and it's a stiff test of my ability to abide by WP:AGF. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you pick a few examples that you think are reliable and discuss the topic? I suspect that most of these hits are lodge websites that say nothing more than: "Fidelity Lodge #123 meets in the Masonic Temple on Main Street on the fourth Tuesday of each month." Blueboar (talk) 12:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First off the list, first ref. I believe this to be WP:RS that discusses the existence and naming as "Temple" of at least one building. Having demonstrated the notability of one "Temple" and assumed the existence of many similar (just for convenience), I'm finding it hard to see how an overall description of the term in general doesn't meet policy. However I suspect you might disagree with this, given your claim in the other AfD that Category:Masonic buildings isn't supportable. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - there is little doubt about the existence of buildings called Masonic Temple, I'd agree with Blueboar that there is a dearth of credible sources that actually analyses them as buildings. There are other meanings for the term but again very few sources actually discuss them in anything more than passing. there is a related point about the proliferation of articles on much the same topic, whether that be Masonic Building, Masonic Temple or Masonic Lodge. It would significantly simplify discussion and progress to cull some of them and as with Doncram it looks as if the List article on Masonic Buildings is likely to have a majority of votes to keep it, so this one should go. ALR (talk) 12:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The idea that there are no sources is outrageous. Multiple books with the term "Masonic Temple" in their titles have been proffered, but the nominator is asserting that these books do not actually discuss Masonic temples? What are they about, puppy dogs and unicorns? The fact that there are numerous Masonic temples that are notable in and of themselves makes the category notable, even if for some reason dozens of people are printing books purporting to be about Masonic temples which never actually mention the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.240.134.36 (talk) 04:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the books that have "Masonic Temple" in their title are about Masonic art, symbolism, and decorative design. They do not discuss the topic of this article (the buildings themselves). What is the old saying... don't judge a book by its cover... the same goes for titles... don't assume you know what a book is about based on its title.

I realize how counter-intuitive this is... It is very hard to accept that there are no sources for this topic... I fully understand why everyone assumes that that there should be lots and lots of sources. Hell... I was guilty of the exact same assumption when I created this article... I started it based on the assumption that it would be easy to find sources upon which to build the article. But, after actually spending half a month looking for sources, and examining those I found, I was forced to admit that this assumption was wrong. Blueboar (talk) 13:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not with the sources, but with your conception of what a source must contain in order to be considered a source. Books about the architecture, interior design, and construction of such buildings are sources, whether you like it or not. If you think they're not, then please tell me what aspects of the buildings a source must cover in order to be considered a source, by your definition. SnottyWong spill the beans 14:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are sources... but they are not sources that establish the notability of this particular topic (Masonic Temples). The article in question is about a class of buildings we call Masonic Temples (aka Masonic Halls, Masonic Lodge buildings, or several other terms). For a source to establish notability, it must discuss these buildings in general terms... it must give significant coverage (as defined by WP:NOTE) to these buildings as a class or type of building. It should outline what a Masonic Temple is... and what the purpose of a Masonic Temple is. It should discuss the common characteristics by which we identify such buildings and distinguish them from other buildings. Ideally it would discuss how such buildings developed and have how they have changed over time. Blueboar (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The absence of an authoritative treatise on Masonic Temples does not bother me as much as it does you, Blueboar. The "for Dummies" source (which I haven't actually seen), plus numerous documents describing individual buildings called "Masonic Temple," (including many, like http://www.trentonmasonictemple.com/ , that use "Masonic Temple" as a generic term), ought to be sufficient basis for saying that "Masonic Temple" is a name given to many meeting halls and auditoriums built and owned (or formerly owned) by Masonic groups, particularly in the United States. That type of brief introduction, followed by a list of notable buildings called by the name "Masonic Temple", would make a reasonable contribution to human knowledge, consistent with the mission of Wikipedia. What bugs me most about the Masonic building situation is the proliferation of low-content pages with similar scope, including this page, List of Masonic buildings, Masonic Temple (disambiguation), and Masonic Building. Considering the widespread use of the name "Masonic Temple" for naming auditoriums or halls (something that could be considered "common knowledge") and the existence of even one published source documenting the specific meaning (or, rather, apparent absence of a specific meaning) of the name, I think that the topic of "Masonic Temple" rises slightly above the threshold of notability. At the same time, I have yet to see evidence of independent notability for a list of buildings somehow associated with Freemasonry, and I have seen no plausible reason for maintaining both this page and Masonic Temple (disambiguation). --Orlady (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking in my desktop dictionary, I find that the definition of "temple" helps to explain "Masonic Temple." Definition 6 says "The headquarters of any of several fraternal orders, especially of the Knights Templar." It would be original research on my part to suggest that the term "Masonic Temple" evolved from names of places such as The Temple (London) (originally the precinct of the Knights Templar), but I imagine that someone has done that research and published it. --Orlady (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Parallel evolution anyway, Masons take their "temple" from Solomon's Temple (as did the Templars), but not via the Templars. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eureka! If that can be reliably sourced, we might get somewhere. I see it discussed in this online book whose reliability I can't judge, and this online article does mention the "Solomon's Temple" relationship for a Masonic Temple in San Diego. --Orlady (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, lets try this a different way... can any one express what does make the topic of Masonic Temples notable? Can we even identify three traits that are common to all Masonic Temples? Blueboar (talk) 17:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The existence of a page called "Masonic Temple" does not require that all Masonic Temples have traits in common. As I see it, this would essentially be a set-index article that starts with an explanation of the name "Masonic Temple" and then lists a bunch of buildings that have that name. --Orlady (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK... lets start with that... do we even have a source to support an explanation of the name "Masonic Temple"? Blueboar (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I remain completely mystified by this debate. Books about the architecture, symbolism and artwork of Masonic temples are so obviously sources for a page about Masonic temples that I can't even find the words to argue with Blueboar. What do you want the books to be about? In my mind, this is no different from a page about "churches" as a general category. It is self-evidently a notable subject, and Blueboar has provided sources which, in his own words, do adequate justice to the topic, despite what he seems to think.Minnowtaur (talk) 19:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. The buildings are/were owned by the freemasons.
2. The buildings were built by the freemasons, or their construction was primarily financed by the freemasons.
3. The freemasons meet at these buildings.
4. The buildings often feature masonic symbols in their architecture and decorations.

There's four. Satisfied yet? Didn't think so. SnottyWong yak 19:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. True.. In fact I would say that this is the only common trait between these buildings. But that raises the next question... is there is a source that mentions this fact? Another question: does being owned by the Freemasons make something notable? I don't think so.
2. Not true... many Masonic Temples were originally private houses or commercial properties that the Masons bought...for example: Masonic Temple (Kent, Ohio).
3. Not completely true... for example: Masonic Temple (Providence, Rhode Island)... not one single lodge ever met in this building. But I will admit that is an anomaly as the intent was for Masons to meet in it... next question: do you have a source that says Masons meet in these buildings?
4. Not true... Sometimes they do, but more frequently they don't... for example: Masonic Temple (Jacksonville, Florida).

Two out of three (or four)... so you've guessed right... not satisfied. Blueboar (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blueboar, maybe you need to realise that times have moved on since the traditional Aristotelian necessary and sufficient conditions. Prototype theory, for example, applies to many more real world definitions and doesn't require each condition to be satisfied to define something. Chris55 (talk) 16:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Proposal to close Sounds like there is a consensus that a list-article of Masonic buildings is acceptable, but there are two of them, the longer-standing List of Masonic buildings and this current "Masonic Temple" article whose list section was started as a copy of that, with the deletion of red-link entries (which I believe were/are all notable places). This current article also received a mostly unsourced development of the concept of "Masonic Temple" which I submit could be stated in one or two sentences in both the Freemasonry and List of Masonic buildings articles. Since there are complaints on several related Talk pages that "Masonic Temple" is an inappropriate term (possibly U.S.-centric, possibly non-politically-correct by current Mason views, other), and since some/many of the significant Masonic buildings are actually named Masonic Lodge or Masonic Hall or Masonic Building or otherwise, anyhow, it seems best to stick with the long-standing article List of Masonic buildings, to resolve that it shall be a list of significant ones with significance to be continually defined at its Talk page, to close this AFD as a redirect to Freemasonry or that list-article, and then later consider at Talk:List of Masonic buildings a possible rename to "List of Masonic Temples, Lodges, and Halls" which has been suggested. Or it could be renamed even to "Masonic Temple", or otherwise, but later after more development of individual articles and development of the list-article to include photos and descriptions and allow for a more informed decision by editors who have actually developed the topic. Orlady and Blueboar have repeatedly expressed concern that the categories and the disambiguation pages overlap with the list-articles, and they do, but I think that is a non-issue, because by wp:CLN and wp:PURPLIST and much precedent and practice, it is okay and good to have alternative, complementary navigation systems. The disambiguation pages are needed to help readers looking for places named exactly "Masonic Temple" or exactly "Masonic Building" etc., including a few which are notable for non-Masonic-associated reasons and will not make the cut to be included in the List of Masonic buildings. The disambiguation pages have already been tested with AFDs already, too; it will not be further productive to try to delete them in favor of a lit-article/Set-index-article that has been proven to be subject to deletions and passionate argument. The disambiguation is technical and objective and should be left to disambiguation-focused editors in a supporting, secondary, technical type role, separate from the actual content development of individual articles and list-articles with changing inclusion standards. Whether there should be three or four separate disambiguation pages for the places named narrowly, or one merged one (which i think goes against the preference of most disambiguation-focussed editors), is a technical question of optimal disambiguation structure that need not really concern most editors present here. Just like how to set up categories is a technical matter that not all need to concern themselves with. By the way I appreciate that Orlady has done some development of the category system. I have started up some of the individual building articles and added a bit to the list-article. Another editor or two has expressed interest or started developing some of the related articles. In these discussions some information has come forward on sources and examples of good, culturally significant examples. Let's close this now as I describe here, and allow interested editors to work forward in developing the content. --doncram (talk) 19:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you can not express what makes the topic notable either... so you want to end the discussion. Blueboar (talk) 20:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do want to end the discussion, which is not productive. The deletionists are i think outvoted, and should let wikipedia-building proceed. Actually i don't mind if "Masonic Temple" as an article is kept to describe the apparently well-documented internal design/architecture of a Masonic temple/lodge/meetingplace/building/hall, and possibly also exterior architecture, as a supplement to the list-article "List of Masonic buildings". My proposal is mainly that the list should be in the olderList of Masonic buildings article. Any list here is a wp:Contentfork of that. Comments on whether the list portion of this current "Masonic Temple" article should be dropped from here, in favor of the "List of Masonic buildings" article, would resolve this. There does seem to be apparent consensus (some objections notwithstanding) that the concept of a "Masonic Temple" or "Masonic temple" is notable. I guess i favor now Close with keep but drop the list from here in favor of List of Masonic buildings. --doncram (talk) 20:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with Doncram's interpretation that "there is a consensus that a list-article of Masonic buildings is acceptable." As I have stated at the other AfD, I am unconvinced that there is any encyclopedic purpose in publishing a list of buildings that have some sort of ill-defined association with Freemasonry -- which is what List of Masonic buildings is. Rather, I think there is a useful purpose to be served by an article that explains the term "Masonic Temple" (the article and tis discussion has finally started to give me some inkling of what that explanation should consist of) and provides a set-index-article list of individual entities named "Masonic Temple."

