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

The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 20:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

ArticleAlley[edit]

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

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

Website where people post articles. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. The article does give evidence of notability under WP:WEB, where it states
  

  "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations."

  The Google Books citations, of which there are several, cite ArticleAlley.Com as a source. Each of these books were published by independent sources. 34pin6 (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 03:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - Tend to agree with 34pin6. It's probably borderline, but okay. --AlanI ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Eliminate the Alexa rank and the other one, as well as company website, and you have the Google Books. On there, it seems to have a good number of resources that mention them, but they don't seem to be the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that I can tell. I could be wrong, but a cursory examination of the (albeit indirect) sources seems to lead me to this conclusion. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • rebuttal. I think you're splitting hairs here. The fact that the site has been noted so often, bespeaks of its noteworthiness and, by extension, its notability. See this statement by User:Uncle G, where this admin says that,

    "The rationale that underpins the primary notability criterion is that the fact that something has been noted demonstrates that it is notable."

    from user:Uncle G, posted by 34pin6 (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I could very well be splitting hairs and not knowing I'm doing so. =) I'm pretty much using a straight interp of the notability guidelines here. In any event, I've poked User:Uncle G on the subject and am hoping for his note. It's this that will potentially change my mind. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Dennisthe2's point is that there's a difference between a book that simply points to a page on a WWW site when discussing some other subject, as (say) ISBN 9780470222799 page 219 does, and a book that actually talks about this subject. Here's another thing that I should probably write up one day: A Google search result is not a source citation. What you have in the article is a Google search result, from which the article is drawing an original conclusion made firsthand by a Wikipedia editor, moreover. There's is not, actually, a citation of a specific book anywhere in the article at hand as it currently stands.

      If you go back to my page that you pointed to and read from the top, you'll find non-triviality discussed. What is needed for notability is sources that are actually about the subject, that document it in depth. (In Wikipedia:Notability, you'll find this concept expressed as "significant coverage".) The aforecited book isn't about the subject, for example. It doesn't say one single thing about this subject at all. There's not one single fact on that page, about this subject, that can be taken and added to this article.

      If you want to change Dennisthe2's mind — and xe is a reasonable editor whose mind can be changed — show that multiple published works, independent of the subject and from people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy, document this subject in depth. It's that last part that you aren't addressing. A published work that simply mentions this subject in passing, or that doesn't even give any facts about this subject at all, is not contributing to documenting the subject in depth. Find some sources that do, cite them, and you'll make a case that can potentially change Dennisthe2's mind. Uncle G (talk) 23:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. No evidence whatsoever of any significant coverage by anything remotely WP:RS that I can find. Please see Wikipedia:Search engine test for why Alexa, Google Books and other rankings are irrelevant for this discussion. Flowanda | Talk 07:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• A few references that (might?) be used to make a rebuttal of Flowanda's/Uncle G's notability challenge

1. Washington Post mention of articlealley.com
2. Philly.Com, blog commenter cites articlealley.com
3. Business Exchange, subsidiary of BusinessWeek, lists an Article Alley article in its "Other useful pages, Web sites and tools" reference section

Will these help my case? 34pin6 (talk) 15:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I also have another question, albeit a slight digression. But its answer would help me to understand a bit more the notability issue. In my mind, there is no substantive difference between ArticlesBase website and ArticleAlley. They are the same type of site, both have lots of mentions. The only difference I can see, is that articles base has more Google News mentions than ArticleAlley. However, both are widely known and highly trafficked. It seems to me a bit myopic to only view WP:RS as the chief criteria for notability, in this particular case. It also seems to me that, lots of people - authors, bloggers, journalists - citing ArticleAlley, has to count for something - regardless of whether one can find tons of reliable sources, in the strict, Wikipedia sense of the word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 34pin6 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, these won't work. The WA Post link refers to a bad search result, the second one is a comment in an article about AIG, and the third one is a link to something on ArticleAlley. All of these have links to it, but a link to it is not the subject of it. This comes back to mention versus subject - in no case presented are these articles actually about ArticleAlley, they only point to articles stored on it. To put it forthright, we need articles about ArticleAlley as a subject, and we have been presented with nothing of the sort, and in summary, if it only mentions it, it's not an article about it. If you can find articles (yes, please, note the plural here) about ArticleAlley (not merely mentioning, but actually discussing in detail), then we will have a winner. Conversely, if you can't turn up anything, then we will need to delete. Please, please, PLEASE review the notability guidelines. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Two more notes. One, please see also WP:OSE - yes, there's ArticlesBase, but it appears to have other resources backing this, aside from just mentions. If I'm wrong, then it, too, comes up here to AFD. Two, WP:RS may seem myopic, but we have these standards in place for varying reasons. Granted, we have WP:IAR, but we also have WP:WIARM as an explanation to it. This is one of these things that we can't ignore the rules for. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is a tough one. I just got through scouring all my Internet marketing, SEO and Web design books, for ArticleAlley citations. Found a couple, but still trivial. Also scoured Library Cat, News Cat, Google Scholar, and Google News archives. I did find these news mentions:

News mentions of ArticleAlley, 2006-2008. The last one I translated from Hebrew to English; it mentions ArticleAlley as one of the best article marketing directories - as do many of the others - but still the citations do not constitute "significant coverage" in Dennis The Tiger's sense. ugh!

How would I fare with a merge to the article marketing article? 34pin6 (talk) 01:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Addendum. Look at these particular references to ArticleAlley in Google Books:

1. http://books.google.com/books?id=PXTx1q2AvR0C&pg=PA216&dq=articlealley&ei=SYChSs9IqejKBJSwnOIO#v=onepage&q=articlealley&f=false is a reference directly to AA
2. http://books.google.com/books?id=yq3_hokFYoUC&pg=PA277&dq=articlealley&ei=SYChSs9IqejKBJSwnOIO#v=onepage&q=articlealley&f=false
3. http://books.google.com/books?id=nWMeatE2fpQC&pg=PA105&dq=articlealley&ei=SYChSs9IqejKBJSwnOIO#v=onepage&q=articlealley&f=false Refers to AA with examples of articles rather than the article itself
4. http://books.google.com/books?id=qnxnHkq2FkAC&pg=PA241&dq=articlealley&lr=&ei=pIGhSvzIN5iQyQSggeWJCA#v=onepage&q=articlealley&f=false Refers to AA directly
5. http://books.google.com/books?id=HmUli0em_McC&pg=PT183&dq=articlealley&lr=&ei=pIGhSvzIN5iQyQSggeWJCA#v=onepage&q=articlealley&f=false AA direct reference
6. http://books.google.com/books?id=1_HE9Woh9AcC&pg=PA69&dq=articlealley&lr=&ei=pIGhSvzIN5iQyQSggeWJCA#v=onepage&q=articlealley&f=false
7. http://books.google.com/books?id=4D6O-85x9zwC&pg=PT123&dq=articlealley&lr=&ei=pIGhSvzIN5iQyQSggeWJCA#v=onepage&q=articlealley&f=false
8. http://books.google.com/books?id=yX3nTY3Syp4C&pg=PA64&dq=articlealley&lr=&ei=FoKhSp7uGpKgygTg-L36Bw#v=onepage&q=articlealley&f=false
9. http://www.sitepronews.com/archives/2006/nov/8.html

Now, while I agree that most of these are what you would call trivial mentions. However, Example 2 includes a screenshot of an ArticleAlley web page, in a chapter about article marketing. I'm sure that at least a few of these books goes into some detail on how to submit articles to ArticleAlley, as well as other sites.

So, it seems to me that - taken as a whole - these citations, descriptions and this screenshot prove that ArticleAlley is considered somewhat of an authority in the arena of article marketing - regardless of whether each individual mention is "trivial".

34pin6 (talk) 21:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Checked them all. Still no dice. In most of them, you have a note to look at ArticleAlley - anything from a direct statement to go there all the way to the web address for AA. The screenshots in there unfortunately don't help - those are for point of illustration. In a nutshell - and Dream Focus, pay attention here - these are still not books about ArticleAlley, they merely mention or point to them. We still need something discussing ArticleAlley. Also, pay attention to WP:WEB. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