Further, regardless of what the consensus might be, after many weeks of haggling about these articles (particularly between Doncram and Blueboar), I think it is very important for an uninvolved administrator to carefully review both of these AfDs in tandem before closing them. The principal disputants should not be announcing a consensus. --Orlady (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay with most of what you say, and your preference that the list-article should be at "Masonic Temple". But, you are within the consensus that there should be a list-article. I have stated why i think the list-article should be the original one which is located at List of Masonic buildings and which i think has more content and relevant editing history and even a better name; we have to agree to disagree about which place it should be located at. --doncram (talk) 21:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but I do not support a list-article. I support a set-index article. There is a large difference: a list-article indicates that there is some sort of notable relationship connecting the list elements, whereas a set-index article indicates only that the elements share the same (or essentially the same) name. --Orlady (talk) 22:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is no great distinction. The wp:SIA states "Set index articles should follow the style described in Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists", which just goes on to describe types of list-articles. I think a stand-alone list is any type of list that is not embedded in a different article. However, i would oppose anyone insisting that the numerous notable Masonic temple-type places which are named "Masonic Hall" or otherwise cannot be included within the list-article, as editors following your intent for the list-article might reason, so i reiterate that the original List of Masonic buildings is the better-named. --doncram (talk) 11:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A set index article assume that there is a reasonably finite set to index. The set of buildings named "Masonic Temple" runs into the tens of thousands. Blueboar (talk) 01:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the first sentence. About the second sentence, so what? The list-articles under discussion are lists of notable ones, not every stupid meetingplace. And, if the notable ones run into the thousands (which I doubt), then the list will be split by geography or by some other sensible approach. --doncram (talk) 11:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But wp:SIA says "A set index article is not a disambiguation page". What I find odd is that the Masonic Temple (disambiguation) article also contains a long list of temples. Do we really need three such lists? Chris55 (talk) 16:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think no one wants 3 lists. Disambiguation pages are not list-articles though. A set index article is a list-article and can include descriptions, footnotes, pics, while a dab page cannot. I think a narrow list-article, as Orlady wants, which is labelled as a set-index article, can substitute for a disambiguation page though. What Orlady wants, if i understand correctly, is:

Proposal A (doncram's understanding of Orlady's views)

1. Keep Freemasonry general article
2. Keep Masonic Building, a disambiguation page
3. Keep Masonic Lodge (disambiguation), a disambiguation page
4. Keep Masonic Temple as a list-article labelled as a set-index article, but allowing only Masonic halls named "Masonic Temple" and perhaps close variations like West End Masonic Temple, but not allowing Mason's Hall (Richmond, Virginia), the oldest U.S. Masonic hall in the U.S., and not allowing any other Masonic hall whose article name is Masonic Hall or Masonic Lodge or named otherwise
5. Delete List of Masonic buildings
6. Delete Masonic Temple (disambiguation) (well, actually it would be recreated as a redirect to Masonic Temple)
7. ???? about Masonic Lodge
8. ???? about Masonic Hall, a disambiguation page I think is also needed, and just created

I don't happen to think that it is tenable to allow a list-article on only "Masonic temples named 'Masonic Temple' only" and otherwise don't think that is comprehensive proposal meeting Wikipedia guidelines, and serving editors/readers. That proposal A involves keeping one list-article (the Masonic Temple SIA) and 2 or 3 dabs.

What i have argued for, i think more or less consistently, is:

Proposal B-1 (doncram's main proposal)

1. Keep Freemasonry general article, and add as necessary for it to provide definition of what is a Masonic Temple / Hall / and Lodge
2. Keep Masonic Building, a disambiguation page of places named exactly that or close variation
3. Keep Masonic Lodge (disambiguation), a disambiguation page (but move it to "Masonic Lodge")
4. Keep Masonic Temple (disambiguation), a disambiguation page (but move it to "Masonic Temple")
5. Keep Masonic Hall, a disambiguation page
6. Keep List of Masonic buildings, as a list-article of notable Masonic buildings of any name, and as the original list, only recently copied partially into new Masonic Temple list-article
7. Delete Masonic Temple, as its content is naturally covered in "Freemasonry" and in "List of Masonic buildings"
8. Delete Masonic Lodge, as its content is naturally covered in "Freemasonry" and in "List of Masonic buildings"

This proposal B involves keeping one list-article and 4 dabs. --doncram (talk) 17:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I fear that Doncram's attempt to simplify this discussion has complicated it further by adding a bunch of new red-herring topics. I had no clue that the continued existence and/or scope of articles like Freemasonry and Masonic Lodge were at issue here. Can we please agree to discuss ONLY Masonic Temple, Masonic Temple (disambiguation), and List of Masonic buildings? --Orlady (talk) 19:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no one proposes deleting the Freemasonry article, and the proposal to delete the Masonic Lodge article does not need to be answered within this AFD. My point with the comprehensive proposals, for this AFD discussion about "Masonic Temple", is that there is no comprehensive proposal on the table which makes sense and which keeps "Masonic Temple" as a list-article. The Proposal A deletes one out of four related dab pages, and restricts the list-article to be essentially "Buildings named exactly Masonic Temple". Would it make sense then to create a new list-article "Masonic Halls named other than Masonic Temple"? I don't think that makes sense, to command a split of the "List of Masonic buildings" list by Masonic Temple vs. other name rather than keeping it whole, or than dividing it eventually by geography or age or something else. Proposal A as i understand it would not allow a large percentage of Masonic halls to be included in any Masonic buildings list-article.

I would also be okay with, call this Proposal B-2, the B-1 proposal amended to Keep the "Masonic Lodge" article and Keep the "Masonic Temple" article in some form defining the term and linking to "List of Masonic buildings" but not itself including a list. --doncram (talk) 01:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This suggestion is perhaps one of the best illustrations of the weaknesses of the Wikipedia version of democracy around. Lots of people contributing to discussion of a subject that they don't understand and using superficial google counts as a decision tool.

This debate is about the subject Masonic temple, not Masonic buildings, Masonic lodges or Freemasonry. The four are different things and even considering a discussion about convergence is ill-thought through, it's also in completely the wrong place, if it's a serious suggestion take it to the project page and discuss it there.

To be specific:

• A Masonic Temple is the room within which a Lodge meets. Many buildings, particularly in the US, also use it in the name however that is fairly restricted to the US. There are a number of sources that talk about the decoration, furnishings and layout of temples although as above I'm unconvinced that they support this article, more likely articles about the individual furnishings.
• A Masonic Lodge is what comes into existence when a group of Masons meet and formalise that meeting through ritual. The Lodge is an organisational grouping and may meet in any one of a number of places. The point is confused when the article in question is crufted up with photographs of buildings and bluntly I'd cull the lot of them now but given the behaviours demonstrated by a number of editors I'd immediately get reverted along with lots of finger pointing and accusations of bad faith.
• A Masonic building doesn't appear to have a sourced definition although we have a number of arbitrary opinions expressed. Peraonslly I'm still not convinced that subject is notable but the closing admin totted up the votes and made a decision according to the majority. Even where the buildings have the name Temple this is probably the place to discuss them.
• A Masonic Hall is a name used for a building and the idea that it needs its own article is laughable.

I would suggest some judicious use of redirects, there is little point in multiple disambiguation pages discussing the same things.

ALR (talk) 10:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that is helpful. ALR uses Masonic Temple to refer to the interior room, and I think that argues for the Masonic Temple article being about that, and dropping the list of notable buildings that are misnamed (according to Masonic terminology) as "Masonic Temple". ALR uses Masonic building to refer to buildings and I think that agrees with keeping List of Masonic buildings named exactly that. I agree with ALR that the Masonic Lodge article should not be confusingly cluttered with pics of buildings named "Masonic Lodge" or named "Masonic Temple", both of which are misnamed according to official Masonic terminology. The Lodge article could carry a picture of the membership of a given lodge, like a graduating class-style picture of all the members at some event, which would properly convey that a lodge is a group of people. ALR does not seem warm to the disambiguation pages, but those are not articles and are simply needed to assist navigation to wikipedia articles of places named (or misnamed) exactly that (and 2 AFDs about them have been closed in favor of Keep already). So I interpret ALR's comments as most consistent with Proposal B-2, including with dropping the list of buildings included in the current "Masonic Temple" article. Also since the List of Masonic buildings AFD has been closed in favor of keep (no consensus otherwise), it is even more clear that the redundant list of buildings here should be dropped. --doncram (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The temples are notable parts of a notable organization. The discussion to merge and/or redirect is happening elsewhere. No reason to delete though. Dream Focus 18:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• AfD isn't cleanup. It seems pretty evident that the various articles we have on this subject right now (including the list article) contain enough referenced material to do something encyclopedic with, even if large chunks of it end up getting merged to freemasonry or the like. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to close It appears we have just gotten back into the territory of organizing the data rather than deciding whether or not the article should exist at all. I move to close. PeRshGo (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pershgo, AfD's aren't closed by mutual agreement. Once the AfD has been open for at least 7 days, then an uninvolved administrator will analyze the arguments for consensus and close the AfD. This particular AfD started on June 16 (7 days ago) so it will probably get closed later today or tomorrow. "Moving to close" is not an applicable action with respect to AfD's. SnottyWong ^yak 21:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well they do tend to help show at least some level of consensus. PeRshGo (talk) 01:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bren Powers[edit]

Bren Powers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non notable athlete. Has yet to compete in the highest levels of strongman competition. Millbrooky (talk) 19:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I contested speedy deletion of this article as it contains a minimal claim of importance, with a reference to a local newspaper, but I can't find any evidence that the subject passes either WP:ATHLETE or the general notability guideline. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I tagged it for SD (this reminds me of 'Who killed Cock Robin'...) as I didn't feel the standard of competition and the success therein reached was high enough under WP:ATHLETE - and I wasn't too happy about the sponsor link. I've explained my position at reasonable length to the creator after he contacted me, but nothing seems to have happened. There seems to be potential in the subject - but potential is future stuff. If he gets to the finals of the UK Strongman, there might well be a strong case. I wish him well in the next qualifiers, anyway. (Got to - he's bigger than me.....) Peridon (talk) 21:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm going to say userfy on this one, as the creator seems to be a well-intentioned new editor who's picked up on a toppic that isn't quite notable enough but may be in the near future (incidentally, to keep up the Cock Robin analogy, I'm the one who moved the article to the correct capitalisation...). Alzarian16 (talk) 22:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I won't disagree with that suggestion. Peridon (talk) 16:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. With the Blackpoole citation he seems notable. Article just needs expansion. AkankshaG (talk) 23:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. One piece in the local paper excepted, the coverage lacks anything that could be called a reliable source. Doesn't match up to WP:GNG. Nuttah (talk) 06:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Thanks to everybody who has made comments, yes I am new to this and the page was created in good faith, if somebody could point me in the correct direction as to how I can improve things in line with Wikipedia then that would be great, as mentioned above Bren has only appeared in the online version of the newspaper but has been in printed material on several occasions, Blackpool Gazette, Lancashire Evening Post etc he is a very good athlete and all we are trying to do is boost his profile and let people know they have a local strongman who needs their support. As I said if anybody can be of further assistance that would be brilliant. Many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter "Panda" Jones (talk • contribs) 08:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that's one of the things Wikipedia is NOT for. For promoting someone, try LinkedIn and aboutus and so on. We're for recording stuff, not for making it happen. Good luck, anyway. Peridon (talk) 20:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly true, but on the other hand if the guy's been covered in local papers lots of times then he mightbe notable under WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Perhaps Peter could scan some of the offline articles and upload them as images so we can see if they qualify as significant coverage in reliable sources. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:28, 22 June 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) 03:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SVIA HIV model[edit]

SVIA HIV model (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Original research, pure and simple. No evidence of significant independent coverage in the 8 unique GHits, including Wikipedia and mirrors. Nuttah (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, zero Pubmed hits, unpublished original research. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wikipedias no original research policy. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 07:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOR~ Ciar ~ _(Talk) 23:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I couldn't find any reliable sources. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:21, 19 June 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 - no evidence. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5ive Star[edit]

5ive Star (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Fails notability guidelines. The only claims to notability this article makes are that this artist wrote the song "Empire State of Mind", and "Over", neither of which claim appears to be true. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:10, 16 June 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. Stifle (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mimi stuart[edit]

Mimi stuart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Contemporary "artist of energy". More a CV than an article and no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as non notable person, and even a copy vio. Check the sites listed, this guy just pasted the reviews. (I only tagged it for one CSD though) Undead Warrior (talk) 03:01, 17 June 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) 03:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summertime (Cody Simpson song)[edit]

Summertime (Cody Simpson song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Not notable. –Chase (talk) 17:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-hit from unnotable Justin Beiber clone. Nate • (chatter) 00:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-charting song, fails WP:NSONG. WWGB (talk) 02:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Song that did not chart. Fails notability guidelines. Undead Warrior (talk) 02:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; fails WP:NSONGS. I'm not finding any significant coverage for this song, only a few passing mentions, the best of which is this article noting it's "becoming a hit online" and that a single was expected to drop in May. There's just not enough material in reliable sources at this point to warrant a stand-alone article.  Gongshow ^Talk 04:00, 19 June 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 as pure advertisement. Non admin closure. Undead Warrior (talk) 03:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CompoCom[edit]

CompoCom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

No third party reliable sources found, so this company fails WP:CORP. An IP removed my Prod without addressing the problem. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 17:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (make that practically speedy) as blatant advertizing.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 18:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete WP:CSD#A7. No indication of importance. I was unable to find any third-party coverage of the company. Jujutacular ^T · C 19:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Jujutacular ^T · C 19:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Jujutacular ^T · C 19:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as zero claim to notability. Also close to speedy on the blatant advertising front. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as pure blatant advertising. So tagged. Undead Warrior (talk) 03:03, 17 June 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 Guitarist#Notable guitarists. T. Canens (talk) 02:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of guitarists considered the greatest[edit]

List of guitarists considered the greatest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Cruft list is a near-to-full duplication of a section already found in the Guitarist article. Misrepresentation of the list content in the title as it might be List of guitarists who have been included in print media top ten lists. Also note that the inclusion of the Rolling Stone section duplicated content from an article about the magazine issue which has been previously AfD'd from Wikipedia due to a copyvio issue over re-printing the contents of the Rolling Stone list. Wiki libs (talk) 17:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Guitarist#Notable guitarists. --King Öomie 18:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and restore to this version [14] that was kept by consensus before. After the original keep, we've had two people who took it upon themselves to make a redirect to Guitarist, and another one who decided to "update" it [15] by trying to make it look identical to the section of Guitarist. I see no reason for doing that. Mandsford 19:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The key difference between the two is the longer table, which really isn't necessary. Why should that list be given priority above the many similar lists (and for the record, I think the Rolling Stone one should be trimmed too). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Guitarists. I don't think there can be enough content to support a page. Once you ignore thbe lists, there isn't much, and I see no reason why that information can't be placed elsewhere. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, no merge. The whole section of Guitarist#Notable guitarists was copied from this list into the article Guitarist by User:Dr. Blofeld[16] after he voted for deleting in the last nomination [17]. Therefore, it can not be considered a near-to-full duplication of a section already found in the Guitarist article (and it also violates Wikipedia's old copyright policy because Dr. Blofeld didn't mention the original author(s) when merging contents into the article Guitarist). Moreover, this article is well sourced, well written, similar to List of films considered the worst. Lastly, it would be a good example of a NPOV inherently subjective list of the article Guitar or Guitarist.--AM ^(talk) 04:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.