If these books consider it a legitimate reference for information, that makes it clearly notable. Do you think various unrelated books would mention it otherwise? Plus you have news sources as well. Dream Focus 01:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Dream, the news mentions don't meet notability because they are only news mentions. WP:N does not account for news mentions, it accounts for news subjects, and this is not something that appears to be the general subject of a news article - only a mention. There is a significant difference between subject and mention, thus the emphasis that I'm inserting. Unrelated books merely mentioning it don't enter into the picture for this purpose - I've already covered that part. The problem remains that there's nothing really about the site in particular as per WP:WEB, so for all intents and purposes, yes, I do, indeed, not only think, but ardently declare with no personal doubt that various unrelated books would mention it, and such a mention would still not make it notable as per the Wikipedia notability guidelines. You are welcome to discuss these guidelines at the talk page for the guideline. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Those guidelines were never passed in a general vote, nor by a reasonable number of people. They were slipped in without many people noticing, and defended by those who use them as an excuse to mass delete articles they don't like. The question of AFD is whether you believe something is notable, and meet the policies, not whether you believe they meet the guidelines, since a guideline is nothing more than a suggestion, not a law. Dream Focus 08:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Every guideline Wikipedia is there for reason. There are some of them I don't like either but I still see the reason for them. The notability guidelines are there in part to preserve people's privacy. They're also there to keep Wikipedia an encyclopedia. Finally, they are there to keep up the general quality of the articles; people generally are unwilling to collaborate to improve an article about something they've never heard of, and they can't improve it if there is no reliable information on the subject.--RDBury (talk) 19:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Dream, there was no vote because we're not a democracy. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep The books prove its notable. Dream Focus 14:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - the article was speedied A7 last week, and 34pin6 had commented to the deleting admin. This was brought back after a speedy delete. Forgive me for sounding like I'm not assuming good faith, but it makes me wonder if there's some conflict of interest going here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what exactly you're getting at by conflict of interest, but I will say that I worked damn hard on this article, doing my best to follow the notability and reliability rules, etc. I happen to like ArticleAlley, have used it for years, and think it's worthy of inclusion. Is that a conflict of interest?? The comment I placed on the first admin who prodded the article upset me, yes. Because, I felt s/he was not following civility and proper procedure, I felt s/he dind't even take any time whatsoever to read the article or look at my citations, because, I've seen a LOT of Wikipedia articles with NO reliable sources at LEAST get a proper AfD hearing. So, yes, I was upset, and I told the admin so. I did not attack the admin, I wasn't crude, and if you look at the comment you'll see the comment was restored. I merely stated that admins aren't dictators (though some seem to think they are) and that they, just like we, have to follow "the rules" too. 34pin6 (talk) 01:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
    • That does alleviate my concerns for COI - my apologies for this, 34. I recognize there is an effort, but the effort needs to turn another direction to find things that, as I stated, are about ArticleAlley, not merely pointers to it. See my comment below. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • As a complete outsider to this, I don't follow your train of logic. I have found on wikipedia, that in most cases, unless you know something for certain, it is better not to speculate. A more established veteran would probably be screaming bloody murder by such accusations. Ikip (talk) 21:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep the google books seem to seal the deal for me. Ikip (talk) 21:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment The fact that it's cited does not mean that it is notable. We need independent sources giving indepth coverage of the source. Taemyr (talk) 03:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Ikip, the books appear to be nn self-published internet marketing ebooks that include Article Alley in very similar lists of links, but nothing remotely resembling "significant coverage". You need to provide better justification than just a general "keep" and think it should stick. 34pin6, please don't be discouraged...it may just be you created this article before the website could meet Wikipedia notability requirements. Flowanda | Talk 03:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• COMMENT TO CLOSING ADMIN - if the conclusion is delete, I'd recommend a WP:USERFY of the article for user:34pin6 to allow for further refinement and later review. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: None of the cited sources are usable for notability. To break it down: The Article Ally ref. is self-published. Alexa is raw data. I've seen people try to use this kind of thing before, there can be all sorts of factors that influence these numbers and interpreting them can be tricky, even if it seems it's not. CrunchBase is a combination of raw data and user content, the first was just covered and the second disqualifies it from being reliable. Finally, Google Books just lists some books where it's being used as a reference or it has a brief mention. The quote at the start of this discussion says "... content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works..." and let me emphasize the words "the subject of". Someone could a book that uses the Picayune Daily Mailer as a source about something that happened in Picayune County, but that doesn't make the Picayune Daily Mailer notable in itself. You need someone to write the book (or at least a chapter) about the Picayune Daily Mailer for it to become notable. The same goes for Article Ally, you need to produce an article or a book about the web site for it to be evidence of notability. Brief mention, use as a reference, and use as an example don't count. I wouldn't make such a big deal about this but there several people here who seem to think the Google Books result is a clincher. It's not if you read the guidelines carefully. Chances are if something is notable then someone will have made a note of it that satisfies the guidelines; if someone can find it then they should add it to the article and mention it here.--RDBury (talk) 09:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: Of the three main sections in the article, two are completely unreferenced. Of the few references the article does have, most aren't considered to be reliable. But mostly, I can't—and nobody else seems to be able to either—find any sources that are about ArticleAlley. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
• Very Week Keep. This is a tough one because I think it comes down to the difference between "the spirit of the law" and the "letter of the law". Yes, the letter says delete because most of the mentions are what you might call "trivial". However, the spirit of the notability requirement is that a subject is notable by virtue of having received significant coverage in a reliable, third-party publications.
  