• Redirect/Merge' - to Guitarist#Notable guitarists as per Kingoomieiii. Codf1977 (talk) 17:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please tell me that where Kingoomieiii's comment is. I see only a empty vote with no specific reason.--AM ^(talk) 01:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• We can't have content forked from one article to another without proper attributation but if the material is already sitting comfortably in another article that had a wider context I see no point in retaining this so I support the redirect as this will address any attribution issues as well. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• It would be a good idea to have an article listing the Rolling Stones 100 Greatest Guitarists, or other notable listing, or an article with multiple lists. However, this article doesn't seem to be going in that direction, or have any direction for that matter. The Original Research nature of the article name is also problematic. Thus, Delete with no prejudice towards recreation with a proper name and proper focus. --PinkBull 01:36, 25 June 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) 03:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Runglish (disambiguation)[edit]

Runglish (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This disambig contains 3 entries. The first is an article, that's fine. The second looks like pseudo-information referring to the first usage; it was actually brought in as unreferenced from the article - I can't see any encyclopaedic value to it, and if anywhere, I'd think it should belong in the article. The link to Volapuk...there is no mention of the term in that article, nor can I find a connection (from a reliable source. In conclusion, I think this page can just go. "Runglish" only seems to really mean one thing - a cross between Russian and English. It's also potentially derogatory, so I don't think we should have unreferenced claims via a DAB page.  Chzz  ►  17:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found two pieces of information in Runglish that didn't belong there. Since I didn't want to be the person who deleted that information from Runglish, and therefore from Wikipedia, I created Runglish (disambiguation) and added the questionable information there. If that information must be deleted, it's okay with me. HaŋaRoa (talk) 19:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A disambig page is supposed to disambiguate between Wikipedia articles that use the same term, so entry 2 shouldn't be there. Entry 3 makes no reference to "Runglish". That leaves just one article, so no disambig needed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Entry 2 isn't a link, so remove it. Entry 3 doesn't mention it, so remove it. Which leaves us with just one entry - so remove the page. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 19:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seems to be a case where someone creates an ambiguity in order to clear it up. I don't see anything that justifies a disambiguation page. Mandsford 20:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, 2nd and 3rd entries are invalid. Boleyn2 (talk) 08:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no ambiguous articles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:52, 17 June 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) 03:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Booth[edit]

Mike Booth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non notable footballer. Fails guidelines at WP:ATHLETE having not played a game in a fully professional league and does not have the coverage required by WP:GNG Nuttah (talk) 16:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 21:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 21:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. Having never played a fully pro match, he clearly fails WP:ATHLETE, and there is insufficient coverage about him to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:07, 19 June 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 speedily deleted G4; was already deleted via discussion once. — Timneu22 · talk 17:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1950s retro movement[edit]

1950s retro movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Unsourced WP:ESSAY, and WP:OR. Not a single reference. — Timneu22 · talk 16:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Retro style. I know that someone put this one up for speedy deletion fo CSD G4, but I think redirection is appropriate. Movementarian (Talk) 16:43, 16 June 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 is that this is a good synthesis but not for wikipedia. Happy to userfuly somewhere is someone wants to transwiki the material to a more suitable external site. Leave a note on my talk if you want to do that. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of science fiction film and television series by lengths[edit]

List of science fiction film and television series by lengths (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This list is entirely redundant to List of science fiction films, List of science fiction television programs and List of science fiction television films. Per WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:SALAT, we don't need an independent list which indicates the length of programs. If timings are considered relevant, they can be added to the main lists. The last two AFDs ended in no consensus, mainly due to keep !votes based on the fact that an earlier discussion in 2006 resulted in consensus to keep. Claritas § 16:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTTVGUIDE and WP:SALAT. I can't imagine the usefulness of a list that sorts science fiction series and films by total running time. Movementarian (Talk) 16:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO/WP:NOTDIR. Days hours minutes? Come on! Redundant with better list articles where run time could be included if absolutely necessary (it isn't).--137.122.49.102 (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment WP:ILIKEIT, WP:INTERESTING and WP:USEFUL aren't reasons for me to say keep. Although I appreciate the effort that was put into this, it's the very definition of "original synthesis", and even good OR is still OR, good trivia is still trivia, and good cruft is still cruft. However, I hope that the closing administrator will give the article's creator time to put this information onto the entertainment wikis for the various shows, where it would get a more favorable reception. Within Memory Alpha, for instance, it is useful and interesting to know that one could spend 23 days watching the Star Trek universe (or 4,014 minutes watching the original series, which works out to something like slightly less than 3 days). While I see no policy that would justify having this maintained here, the information would be most welcome in places where OR is accepted. Hopefully, the folks in Deletionpedia will leave the lights on as well. Mandsford 20:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to keep the content available, why not put it into your userspace temporarily ? Claritas § 20:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, WP:IDONTLIKEITTHATMUCH. Mandsford 22:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete mostly per WP:SALAT, WP:IINFO and WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Reyk _YO! 23:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki this interesting piece of Original Research elsewhere, please. (...and then delete it, of course) I gotta admire the effort here, but really? As a rule of thumb, anything that talks about "canon" needs to have a cannon taken to at least that part of the article: we don't debate canon here. Jclemens (talk) 05:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• um, somehow preserve this somewhere else and give the creator a gold star for original research yes, this doesnt belong here, but its actually kind of brilliant. it needs to be made dynamic, so you can sort by total time, then it would be awesome. then, expanded to include all other dramatic works in series, not just SF. I wonder if people would actually PAY to visit the site if really fleshed out? oh, and of course, if the site this is sent to becomes notable for this piece of work, we can then create an article about it. good luck.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Move somewhere else Definitely gold star material, but pure OR that should be saved somewhere. If nothing else, keep it as an example of OR that can't be kept here! htom (talk) 00:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and modify — I created this page over five years ago when I was a nerdy undergrad who didn't understand what Wikipedia was for. It seems out-of-place in the encyclopedia now, but I nevertheless am not sure that I can vote to delete. The information in it was derived from addition, so it's no more WP:OR than are age calculation templates. Furthermore, I've seen this list linked to from other sites, which gives me the impression that it is notable. I don't think it's redundant to the lists linked by the nominator because those are for just films or television series. I think it would be useful to have a list of series across media, although the list would need to be re-designed for that purpose. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think that the addition of times is that straightforward. You, and others, have had to decide which shows were canon or non canon, research the runtimes, which are not always noted at their wp articles. i dont think this would be out of place here if it was simply listed somewhere else, and some indication of how many people viewed it could be provided. But i can see how a case can be made for the additions being trivial. unfortunately, sites linking to this article cant qualify as an argument for notability, but it does point to this information being valuable to some, thus potentially notable. cant find the links myself, but that would be hard to do.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as this list topic list appears to have not been published anywhere else other than Wikipedia, as it does not have a verifiable definition and contravenes the prohibition on using Wikipedia to publish original research as illustrated by WP:MADEUP. If it has not be been published anywhere else, and there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable list topic, then there is no rationale for inclusion. To demonstrate that this topic was not created based on editor's own whim, a verifiable definition is needed to provide external validation.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It list the series, how many episodes they had, and how long every episode or film lasted. Some people might be interested to see how long things lasted. If any information is sincerely doubted as valid, you can easily find confirmation in the primary source. Amazon and other places that sell films, list how many minutes long they are. Dream Focus 04:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Due to reruns etc., there's no definite length of most series. It's basically WP:OR and WP:SYN to assume there to be one. Claritas § 06:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, I think it's an interesting piece so it would be good if it could be preserved somewhere - maybe there's a sci-fi wiki that could use it - but it is in essence original research. The added up numbers themselves are borderline but for me the real issue is that this method of classification seems to have no precedent. Even if all the information can be reliably sourced - which is in itself somewhat questionable - using it in this novel way is synthesis. Guest9999 (talk) 08:19, 22 June 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 based on many precedents from similar past AfDs, as discussed below by users DGG, Calathan, Cyclopia, and Boing. Bearian (talk) 22:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional penguins[edit]

List of fictional penguins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Almost entirely unreferenced list of fictional penguins, which fails WP:SALAT, WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR. This isn't neccesarily an appropriate topic for a list, and unless most of these entries are speedily sourced, WP:BURDEN implies that the list should be deleted. Claritas § 16:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Most entries are linked to Wikipedia articles and those articles have references (as with many lists), so I don't think the list requires additional references of its own for every entry (unless perhaps the linked-to article doesn't actually mention the penguin in question). I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not usually a strong Keep argument, but there is a pretty big precedent in the shape of a whole load of similar lists - eg dogs, ducks, dinosaurs, rabbits, raccoons, weasels, worms, wolves (and that's just checking three letters of the alphabet). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No need to duplicate references between articles and lists. Artw (talk) 17:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep In the past, articles of this sort have regularly been kept. See for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional deer and moose, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional turtles, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional raccoons, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional dogs (2nd nomination). I think the list should be sourced, however, even if the individual artilces are sourced. Calathan (talk) 18:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a popular article. Das Baz, aka Erudil 19:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep articles on significant types of characters or theme in notable works are appropriate encyclopedic content. It does not fail not directory, because it's discriminate--it is intended to be only about those in works with Wikipedia articles (there are a number of others without such sources in the article at present, and they should be removed). WP:SALAT says "The potential for creating lists is infinite. The number of possible lists is limited only by our collective imagination. To keep the system of lists useful, we must limit the number of lists." Unfortunately the third sentence of this guideline is invalid, being in conflict with the very basic policy of NOT PAPER--there is no reason to limit the number of lists and more than to limit the number of articles. DGG ( talk ) 08:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:IINFO and WP:SALAT because the criteria for inclusion is too broad to have a discriminate, encyclopedic article built from it. What is left is nothing but namedropping and trivia. The contents of the article have nothing to do with each other besides the unencyclopedic cross-categorization of "penguins" and "fiction". I'm quite disturbed at the consensus above that ignores these key maintenance guidelines. It's lists like this that we should concentrate on deleting and I applaud the nom for the effort. ThemFromSpace 11:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - three of the five keep !votes are based on arguments which are widely considered to be erroneous - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a justification to keep, the argument that it is popular is basically just a simplified version of WP:POPULARPAGE and the argument by Calathan basically ignores the fact that consensus can change and also shares problems with WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I'm not sure that any policy states that entries in a list shouldn't be sourced simply because the entities listed are sourced, and certainly not all the penguins listed have sources on their main article. There's also an issue that some penguins on the list don't have articles. If WP:SALAT is "invalid", you need to take that up on the talk page or at the village pump. At the moment, I believe it reflects consensus. Claritas § 11:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Re: "I'm not sure that any policy states that entries in a list shouldn't be sourced simply because the entities listed are sourced". We need to think about the purpose of sourcing - is it to blindly follow a rule, or is it to provide readers with a way to back up the assertions made in an article? It's clearly the latter, and readers have such a way, by clicking through to the individual Wikipedia articles - and if any of those are not sourced, that's a reason to challenge the articles themselves rather than the entire list. So, while I agree that the question of independently sourcing lists is a valid issue for discussion itself, it is not a reason for deletion - we delete articles that are unsourceable (rather than just unsourced), and most entries here are clearly not unsourceable, as they are actually (indirectly) sourced. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is also a double-edged tool. On the one hand, we don't keep crap just because there's other crap elsewhere, but on the other hand, we develop Wikipedia policies by consensus - and concensus often relies on precedent, which is itself a form of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. So I think that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, while not a strong argument on its own, can make a valid contribution to forming a consensus - in this case, the fact that articles like this have historically been kept when brought to AfD makes a valid contribution towards the discussion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Seeing as the consensus to include most of the other lists dates back to at least 2008, "precedent" is not really a valid argument, in that consensus may have changed since. WP:FL? implies that citations of reliable sources are necessary for lists. Claritas § 13:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, I agree that consensus can change, yes - and I think it's good to bring such lists to AfD from time to time - but people can, and will, use precedent (even if it's two years old) to help make their decisions. And again, the absence of independent sourcing is perhaps a reason for adding available sourcing (which clearly exists - it's in most of the individual articles), not for deleting the list - we delete things that are unsourceable, not just unsourced or, as in this case, only indirectly sourced. WP:FL? defines characteristics for Featured Lists (which are considerably more than simple lists of links to other Wikipedia articles). It is not a rule to be interpreted literally and followed blindly for all lists. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NOT as indiscriminate information because a list of fictional penguins is far too general and too broad in scope to have any value. (WP:SALAT) I've checked though the entries and found that only Chilly Willy, Frobisher (Doctor Who), Opus the Penguin, Tux, and Prinny that have stand-alone articles. The rest are redirects, links to character lists, links to the works the characters are from, or have no link at all. I would also have to agree with ThemFromSpace that the this is a list or repository of loosely associated topics, and thus fails the Wikipedia is not a directory of the WP:NOT policy. Just because there are other lists exist with similar issues doesn't mean that we give this list a pass as far a policy is concerned. —Farix (t | c) 15:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't see how this list fails WP:IINFO or WP:SALAT. Whether something is a fictional penguin is easily determinable, and the number of notable fictional penguins would certainly be finite and of a manageable size for a list. Furthermore, being a fictional penguin links all of the listed characters in an obvious way, making the list well defined. The arguements for deletion seem to be based primarily on the poor quality of the current article, specifically that it currently includes a large number of non-notable entries. However, the solution to that issue is to remove the non-notable entries, not to delete the entire list. Calathan (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as this list topic list appears to have not been published anywhere else other than Wikipedia, as it does not have a verifiable definition and contravenes the prohibition on using Wikipedia to publish original research as illustrated by WP:MADEUP. If it has not be been published anywhere else, and there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable list topic, then there is no rationale for inclusion. To demonstrate that this topic was not created based on editor's own whim, a verifiable definition is needed to provide external validation in accordance with WP:Source list.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Arguments like a list of fictional penguins is far too general and too broad in scope to have any value speak for themselves: what is general and broad about a subject as specific as notable, fictional penguins? It is clearly not indiscriminate (very well defined inclusion criteria) and clearly not as broad to fail WP:SALAT: in any case I'd like to remind that WP:SALAT is never a reason for deletion, but for reorganization: the guideline says: Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into sections. For example a list of brand names would be far too long to be of value. If you have an interest in listing brand names, try to limit the scope in some way (by product category, by country, by date, etc.). This is best done by sectioning the general page under categories. When entries in a category have grown enough to warrant a fresh list-article, they can be moved out to a new page, and be replaced by a See new list link. When all categories become links to lists, the page becomes a list repository or "List of lists" and the entries can be displayed as a bulleted list. For reference see Lists of people, which is made up of specific categorical lists. The nom argument deals with sourcing, which can easily be done by editing, and as such deletion policy asks us not to delete. --Cyclopia^talk 17:37, 20 June 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) 03:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Post Deployment/Mobilization Respite Absence (PARMA)[edit]

Post Deployment/Mobilization Respite Absence (PARMA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This article is a pure violation of WP:NOTGUIDE, and is a direct copy of http://www.armyg1.army.mil/militarypersonnel/ppg/PPG.pdf, which is likely in the public domain so WP:COPYVIO does not apply. Overall, this is nominated due to not a guide, and AFD had to be done because the author repeatedly removed PROD tags. — Timneu22 · talk 15:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. andy (talk) 16:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: A how to article. Joe Chill (talk) 20:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, definitely not an encyclopedia article. Nyttend (talk) 01:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Also appears to be redundant to Leave (U.S. military). - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE. ukexpat (talk) 19:36, 21 June 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) 03:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BOARD International[edit]

BOARD International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Contested prod. Article is about a non-notable company, no reliable sources provided and none found beyond press releases and marketing materials. TNXMan 15:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Also spam, for yet another back-office tech business: the provider of a programming-free toolkit for the development of Business Intelligence and Corporate performance management applications.... More Gartner "magic quadrants" - sheesh! - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: advertising for a non-notable company. The article is also a possibly copyright-infringing close paraphrase of the official website, and may be eligible for speedy deletion under criterion G12. Intelligentsium 22:40, 19 June 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. Shimeru 20:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Valley Entertainment Monthly[edit]

Valley Entertainment Monthly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable, defunct local alternative newspaper, circulation approx. 1,000. Sources listed are either a) not reliable/verifiable or b) do not mention the subject. Subject failes WP:NNEWSPAPER, the proposed guideline (no current guideline), also fails WP:GNG. Previous AfD resulted in WP:USERFY with so significant improvement. Appears to be a vanity piece. Non-encyclopedic. Minor4th (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nom claims "no significant" improvement" after userfy. Most of the references and a lot of cleanup work when into it before I put it back on the Main Page. How about we tell the truth once in a while and stop trying to rig the game? Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

The article was userfied to allow me to add the appropriate sources and references since I still had to dig to find the Flipside and other articles that I didn't have in front of me initially. My mistake was starting the article on the Main Page rather than work on it first on my own page. Another high crime, I know, but please forgive my ignorance. I'm aware of the policy now. In any case, and once again, Minor4th has ignored policy and assumed the worst here. In truth, most of the references on the article were put there after it was userfied. Again, please check your facts before you go making accusations and incorrect remarks based fully on assumption. Any ref that doesn't mention VEM is there for purposes of citing a source for an individual that is mentioned as having been associated with the paper. If the cite wasn't there, it would obviously turn into this after about two seconds:

^{[citation needed]} Right? Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

• Delete per nom. GregJackP (talk) 15:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as I said in the previous discussion, I looked for sources in America's Newspapers through the library and found no mention of this publication. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix |  Talk  16:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix |  Talk  16:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. Turlock is a small town and the newspaper only ran a year. It is highly doubtful that it ran any "breaking news" that weren't covered by the Stockton Record, Modesto Bee or Sacramento Bee. I know because I live in the area and this is the first I've heard of the paper. Discounting that observation, no reliable sources could be found to establish notability. I tried as a WP Cal member. ----moreno oso (talk) 19:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt per above, as well as my rationale from the original AFD. History: When I first nominated the article for deletion, the author left some pleasant corespondence [18], [19]; I especially like "You and your kind will not win". Eventually I concurred with the proposal to userfy, pending the addition of reliable sources to support notability, and see now that the article was re-entered in main space with little or no apparent improvement in sources. Longterm and contentious sense of ownership suggesting conflict of interest. JNW (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I stand by my previous comments - nothing worth saving. Seems a short-lived local publication, unencyclopedic and nearly 20 years out of date, non-notable, and still no google hits, except wikipedia...Modernist (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Not going to vote since I was the principal creator of the piece but I'd just like to say that 16 solid references including national publications does not make this subject non-notable. No internet back then, that's how we got our news, I found the old copies in the garage but didn't realize the crime involved in trying to write an article on a small newspaper that wasn't notable to editors that in many cases weren't even born at the time of publication. I'd advise anyone who isn't biased to actually read the article and explain how the content and people involved, including Stan Lee and many other famous contributors, is not notable.

It should also be pointed out that this article was nommed for a second time due to a conflict with an AfD with this article, Donald G. Martin, which Minor4th took as a means to create a justification for this AfD. Good show, Minor4th, I applaud your military skill.

• Oh, yeah, I almost forgot this...

Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 01:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

• Comment - having read Minor4th's comments on his talk page, I concur. Had he not nominated the article, I would have after the article was brought to my attention by an admin during the Don Martin debate. I also find it curious that you have a problem with the refs there after looking at the refs on this article. The article does not meet Wiki standards, pure and simple. Regards, GregJackP (talk) 02:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Here are my comments on the sources used in this article. Since many of them are not available online, I have referred to their availability in libraries around the word as searched for at WorldCat.

1. Valley Entertainment Monthly itself - No library holdings listed in WorldCat.

Listed because the data to be cited for reference purposes was contained in the Valley Entertainment Monthly copies which I used to get the facts straight.

1. The Hughson Chronicle - 1 library holding listed in WorldCat (Stanislaus County Free Library, Modesto, California).

Article appeared in this newspaper announcing the start of the publication.

1. Duckduckgo.com - Site appears to be based on mirroring Wikipedia; not an independent reliable source.

VEM is a defunct newspaper and is listed on an independent source. This is a fact and there is an online resource to support it.

1. Answers.com - Mirror of Wikipedia; not an independent reliable source.

The paper is mentioned in the article, whether they sourced it from Wiki? Unknown. There is a lot more information there than something they pulled from Wiki, though, so at least only part of the page is based on Wiki, if at all.

1. UFO Magazine - Does not mention VEM.

Backs up a statement about a contributing writer. Doesn't mention VEM but is a reference for the claim made about the individual. Is this not allowed? Sarah told me I need a cite for the Mr. Morbid paragraph, so I assumed I needed to reference each claim. I think I'm right on this, but will defer to more experienced editors.

1. Wraith - No library holdings listed in WorldCat for the particular Wraith described here.

Comic book from 1994. What can I say? I've got one, says VEM on the inside front cover. Should I make copies of these articles and fax them to Wiki? Yes, some of this stuff is esoteric and may have little web presence, but they support the Wikipedia standards by supplying the required refs.

1. Vortex Two - No library holdings listed in WorldCat.

This was a local UFO publication that ran an article on VEM in that issue. I would say this one is not a big name publication, just a localized newsletter.

1. American Art Directory - Does not mention VEM; in fact, it was published almost 80 years before VEM debuted.

This one is there to support the contention that the artist referred to in the piece is a "listed" artist as it says in the article. If I said she was a listed artist and didn't put that there, I'd get one of these real quick: ^{[citation needed]}

1. Penguincomics.net - Incorrectly cited web site. The reference should be to Penguincomicsnet.blogspot.com. However, the blog post at issue does not mention VEM.

Again, reference for the claims made about an individual contributor.

1. Bar-None.com - Does not mention VEM.\

Supports another claim in the article about Country Dick Montana of the Beat Farmers.

1. The New Millennial Star (or The New Mellennial Star) - No library holdings listed in WorldCat under either spelling.

Another UFO publication, this one a lot larger than Vortex Two. This one is mailed around the world to South America, Europe and the United States. Not surprising the WorldCat wouldn't cover it. How many UFO publications does the WorldCat cover? Also, if it is not in WorldCat, it can't be a reference? I'm confused.

1. Flipside (fanzine) - This one does appear to have 5 library holdings listed in WorldCat.

Huge publication, albeit somewhat underground, that has been available in every major city in the United States since the late 80's. For people who claim the paper was not notable, a major publication like that would not have covered it if it was some little nothing paper as most here would like to suggest.

1. Magus News - No library holdings listed in WorldCat.

Gaming publication. Sorry no WorldCat, but VEM mentioned.

1. The Sorcerer's Scroll - No library holdings listed in WorldCat.

Same as above. Issue contains article about VEM.

All responses by Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 23:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

There are also five web sites in the "External links" section, but none of them mention VEM. I realize that not everything is on the Internet, and to research some things it is necessary to go to a library and maybe even do an interlibrary loan. The problem is that most of the sources listed here either don't mention VEM or would be very difficult to locate. Other than the Hughson Chronicle and Flipside, I don't know if I would even be able to find any of the more relevant sources here. I'm not going to submit my recommendation yet, though, as the article might change between now and when the AfD closes. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 10:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any references that do not actually mention VEM are intended to back up statements about the people involved and to that degree, the references back up statements about individuals involved somehow with the paper. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

I should also disclose my relationship to this subject. I was friends with Mr. Morbid and I kept a copy of each issue as it came out. When I was cleaning out my garage a few months back, I ran across all the old issues in a box. I thought Wikipedia would be inclusive of even a small newspaper, but I didn't realize that having an article on the site means having to win a popularity contest. As for the article, I'm not going to take it personally even though it clearly is personal. The timing makes it obvious it is punishment for some other crime. The paper, as I've said ad nauseum, was really exciting to a lot of us back then and we didn't have the internet. I know its hard to imagine life without the net, but back then we actually got our news through newspapers and this was the only one like it in the area at the time. Interviews with Stan Lee, Quiet Riot, Mart Nodell and many others, all nationally known celebrities, artists and writers. Yeah, real non-notable. I'd suggest some of you actually read it first, too, before voting because one of your editor friends told you to jump on the bandwagon. I'll also add that I haven't seen Mr. Morbid since 1994 or thereabouts, so I am certainly no proxy. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

Delete. Per above Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For disclosure purposes, I made a few cuts to the article without realing I wasn't signed on. Sarah advised cutting the fluff, so it was basically a bunch of paragraphs cut out of the piece. They are all marked something along the lines of "improvements, per Sarah" and the like. Sorry about the oversight. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 05:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

This is an answer to Metro from my Talk page. I thought it would be appropriate as it very clearly sums up in a concise manner this whole affair:

"Some Questions Exactly how many cites does a subject need anyway? Isn't it something like two? The article has two solid ones. The Flipside article is being ignored like it is nothing. That is a nationally distributed monthly magazine as I've tirelessly pointed out, but you are focused on some small things, which I find ridiculously petty, but I respect your right to your opinion, obviously. The Hughson Chronicle announcement of the first issue is no joke either. I just think the material is not being reviewed properly. How common is it that a small publication like that would nonetheless have interviews and/or contributions from internationally famous rock musicians (Rick Wakeman, Country Dick Montana!, Ian Moore, Quiet Riot, Kevin Dubrow now deceased), the creators or Spider-Man (Stan Lee) and Green Lantern (Mart Nodell), a nationally syndicated psychic, a column by a leading UFO researcher at the time, as well as a particularly gory column specifically about B-grade slasher films? It looks like it will be deleted and I'm not going to get worked up over it, it isn't that important. But it turned out to be one hell of a learning experience and that's a really good thing. With that said however, I have to add that the publication described above would only be considered non-notable by an idiot. Just my opinion, don't take it personally."

Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 06:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

• Delete per nom. Source-wise, they're either VEM itself, passing mentions or are for related facts immaterial to the actual newspaper. Sadly, the creator seems to now be on some kind of personal crusade against the world. ninety:one 21:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I guess it is coming off that way, but I don't mean for it. Bottom line is I spent a couple weeks trying to get this article together and when there was disagreement on another AfD, this one was mysteriously nominated for deletion by one of the principal editors over at the AfD on Donald G. Martin. It had been left alone, with refs, for weeks with no comment or additional tags. Odd timing and would probably annoy anybody. I am on a war, though, with editors who throw around accusations, then ignore the responses. That's just plain wrong but seems to be fairly common on Wikipedia. Incidentally, there are two solid, nationally recognized refs (Flipside Magazine and The Hughson Chronicle), so I'm not sure what you mean by "passing references" only. That is an assumption and untrue. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 21:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

• Comment -- NN, your behavior when anyone disagrees with you makes it very difficult to work collaboratively with you and does not inspire others to give you helpful pointers. Nevertheless, you mentioned something in one of you earlier comments that struck me -- as far as notability goes, you mentioned that what is unique about this particular newspaper is that it attracted interviews of very important people in the comics industry despite its being small circulation and a free publication. In other words, it's not the big name interviews themselves that are really notable, it's the fact that such a small alternative publication could pull it off. Maybe make that the principle claim of notability and make it more prominent and clearly stated. I don't know if that will stave off deletion because I havent gone back and reviewed your edits or ref improvements since I nommed this. But that is one way I think you could improve this article that might help bring it into wiki compliance. Good night. Minor4th (talk) 06:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Though arguably borderline as to notability, I'm satisfied that this publication made a contribution to popular culture. Outside the realm of articles that cause real-world problems (BLP or related matters), this falls for me well within the category of keeping more rather than less content where the content will provides some useful information without harming anyone. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - NN has written to Jimbo Wales concerning this and his editing (you can find on Jimbo's talk), and Jimbo has commented that the article "almost certainly doesn't belong in Wikipedia" Claritas § 13:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably Keep: Jimbo also told us to ignore all rules so long as we are improving Wikipedia. I think content that is non-notable to whomever could be labeled with a category for excluding from projects where it matters, such as printing Wikipedia. I can't see that it does any harm otherwise. Lumenos (talk) 07:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per nom. Codf1977 (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Summarise and Merge to Turlock, California - I see no reason why a historical newspaper of local interest might not be covered there. Claritas § 20:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Claritas.Minor4th • talk 20:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As a WP Cal member, oppose mention in Turlock. The paper is not historical as it did not produce any lasting works except for this AfD. ----moreno oso (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Umm no - The two should be linked but it is rather long for that article. wp:IAR would be more of an improvement I think. It becomes a nuisance only if the content is some place like that. Lumenos (talk) 00:16, 24 June 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. T. Canens (talk) 02:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional New Zealanders[edit]

List of fictional New Zealanders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

List which fails WP:SALAT, WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR. Considering the amount of fiction in all forms which has been published/broadcast in New Zealand, this list would be impractical and unmaintainable if expanded. In its current state it is simply unrepresentative. Claritas § 15:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete pretty much per nom (WP:SALAT, WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR all apply here). It's important to note that because each of these characters are from a different fictional universe, the designation of being a New Zealander is pretty arbitrary cross categorization. ThemFromSpace 15:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't see any special problem with the list. It seems to be limited to notable characters from notable works. More could be added to balance out the superheroes and science fiction characters. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SALAT → "List of people" section. These fictional people are not notable for being from New Zealand so the list is completely arbitrary. It is also way to broad in scope. If every fictional New Zealander was in the list, it would become an unuseful index but in its uncompleted state, its just a random group. Its a non-notable intersection and therefore, should be deleted. Tavix |  Talk  15:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix |  Talk  15:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix |  Talk  15:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix |  Talk  15:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Sorry for the slippery slope, but if we start with NZ, we could do similar lists for, say the US, UK, Japan, fictional places... Think of the scope of those articles.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 18:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't going to run out of space, and those who don't like it, won't be likely to ever find it anyway. Dream Focus 07:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Space isn't the issue, it's the "non-encyclopedic cross-categorization" of WP:NOTDIR that is. Fictional New-Zealanders are not a notable subject as they have not been the subject of any other encyclopedia. That the list is short now has nothing to do with it. If you think of a similar article from a nation that produces a lot more fiction like the US, you'd put together a gigantic list of completely unrelated charactesr, from Huckleberry Finn to Philip J. Fry to Cheerleader #78 in Bring It On Again to Sarah McDougal from Love Hina. The list of fictional cats you mention elsewhere in this discussion has the exact same issue, the inclusion criterion is too vast and too vague and does not follow WP:SALAT.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Fictional New-Zealanders are not a notable subject as they have not been the subject of any other encyclopedia. : Being the subject of other encyclopedias is definitely not our criteria for keeping articles, let alone lists (which have different criteria). See WP:NOTPAPER. --Cyclopia^talk 16:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a category for fictional New Zealanders would work better. dramatic (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categories aren't as easy to read, and don't allow for as much information to be presented. Dream Focus 07:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't honestly see how it is harder to refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fictional_New_Zealand_people than it is to refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fictional_New_Zealanders . And surely the place for information to be presented is in the characters' articles themselves, not in a list? Daveosaurus (talk) 10:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Does not fail WP:SALAT: Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into categories. For example a list of brand names would be far too long to be of value. If you have an interest in listing brand names, try to limit the scope in some way (by product category, by country, by date, etc.). - This is exactly the case: the list is specific in scope, being about (1)fictional characters and (2)New Zealanders only. Also: Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category and should have Wikipedia articles , and that is the case here. Also, An exception is nationality/ethnicity, and we're doing exactly that. Does not fail WP:IINFO, not falling under any of the categories specified; the list is well discriminate in scope and in content, containing almost only notable entries (notable enough to have a WP article or being otherwise well covered in WP). Does not fail WP:NOTDIR, since it is not a Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics, but a list of characters tightly linked by nationality (see also above). The "impractical" argument does not hold, since we use to split in sub-lists any list that becomes too large, see List of people for an example of such hierarchical listing. Arguments about the current state of the list do not hold, since per deletion policy we don't delete on the basis of article quality. About the "slippery slope" argument, we already have such lists for other countries. About the "a category is better" argument, remember that categories and list are by no means mutually exclusive. The list is not a random intersection: it is a good starting point to investigate the role of New Zealand in fiction. --Cyclopia^talk 20:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- per WP:NOTDIR and WP:IINFO. Reyk _YO! 23:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in favour of a category as per Dramatic. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep More information there as a list article, and easier to navigate, than it would as a category. If you search for "List of Fictional" in the Wikipedia search bar, you will find 17,721 results. Everything from list of fictional cats to List of fictional Vice Presidents of the United States Dream Focus 07:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The list (once subdivided by headings) can only be subdivided in one way. But an article can fit into multiple subcategories as necessary - e.g. a character in a book which is made into a film. Which makes the categories better for navigation. But that is a long way off since the list only contains one valid item at present. (Remember how list entries need to be sourced?) dramatic (talk) 02:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A list with material limited to that in articles on notable Wikipedia subjects is not indiscriminate, but discriminating. Yes it will be a long list, but it will be finite, as it will be in proportion to our coverage of NZ fiction. The relevant policy is NOT PAPER DGG ( talk ) 08:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:NOTPAPER is not a free pass for inclusion and as such should not be solely cited in a rationale. If that were the case, one could just cite WP:NOTPAPER for anything and use it for their keep !vote. Tavix |  Talk  16:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think DGG comment addresses the rationale of who thinks that such a list would be "too large" or leading to a "slippery slope": we have no space problems, so those rationales make no sense. --Cyclopia^talk 17:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, but it goes the other way too. Just because a list would be massive is no reason to keep an article just as thinking having a list that is "too large" is not a reason to delete. Tavix |  Talk  20:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not--I agree the size of a list is irrelevant. (For that matter, hat a list has too few items is sometimes given as a reason for rejection, which is also irrelevant if its more than 2 or 3. Lists of finite size are objected to as finite, those of indefinite but large size as infinite. --none of this is relevant in accepting or rejecting). DGG ( talk ) 03:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just hope no one creates List of articles that User:DGG has !voted to keep... :P (joking) SnottyWong ^squeal 23:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only to be dwarfed by List of articles that User:Dream Focus has !voted to keep..... Claritas § 10:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, don't worry. Both would vanish in front of List of lists that User:Claritas and User:Gavin Collins have !voted to delete. --Cyclopia^talk 18:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I don't really like most lists very much. Claritas § 18:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that. Which is sad, given that many users could find them good navigational helps. But oh, too bad, Claritas didn't like it... --Cyclopia^talk 18:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a justification for !voting delete. I dislike most lists because most lists should be deleted from my point of view - they are indiscriminate and violate WP:SALAT, WP:IINFO, etc. Having said that, there are plenty of useful lists in Wikipedia, such as List of US Presidents etc.Claritas § 18:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're here chatting: Now, if tomorrow this list is deleted, and understanding that lists are navigational aids for our readers more than anything else, what has WP gained? What has our readership gained? This is something that baffles me. When we delete original research, completely non-notable entries etc. we help by not giving credibility to stuff which has no encyclopedic credibility. But in this case, of a list of notable entries? What users do you feel will be served by doing that? Articles are not kept on the basis of being useful, but lists, being navigational aids, are meant to be useful. So, what is the usefulness, the help, the service in doing that? I really can't get it. --Cyclopia^talk 18:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be got rid of precisely because it doesn't do anything useful which a category wouldn't. It's a waste of editor's time to concentrate on improving something with no utility. Claritas § 18:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no. Our guidelines disagree in full with this point of view. Categories and lists are not mutually exclusive : Accordingly, these methods should not be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others. For example, since editors differ in style, some favor building lists while others favor building categories, allowing links to be gathered in two different ways, with lists often leapfrogging categories, and vice versa. This approach has resulted in two main link-based systems of navigating Wikipedia. See the navigation menu at the top of Wikipedia:Contents, and see Category:Categories. Many users prefer to browse Wikipedia through its lists, while others prefer to navigate by category; and lists are more obvious to beginners, who may not discover the category system right away. Therefore, the "category camp" should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists, and the "list camp" shouldn't tear down Wikipedia's category system—doing so wastes valuable resources. Instead, each should be used to update the other. - Also, all else being equal, you shouldn't decide how other editors decide to concentrate their efforts. This is a volunteer project. --Cyclopia^talk 19:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you suggest two situations in which this list would be useful to the average reader of Wikipedia ? I can't think of any, either in this current state, or in any state. Claritas § 20:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, if you want to know something about the treatment of New Zealanders in fiction, the list is an excellent starting point. Better than a category, because it gives some quick context to the entries, and as such one can quickly focus on something he/she's more interested in than others. Also, the fact that you "can't think of any" does not mean at all that such situations do not exist. It only shows lack of imagination. --Cyclopia^talk 21:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a great starting point. At the moment, it is twenty or so indiscriminate entries. It may well grow to twenty hundred indiscriminate entries. Bear in mind that this list would contain most characters in NZ TV, radio and written fiction.... Claritas § 18:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a great starting point.: Better than no starting point, for sure.

It may well grow to twenty hundred indiscriminate entries. : Are there 2000 notable NZ fictional characters? If so, good, but then it is not indiscriminate. If not, it won't grow. It is all matter of proper maintenance.

Bear in mind that this list would contain most characters in NZ TV, radio and written fiction: Provided they are notable (which I doubt being the case for most of these characters, but can be for a reasonable minority), where is the problem? --Cyclopia^talk 21:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that being NZ isn't a particularly notable feature for these characters. We might as well create List of fictional characters who wear top hats. WP:IINFO is the policy here. Claritas § 22:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:SALAT: Nationality is explicitly indicated as a proper categorization. --Cyclopia^talk 23:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Real nationality and fictional nationality are very different kettles of fish. The fictional nationality is attached to a fictional New Zealand, and as the characters don't share the same fictional New Zealands, they also don't share the same fictional nationalities. Claritas § 07:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is clutching at straws at its best, isn't it? --Cyclopia^talk 12:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as this list topic list appears to have not been published anywhere else other than Wikipedia, as it does not have a verifiable definition and contravenes the prohibition on original research as illustrated by WP:MADEUP. If it has not be been published anywhere else, and there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable list topic, then there is no rationale for inclusion. To demonstrate that this topic was not created based on editor's own whim, a verifiable definition is needed to provide external validation that this list complies with content policy.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That characters from NZ appear in fiction is made-up? DGG ( talk ) 03:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You are missing the point, DGG. Characters from NZ appear in sources everywhere, except in a list. If there are no reliable, third-party sources for the list itself, then Wikipedia does not have a rationale for its inclusion. If there is no such list in the real world, then there should not be one in Wikipedia either. This article would make an interesting appendices to a book or paper on NZ characters, but then Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• And you are missing the point of 1)The purpose of lists, that is that of being a navigational help to readers, not a topic 2)WP:MADEUP which exists to prevent articles to pop about non-notable stuff that has been done one day 3)WP:OR, which is material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources., combined with any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources.. Here (and in also all the other lists you !voted to delete with the same rationale) we have inserted no fact,allegation,idea or story not already published by RS , nor we advanced any position not advanced by sources. Gavin, you are really better reading policies and guidelines before appealing to them. --Cyclopia^talk 21:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Lists can have any number of purposes that are useful to editors, but that is not a valid rationale for their inclusion in Wikipedia. WP:NOT#OR says that Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, and if this list has not been published anywhere else, then if it is an entirely novel and original list topic that does not exist in the real world, it has no place here. What is needed is some verifiable source to show that the list itself (not just its content) is not original thought. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You are now deliberately ignoring what WP:OR says, that I quoted above. And WP:ITSUSEFUL says explicitly: An argument based on usefulness can be valid if put in context. For example, "This list brings together related topics in X and is useful for navigating that subject.". --Cyclopia^talk 10:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am not ignoring you, in fairness. I have nothing to say about the content of list; rather it is the existence of the list topic itself that is being challenged. It if has not been published or defined as a list topic in the real world, then Wikipedia should not have a seperate standalone list article about it. Usefulness or naviation does enter into it - good or bad, that is your opinion, but it is not supported by any source. What is missing is an external source to show that this list does not fail WP:NOT#OR. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The list does not fail OR. What I quoted above makes it extremly clear. The way we structure content has nothing to do with OR. Please read the above. I do not care if you ignore me, I care if you ignore the policies meaning. --Cyclopia^talk 11:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• But you admit that it fails WP:NOT#OR. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Facepalm Absolutely not. It doesn't fail WP:NOT#OR. It does not fail any original research policy, because structuring content is not OR, and if you actually read the policies you would hopefully understand that. Please tell me which part of WP:OR, WP:NOT#OR the list "fails". I repeat here what I quoted above, and this time please read it and comment on it, do not ignore it: WP:OR, which is material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources., combined with any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources.. Here (and in also all the other lists you !voted to delete with the same rationale) we have inserted no fact,allegation,idea or story not already published by RS , nor we advanced any position not advanced by sources. --Cyclopia^talk 10:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. SnottyWong ^verbalize 23:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The topic of fictional New Zealanders has pedigree and merit. Note for example one of the earlier icons of a fictional New Zealander: Lord Macaulay's visitor to a future ruined London: Ascari, Maurizio; Corrado, Adriana, eds. (2006). Sites of exchange: European crossroads and faultlines. Internationale Forschungen zur allgemeinen und vergleichenden Literaturwissenschaft. Vol. 103. Rodopi. p. 135 of 296. ISBN 9789042020153. Retrieved 2010-06-19. [...] one of [Thomas Macaulay's] visions of the future ruin of London, from 1840, endured as a rhetorical commonplace for the rest of the nineteenth century, being given huge additional currency by Gustave Doré's famous illustration, 'The New Zealander', in London, a Pilgrimage in 1872.[...] Macaulay's identification of the new Zealander as a symbolic tourist who will represent a new world when power shall have passed from the old one, [...] centres on the Thames. And fiction by New Zealanders too has contributed to archetypal images of fictional New Zealanders: recall the importance in New Zealand literature of the "Man Alone": Sturm, Terry, ed. (1998) [1991]. The Oxford New Zealand History of New Zealand Literature in English (2 ed.). Auckland: Oxford University Press. p. 157 of 890. ISBN 0 19 558385 X. Chapman commented that for the writers up to 1950 their 'way of examining the society they depict' was primarily through 'the individual isolated in every sense, who may or may not explode into violent gestures under the distorting weight of a pattern he does not understand'. [...] Although John Mulgan's novel gave this Man Alone pattern its name, it had appeared earlier in the novels of Lee and Hyde, and even its later appearances may not have been influenced by Mulgan, for his novel was not widely available in New Zealand until reprinted in 1949. But even in the modern period too, non-New Zealanders have expanded or revived the image of fictional New Zealanders as survivors and representatives of a post-apocalytic future. Thus "the Sealand woman" plays a significant role in the closing sequences of John Wyndham's The Chrysalids. (Compare Charles Sheffield's fictional universe of Cold as Ice and The Ganymede Club where a devastated Earth retains southern New Zealand as its last major populated region.) Wikipedia has the ability to build up lists of such characters and tropes. -- If the list eventually grows too large we can subdivide it thematically and chronologically as desired. -- Pedant17 (talk) 12:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SALAT, WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR. This is not a useful list in any way, easily achieved by appropriate categorisation. This kind of pointless article is a time sink which diverts editors from actually improving the project. As such, it is actually damaging the project. Verbal chat 15:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Categories are not ideal replacements for lists, as they may contain articles which are not members of the list. WP:IINFO has nothing against this list. WP:SALAT's applicability is also questionable; this list is only one facet off from List of New Zealand politicians (politician -> fictional person). Arguing WP:SALAT in this case suggests that politicians are inherently more important than fictional characters, which is questionable in the long run of culture. WP:NOTDIR is the best policy against this list, but the existence of other similarly precise lists suggests that unless you are prepared to argue that fictional characters (who merit their own articles) are not culturally significant, it still does not stand up. - BalthCat (talk) 23:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep "tto long potentially" is not, per se, sufficient as a reason for deletion. And, as has been mentioned above, a category would eliminate what would otherwise be proper in this list, and well-known enough for such a list, even is not "notable" enough for a separate artcle on WP (or more likely result in too many very short articles). All things considered - keep. Collect (talk) 18:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as overly broad and thus indiscriminate. Fails WP:IINFO in terms of lists (see WP:SALAT). Shooterwalker (talk) 20:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If the list gets too large, it can be subdivided into lists for characters from films, books, etc. --PinkBull 01:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The open-ended nature of the subject (I'd wager that practically all local NZ literature features such characters) makes this unworkable, along with the still largely-unanswered problem that being from NZ does not unite these subjects in any way but rather simply collects them in as arbitrary a manner as a list of fictional characters by eye colour. Addressing the keeps:
  • Pedant17's is interesting, but it rather speaks of the fictional portrayal of New Zealanders. This is a very different thing from an open-ended list of characters who may (and probably mostly don't) reflect the archetype given in his sources.
  • Collect's comment makes a false equivalence: New Zealand politicians, by definition, work for the New Zealand government, and thus have a great deal in common with each other over and above their nationalities. Fictional characters have no implied shared characteristics except not existing. That a category might not be appropriate either does not force us to have a list; we can have neither.
  • The rest don't make any arguments based on our guidelines as the majority of the project understands them.
• Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:29, 25 June 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.

Closing statement: The guideline Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators says, "When closing an AfD about a living person whose notability is ambiguous, the closing administrator should take into account whether the subject of the article being deleted has asked that it be deleted. The degree of weight given to such a request is left to the admin's discretion." That's what we're left with here- we have plenty of editors on both sides- in fact, slightly more on a numerical basis arguing for keeping this article. We have a person whose notability many good faith editors disagree about... and a woman in the middle who just wants it to go away.

If it wasn't for that request, this would be a pretty easy no consensus close. As much as we are morally obligated to keep BLP's neutral and reliable, we are also obligated to do no harm with them. In light of the subject's request, and the decent arguments made that the subject is, at best, borderline notable, the result is delete and I can already see another week watching DRV in my future. Courcelles (talk) 04:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mimi Macpherson[edit]

Mimi Macpherson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Mimi Macpherson is the sister of Elle Macpherson. But for that single fact (BLP1E) virtually none of her life story would have been in the press. Because little is known of her other than tabloid gossip that has surfaced around unfortunate incidents in her life, it is not possible to write a well-balanced biography of her.

Our guideline is clear that "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person. " (See WP:BIO#Family.)

A look in google suggests that she is mostly famous for a sex tape alleged to be of her, which she did not release. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy strongly suggests that we should avoid vicitimization and that "This is of particular importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions."

Finally, the subject of this article has requested deletion after an extensive discussion of the possibility of improvement.

Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep based on the sheer number and depth of articles found on through google news that satisfies the GNG. So she what if she was initially famous for being a relative or is now being famous for being notorious like a Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian. They are all notable. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no question that Paris Hilton (with 2710 hits in google news) and Kim Kardashian (with 2240 hits in google news) are notable. Mimi Macpherson has 3 hits in google news, two of them just mentions, and the other one about how non-notable Mimi is, "Supermodel Elles sister works in a market".--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • notability is not temporary so a search should also include the archives like the find sources link. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed, and none of the sources contains any hint that Mimi would be notable, but for being the sister of Elle. Everything about her life has been under scrutiny for that reason only, and virtually all the press coverage about her is in relation to Elle. The press is interested that the sister of a supermodel filed for bankruptcy, works in a market, etc. The Internet and tabloids went wild of course in the early days of the Internet over alleged sex tapes, but again, this was only noticed because of her sister.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Totally agree with Jimbo on this. Her article is here because of her sister and if not for that these other things would render her totally non-notable. Sources are weak too and should be verified better before putting them in the article, esp one on a living person. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect/Merge to Elle's page and perhaps include a blurb about her at Elle Macpherson#Personal life. Elle is the notable one but since Mimi is her younger sister, some things that Mimi has done in relation to Elle would fit perfectly. Tavix |  Talk  15:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

merge into Elle's article is entirely inappropriate and would give greater emphasis on the negative aspects. Gnangarra 06:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, clearly fails WP:BLP1E; and I completely agree with Jimbo that WP:BLP#Presumptino in favor of privacy applies here; and we should definitely avoid further vicitimization of the subject, especially considering that the notability here "stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions" and per WP:BIO#Family Dreadstar ☥ 20:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree that notability isn't demonstrated here. However, the level of sourcing is in line with that for many, many biographies of other marginally famous people which have survived AfDs. As such, I think that it may be time to revise the BLP guidelines to require some demonstration of intrinsic notability as well as sources - this would be in line with WP:PROF which considers the significance of an academic's work as well as whether they have personally received media coverage. Nick-D (talk) 00:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination and especially per Dreadstar. A existing discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Muirhead sums up much of my personal antipathy to these articles. A marginally notable person gets involved in an alleged reputation-destroying incident and the response here at Wikipedia is to amplify and seemingly give credence to the allegations. I think Wikipedia should lean on the side of the subject in cases such as these-- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not having read the article, I actually have no idea what the alleged reputation-destroying incident is, but she's a long-time, well-known figure in Australia. Remove the damn BLP violation, write a proper article, problem solved. Rebecca (talk) 01:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep when this was listed on WP:AWNB I questioned why this is even here Mimi is recognised for her tourism ventures with whale watching in Queensland for which she recieved national(Australia) coverage over an extended period of time during which time she als recieved some business women award(not sure the awards is notable enough to endower notability on recipients). Yes I know she Elles sister but that isnt the basis of her notability its just another bullet point in her bio. at first glance on google news the first two entries are on her bankruptcy this 2008 article Daily Telegraph article gives a good balanced coverage of her. Coverage in Australian Story in 1998 as part of their wording not mine insight into one of Australia’s most famous families. Its definitely an article that needs to be cleaned and appropriately balanced but to say Mimi is just a WP:BLP1E and that its unable to be written with a balanced tone due to lack of sources isnt true. Gnangarra 01:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Would the subject have been any more notable than the many, many other tourism operators in Hervey Bay other than for sharing some genes with a supermodel? While there is no end of sources, the overwhelming majority of them would refer to the subject as "the sister of Elle Macpherson". Her sister is the one who is notable, the coverage of the subject is dependent entirely on Elle's reflected notability. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Also, her bankruptcy was not particularly large or interesting and would not have been in the newspapers save for her being Elle's sister. It is not sufficient to establish independent notability.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

response no doubt that her initial rise to fame was becuase of her sister, but her sister wasnt the reason for her recieving the Business Womens award, nor was the cause of her bankruptcy. If memory serves me correctly with the businesses both sisters put effort into distancing themselves from each other endeavours. Her other escapades with the exception of that video gained coverage because she has a tabloid media profile which sells, its not dependent entirely on Elles notability. BLP issues aside deletion of the article will only see recreation, merge into Elle's article is entirely inappropriate and would give greater emphasis on the negative aspects. Gnangarra 06:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further thoughts I missed the issue of Jimbo having direct contact with her and her request for the article to be removed I'd support a Deletion/recreation to remove the problematic history that is cause for concern. Gnangarra 06:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person. But there becomes a point whereby a person receives significant coverage in their own right and is thus separately notable, even though the person wouldn't have received that coverage if not for their relationship to the notable person. See Bristol Palin, etc. In my view, Mimi falls into that category. Per Rebecca, we have ways to deal with BLP problems that usually don't involve deleting a whole article.--Mkativerata (talk) 03:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am not sure your use of Bristol Palin adds to your argument, aside from it being a textbook case of WP:WAX. The Palin article, to my mind, is a prime example of an article that should be nothing more than a redirect to the person who is actually notable. i.e her mother. What has Bristol Palin ever done that is of notice in her own right? What coverage has Bristol had about her in her own right rather than as the daughter of Sarah? The answer to both these questions is, of course, nothing. The same answers to the same questions apply to the subject of this article. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trust that I'm not using Bristol Palin as an argument for why this article should be included, but an example of how people can be manifestly notable despite being nothing more than relatives of notable people. But as you would disagree with Palin being included, so be it.--Mkativerata (talk) 04:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, but that's exactly what you're doing, using Briston Palin’s article as an argument for why this one should be included….clearly WP:WAX. What would be the difference? It’s using the existence of one article to help justify the existence of another. Instead, reasons should be based on Wikipedia:Deletion policy, neutral point of view, no original research, verifiability, biographies of living people and what Wikipedia is not, or on Wikipedia guidelines. Dreadstar ☥ 16:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you tell the difference between WP:WAX and using another example as illustrative of how one's argument plays out in practice? You're highlighting four words in my argument and whacking an inappropriate essay link to it to try to discredit the actual argument I'm making. Would you feel better if I struck the mention to Bristol Palin? Because my argument would be none the worse for it. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - certainly enough notoriety in Australia (much of it self-propagated) to be included. The suggestion of deletion almost smacks of cultural insensitivity. I don't think "I want to be left alone" is a criteria for deletion as this would destroy the integrity of the projectPorturology (talk) 14:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - cultural insensitivity? I don't even know what that means in this context. I might understand if you argued for delete on the grounds that a "keep" vote amounts to cultural insensitivity to the plight of women victimized by tabloid press and a public morbidly interested in celebrities. In any event, I don't know of anyone who is arguing that "I want to be left alone" is a criteria for deletion. There is a longstanding tradition - quite valid - of appropriately considering the pain that a bad biography is causing for the victim as a part of our deliberations.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Further comment - I was just reflecting on the "much of it self-propagated" comment, and wanted to explain why I think that's not valid and not actually true. The details of her life that are known publicly that people are regarding as notable are all in and of themselves routine and not notable. If you had trouble with DUI, if you filed for bankruptcy, if you were victimied by having an alleged sex tape of you posted to the Internet - none of those things would hit the newspapers at all, "self-propagated" or not. None of those things are notable. None of this would be in the press at all, for any reason, save for her being the sister of a celebrity. That doesn't make her a celebrity of independent notability.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I certainly agree that we should consider the pain that a bad biography causes its subject, Jimbo, but I'd hardly say this article, in its present state, could possibly be classed as such. She's pretty close to a household name, and the article has all of one dispassionate sentence describing a DUI charge, at the bottom of the article, and taking up less than 1/10 of the article, with the remainder doing an okay (if not brilliantly written) job of documenting her actual career. Considering that, this is a particularly bizarre example to jump on the soapbox about. Rebecca (talk) 15:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. - I agree, and she agrees, that the article is already much improved. However, it seems pretty clear to me that what remains does nothing to establish notability. That she is said to be "pretty close to a household name" does nothing to establish notability in the sense of Wikipedia, since the press coverage is virtually all only existing due to her relationship to her sister. I don't think anyone can plausibly argue that we'd have a biography about her, save for that one fact alone.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree she may not have reached the level of media coverage that she did if it was not for her sisters notability, but its her actions that have sustained her presence within Australian Media. Gnangarra 16:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• more In 2001 she was a front person for Planet Arkpay per view, and a deckhand injured on her whale watching boat was named young Queenslander of the Year 2001. Interestingly in Sep 13 2006 the Courier Mail [20] wrote an article calling her a pioneer of the whale watching industry and pointed out that she was immediately recognised. Deletion isnt a resolution as the article will be continually recreated every time she appears in media release in Australia, something she has done every year since 1995. Noteriety Notability through 15 years of media coverage WP:GNG has been met....Identifable person in a crowd. TV personality on Discovery channel, radio personality in Queensland, model for Evolve Makeup, and final word "WHALE conservation luminary Mimi MacPherson" Warwick Daily news October 2009[21]. What ever is used to define Notability she has it in spades, Gnangarra 16:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I look at all that and I still think that there is nothing there that would lead to notability other than for her being the sister of Elle. There are hundreds of people involved in the whale watching industry, the subject's role was only of interest in all of that insofar as she was Elle's sister. If it wasn't for an alleged videotaped episode, she would have been out of sight and out of mind for some time now. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 21:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Re:"much of it self-propagated" - I missed this comment earlier but it deserves a response. There is an unfortunate habit here on Wikipedia to conclude that some of the subjects of our articles somehow have a lesser right to protection under our BLP guidelines if they are perceived to have actively sought a public profile. While it may not be intended as such, this smacks of a "She it had coming" or "She deserves it" attitude that we would deplore if it was used as a rule for how to treat people in general society. Regardless of any perception of self-promotion, we owe the living subjects of our articles a duty of care that is not somehow lessened by their earlier actions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Response - by "self propagated" I meant that she has become a celebrity through her own actions rather than relying on her sister - which I believed to be what this discussion is about. Having said that: if a person has achieved the level of notability to justify a WP article - it would be inappropriate to censor that article by only including those things which are perceived to be morally good, although there are some things, like the tape, that are best left unsaid for the feelings of a living subjects. Where the line is drawn is a difficult one. I suspect that MMs DUI and bankruptcy, like Paris Hilton's traffic offences, would be included in her biography if it is kept. The real point of this discussion, however, is if she is notable. I am surprised that you say she is only notable for the tape - scanning the 42 articles about her in the Daily Telegraph in the last 18 months and the 177 articles about her in the SMH, I could find only 1 reference about the tape and that was by Miranda Devine. Certainly many but not most articles start with "Mimi, the sister of..." but the articles are about Mimi - what society events she has attended, her TV career, her businesses and yes, her bankruptcy. I think 219 articles in the only daily papers in Sydney indicates significant coverage by secondary sources that are: reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject and this more than satisfies WP:BASIC. So I can get an idea of the basis of your argument about deleting MM and Andy Muirhead - do you consider that Antonia Kidman and Adriana Xenides should be deleted? Porturology (talk) 01:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The last time I read the article the section on the tape had been removed - how is this now a bad biography and what does Ms Macpherson object to?. I would hazard a guess that in a survey of Australians most would have heard of her and not just because of her sister or the tape. She spent a large part of the 90s and 00s gracing the social pages and gossip magazines as what some people call a "B list" celebrity - Are you calling for all "victims of tabloids" to be removed - if so I think we will be spending a lot of time on AFD- what about JonBenét Ramsey as a random example?. Her family have been "victims of the tabloid press and a public morbidly interested in celebrities". The fact that Mimi Macphersom is unknown to most Americans is not a reason for deletion. Porturology (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Porturology (talk) 20:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Jimbo. Public awareness of her begins and continues in most part because of her sister. We shouldn't confuse notoriety with notability. Notability depends on reliable sources notoriety doesn't. Per WP:Notability multiple, compliant sources are generally expected. Nor should we make a decision based on past mistakes on Wikipedia, if mistakes they are, in regards to the comment above on tabloids. More mistakes even more cleanup. (olive (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • This !vote doesn't make any sense. The article has multiple, compliant sources, with a veritable ton of further sources should someone decide to flesh the article out even further. There isn't a single tabloid piece cited or mentioned in the article. This discussion would be profoundly aided if some of the fly-through voters actually read the damned article. Rebecca (talk) 18:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete to be notable a person has to do something notable. The GNG is not a guideline that says we must have an article on every person that technically meets it. DGG ( talk ) 16:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep' as a local Australian, I have seen her on and off in news and entertainment. Yes she is Elle's sister, but has hosted (IIRC) TV programs and other bits and pieces along the way. I have not heard of any scandal, and my approach would be removal and semi-protection (or Pending changes or whatever). Article quality is no grounds for deletion. Note to closing admin, some of the keepers are Australian editors who are more familiar with the subject matter. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The closing admin should note that some of the deleters are Australian editors as well, who are equally familiar with the subject matter. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 20:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as meets notability. Our rules for BLPs, if correctly applied, should ensure any questionable stuff stays out. Orderinchaos 21:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Being the relative of someone famous can often result in notability - see Barack Obama, Sr. which is mainly based on Dreams from my Father. Nobody would have heard of this man if his son had not assumed the presidency. This not a case of WP:BLP1E - like it or not, deserved or not, there are multiple secondary sources about multiple events which have Macpherson as their primary subject. Also, it's been a few years now since the height of her fame - most of the news hits probably predate Gnews. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Again, as with the Bristol Palin example used above, I would ask two questions. What has Obama Sr. ever done that is of notice in his own right? What coverage has Obama Sr. had about him in his own right rather than as the father of the President of the USA? The answer to both these questions is, of course, nothing. Obama Sr. is a WP:BLP1E candidate for the same reasons as the subject of this article - they are both known for one "event" - having a famous relative. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I remember Mimi from seeing her on foxtel, and the whale-watching as well as the planet ark spokesperson stuff. She may well have been initially benefitted from being Elle's sister but had picked up her own profile afterwards. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Household name in Australia. Quick Google search of The Sydney Morning Herald brings up hundreds of hits from one newspaper alone. Another Google search of Rupert Murdoch's News Ltd papers is similar. You've got hundreds of reliable sources. Why would Australian newspapers have hundreds of articles if the person is not notable? That is clearly enough to settle this discussion.--Lester 03:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is no dispute that the subject has been covered widely in reliable sources. I would argue that the nature of the coverage has been mere prurient interest based on the fact that she is the sister of a supermodel and not based around any notability of the subject herself. I am not sure pointing to quantities of articles addresses this argument at all and therefore, at least in my opinion, does not settle this argument. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you mean, there's no notablility surrounding her. She's been a TV presenter on numerous national TV programs in Australia. That should be notability enough. Are we going to delete the other TV presenters because they haven't done anything else? The above Google news searches reveal that the articles are about Mimi, not Elle. Yes, they always mention Elle (that's inescapable with 2 famous sisters), but the subject of the articles is primarily about Mimi. That proves public interest in a notable person. Otherwise, the alternative is to delete hundreds of Wikipedia articles on famous brothers and sisters, for example Paris Hilton's sister Nicky Hilton. There are hundreds more like that. Can't just choose non-US ones. --Lester 03:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete with extreme predjudice - Clearly fails BLP1E, just because she's related to someone famous doesn't mean she's famous. I also agree with Jimbo, right to privacy here is most important. And for the record Lester, using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS at AFD is not a great argument, or a way to support one! I've found that out the hard way :) BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | ^{My contributions} 04:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which one event would that be, TV Presenter, Radio Personality, Business Women of the Year, Model for Evolve, or was that "WHALE conservation luminary Mimi MacPherson" Warwick Daily news October 2009[22] all of which are sourced without reference to her sister, ? Gnangarra 05:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does generally help, if one is to assess the notability of a living person, and one is not familiar with said living person, to have actually read the bleeding article. "Just because she's related to someone famous doesn't mean she's famous" is a particularly stupid thing to say when she is famous (and in several fields, too), regardless of how she became so; while obviously, most relatives of famous people are not notable, equally obviously, this person is. Rebecca (talk) 17:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as meets notability. Have read most of the points for and against - believe that whilst her initial notability was as the sister of Elle, she has become notable for other issues, such as being a TV presenter, Environmental spokesperson, receiving Business Womens award etc. I have also checked numerous articles and whilst some refer to her as Elle's sisters there are many others that simply refer to her role as TV personality etc. Article has sufficent independent references to warrant its retention. Dan arndt (talk) 05:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - She's a household name in Australia, and has been for about a decade. It's true that relatives of celebrities are not inherently notable, but that's because there are millions of people who are related to celebrities who never receive any sustained media coverage, and thus don't need a Wikipedia article about them. This particular person, however, has received sustained media coverage and has consistently been in the public eye. It doesn't matter that she's never done anything extraordinary, and people are only interested in her because of her sister. The fact is, they are interested in her, much more so than most celebrities' siblings.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.240.134.36 (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia is not a newspaper which caters to the public's interest , and fame and public interest do not a notable person make. Perhaps, if the multiple sources that establish notability could be cited here that might help clarify matters. I'm not seeing that kind of source, myself. There's a difference in sources that support content and information once notability has been determined, and sources that establish that notability in the first place. What I'm seeing so far are sources that supply information to someone whose notability per the sources ( not popular opinion or public awareness) was and is related to her sister, and whose other pursuits are not notable. (olive (talk) 19:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

• Sorry, I am not getting your meaning. There are 20 or more compliant references on the page. She has hosted TV programs, had a successful business and been awarded national business awards. She has been a household name in Australia for 15-20 years partly because of her business pursuits and partly because she is a "celebrity" in her own right. Whatever you think of the moral value of "celebrity" status it certainly overlaps with notability. (Much as I dislike drawing comparisons, I feel she is more notable that Bindi Irwin or Antonia Kidman both of whom have independent careers despite having more famous relatives). On WP:ENT alone she qualifies as notable and this is sourced. What criteria for notability and what references would you like provided to salvage the page? - it should be possible to provide suitable references. Porturology (talk) 05:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - We routinely add articles about men who won Australian Businessman of the Year award, such as complete unknowns like Robert Champion de Crespigny, while wanting to delete any woman who is awarded Australian Businesswoman of the Year, like Mimi? --Lester 07:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You do realise she's broke? --Yeti Hunter (talk) 13:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • So is Donald Trump on occasion, what do you mean? --CliffC (talk) 16:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh she's certainly notable. But she's no Robert DeCrespigny.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 06:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, sorry Jimbo, normally I'm quite happy to use BLP1E for persons of marginal notability, but appearing on the front page of a nationally circulated magazine, and having a swag of awards and recognition as a notable businesswoman puts her clearly over the line of notability. Fix the BLP violations by all means, but deletion is not appropriate here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep - The argument to delete here seems to be that she might not have become well known if she didn't have a famous sister. Quite frankly, it doesn't matter how she became notable, it only matters that she is. Which I think has been demonstrated more than adequately. Frickeg (talk) 12:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Household name in Australia. Ours not to reason why. Hesperian 06:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Significant coverage in reliable, independent sources is significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. For whatever reason, she does handily pass our general notability guidelines. Buddy431 (talk) 21:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, virtually all the references either associate the subject with her sister, or mention the sex-tape or the bankruptcy, which may give the subject some notoriety, but not notability. The article draws from the sister's notability, while feeding into further BLP:Victimization of the subject. The subject is not notable per WP:BIO, which states: "The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."[1] Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary." All the sources are just fluff, nothing significant, interesting or unusual that’s worthy of notice beyond the fact that she has a famous sister. Sure, she may appear in multiple reliable sources, but none of those appearances are notable per WP:BIO. Not even the Women's Network Australia “Australian Business Woman of the Year” and Cosmo's "Australia's top 30 Businesswoman" awards provide her with sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article, if we can even source those outside her own self-published website claim. The article's sources merely support non-notable trivia that isn’t worthy of notice in an encyclopedia, it’s not significant or unusual enough to be recorded in an encyclopedia. She may be “famous” or “popular” in Australia, but she isn’t Notable and the article should be deleted. Dreadstar ☥ 02:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. You could omit the Elle relationship and the sex tape and this article would still satisfy notability. Mimi is a noted environmentalist, a radio and television personality and won several national awards. She may not like the negative aspects of the article (and "someone" took this up with Jimbo), but Geoffrey Edelsten, Marcus Einfeld and Glenn Wheatley no doubt dislike their articles as well. And that's no reason to delete. WWGB (talk) 05:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable presenter, businesswoman and environmentalist. Her celebrity status was enough to get her a place on It Takes Two. StAnselm (talk) 10:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: being a "celebrity" does not confer Notability, it's the same thing as being "famous", or "popular", which are not primary criteria needed in order to meet the requirements of WP:BIO. As for being a 'noted environmentalist', yes she's done some excellent work, but there is a very high bar that must be met in order to meet WP Notability requirements, as can be seen by this list of Notable environmentalists. (Since so many on this page have invoked WP:WAX/WP:OSE comparisons, I might as well join in. :) The awards, while nice, are not notable themselves, neither are the sources of those awards. And the TV/radio appearances are also of insufficient notablity. All of these combined do not confer sufficient notability for us to have an article on the subject; what pushes it is the famous sister and now the brouhaha over the sex-tape, both of which go against WP:BLP as to conferring notability. Even if one believes these do provide sufficient notability, I say we still err on the side of "do no harm" and delete this article. Why do we need it? It's not encylopedic, if we take away the titillating, tabloid aspects of the content, there's nothing to base an article on. Dreadstar ☥ 17:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "tabloid, titilating aspects of the article", as you put it, haven't actually been in the article since it was nominated for deletion. What's there is plenty to base an article upon; a fairly lengthy, well-sourced list of her notable involvement in public life, which is precisely why she's a household name in Australia. Which comes back to the point I've made a couple of times here - dude, did you even read the article? Rebecca (talk) 17:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, dudette, I've read the article and not only do I still see references to the sex tape, the DUI, the bankruptcy and the famous sister (all titillating, tabloidy content), but we also have editors attempting to add material that makes it look like she's a criminal and a porn star, as well as dragging NN individuals into the article,[23]. Sure the article doesn't go into gory detail, but all my comments are relevant and I stand by them. Dreadstar ☥ 18:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The link you noted points to an edit where someone added the name of Macpherson's brother to her infobox. It notably does not contain anything that would so much as remotely imply that she was either a criminal or a porn star. While deserving of being removed, it's hardly what you're making it out to be. The sex tape sentence wasn't in the article when I last read it, and has clearly been readded; nonetheless, it consists of one sentence at the bottom of the article, which when deservedly re-removed won't affect the notability of the article one damn bit. I've got no idea what it is about Macpherson that seems to inspire such ridiculous hyperbole among certain editors here. Rebecca (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Um, that edit added a lot more than just the name of her brother. I suggest you review it more carefully, it contains exactly what I said it contains. Dreadstar ☥ 19:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I invite interested users to look at Dreadstar's linked addition of an infobox and see for yourself his wondrous exaggeration skills. Rebecca (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, please show me the error of my ways and how that edit only adds the name of her brother, not anything about 'criminal charges and penalties', 'drunk driving', 'fines', 'celebrity sex tape', NN 'half-sister and parents.' The infobox is a highly visible summary of the article's important contents - information there is naturally 'exaggerated' above content in the article's body. The content of that edit does exactly what I said it does. Dreadstar ☥ 19:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've just removed a couple of those titillating aspects from an info box where they were prominently displayed, so probably your personal comment is ill advised. I have yet to see a source where notability (not fame or notoriety) is outlined, and although I have asked if anyone can point one out, here, no one has. Until that point I don't see notability, and that means deletion... I don't see Mimi mentioned here [24] either. Although, she certainly seems to have been involved in good works in terms of the environment, once again, probably not notably so. I also don't see her listed as a notable Australian environmentalist in sources I have looked at, but maybe I'm missing something. Can someone point such a source out? (olive (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
      • The distinction you're making is one that you're making up out of thin air. Wikipedia's actual policy on notability (WP:N) mandates that she have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. It notably does not say a damned thing about "fame" or "notoriety" being some form of exception. Mimi Macpherson is a household name in Australia, which is backed up by an abundance of reliable sources, both those mentioned in the article, and a couple thousand that aren't should someone choose to expand the article even further. Whether you think she should be famous or not is completely irrelevant to this discussion; what matters is, according to Wikipedia's actual policies on notability, she's patently and obviously notable. I also think that what makes this case all the more bizarre, for anyone who's actually heard of the subject, is that, uh, she's not what you'd call notorious - which makes arguments that her notability is based on such rather bizarre. Rebecca (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perhaps you should re-read WP:BIO, the notability guideline that applies to people; the first paragraph of the lede section clearly talks about the aspects of 'famous' and 'popular' as they relate to Notability on Wikipedia. Notoriety in and of itself absolutely can be an exception, per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Avoid victimization; in this particular case, any notoriety does not confer notability. Further, WP:N is not a policy, it's a guideline. Get your facts straight before accusing and insulting others. Dreadstar ☥ 18:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • The abundance of sources documenting her career demonstrate that she's easily enough of a significant figure to have an article as per WP:BIO. It makes a mockery of attempts to ascertain actual notability through sources if all that it a deletion argument comes down to is that you find her too trite to have an article, actual sources of notability be damned. Rebecca (talk) 19:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • No one that I see is commenting in a personal way on the subject of this article, so comments attributing that kind of behaviour to another editor are unfair, uncalled for, and a personal affront to the editors commenting here. Especially, the word trite when use in reference to another human being is your word and no one else's. As an encyclopedia Wikipedia is about sources and its policies and guidelines, so reliable sources that establish notability rather than even a plethora of sources that do not, some of which were not reliable, are necessary. That's the way the encyclopedia functions. We don't have the luxury of modifying the policies and guidelines to suit individual opinions and circumstances. None of this at this point is about Mimi Macpherson. Its about establishing quality in the encyclopedia, and its articles.(olive (talk) 19:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
              • OK, I've reread WP:BLP and WP:Biographies of living people#Avoid victimization in relation to this AfD, and in the latter case I see nothing there that suggests that deleting the article is in any way a remedy for avoiding victimization: it says "When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic", not "When in doubt, delete the article". I'm also rather perplexed that The Courier Mail, The Townsville Bulletin or the Sunshine Coast Daily aren't enough for some people, especially when none of these mention sister Elle and all give a pretty clear idea of Macpherson's notability. I'm not sure why sources that mention Elle are being considered irrelevant anyway; having a famous relative may be part of the reason she became well-known, but it doesn't make all the coverage of her null and void just because of that. Frickeg (talk) 01:41, 23 June 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.