Now, it seems clear that one or two, or even three, trivial mentions of a subject in Google Books, would not be significant coverage, but rather would be trivial. However, if several authors of several different books - each book relating to the subject of Internet marketing or SEO or some other recognized industry - all mention this one website, then that means a good deal more than a trivial citation here or there.

Put another way: There is certainly a qualitative difference in the worthiness of a source that only one or two people cite in passing, compared to one where 10 or 20 people cite it in passing. In the latter case, it is clear the subject has penetrated the mind of a certain collective substantially more than in the former case.

This appears to me to be the crux of the dispute. After all, "significant coverage" is a bit subjective in itself. And I'm certain we could all come up with a list of subjects about which no one has written elaborately or exhaustively, but which we would nonetheless consider as notable. Artemis84 (talk) 17:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

"Significant coverage" is defined perfectly well in Wikipedia guidelines. The problem with all these citations you keep bringing up is they don't contain any information about the subject; you can't use them to write an article. Keep in mind also that ArticleAlly is basically a warehouse for articles written by outside people, so if ArticleAlly appears in a cite then the it's really the person who wrote the article that's being cited and not ArticleAlly which happens to be in the web address.--RDBury (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is getting ridiculous. Is this the future of any AfD flagged by Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron members? Tag teaming is not an effective or attractive approach, especially when the article is clearly nn. Flowanda | Talk 06:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. No discussion at all in any of the gbooks results. There is nothing to build an article with here. Quantpole (talk) 11:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. notability is derived from demonstrating sources and this hasnt happened so the delete votes outweigh the keep arguments Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Axis & Allies Miniatures (land version)[edit]

Axis & Allies Miniatures (land version) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

The only reference is a forum post, and all the links in the article are to sites that sell these things. Not notable enough for inclusion, and borderline advertising Patton^t/c 13:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Concur with nom. My searching didn't bring up anything either. Quantpole (talk) 12:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete No assertion of notability. Fails WP:GNG. Richard (talk) 23:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. ArcAngel (talk) 06:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete': I can't find significant coverage for this game. Joe Chill (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Deleting this page leaves the job half done. If you want to tidy up the coverage of the Axis & Allies Miniatures pages, please do the whole job. I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Board and table games#Axis .26 Allies Miniatures. Fences&Windows 02:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Well written, comprehensive reference. --AStanhope (talk) 03:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• I've been criticized for voting keep here. I didn't realize that the Wikipedia Deletionist pathology has extended to bullying people who vote to keep articles now. Regardless, the criticism misread my comment "comprehensive reference" to mean that I thought the article was well referenced (cited). This is not what I meant by "comprehensive reference." The article itself is a "comprehensive reference" for the topic at hand. It exists, it collates a great deal of disparate information, it is structured properly and it represents significant editing time. If I happened to be someone who was interested in "Axis and Allies Miniatures," surely I would be pleased that this article exists as a COMPREHENSIVE REFERENCE. These are all perfectly valid reasons in of themselves to keep an article. See Jimbo Wales: [1] --AStanhope (talk) 13:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'm only a deletionist in that I'm not an inclusionist, and this isn't intended as bullying. 1) Jimbo is subordinate to policy and guideline, and 2) a throwaway comment by Jimbo is definitely subordinate. The base problem with this article is that it fails to pass WP:GNG, and your comments and actions do nothing to address this, instead just helpfully saying how useful the article is. Ironholds (talk) 13:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:GNG. Ironholds (talk) 03:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, per Astanhope--UltraMagnus (talk) 16:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Lack of reliable sources for references, and is also essentially a gameguide in the manner it lists every possible unit. Seems like somerthing that should be on the official A&A website - and probably is. Skinny87 (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: as per Astanhope - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus of the editors here is to delete the article at this time. Since the creator has shown an interest creating a viable article, I have userfied this at his user page for improvement by interested parties. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Behaviorology[edit]

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

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

"Behaviorology" is already an uncommon term in the literature, and this article focuses on a fringe usage. Compare, e.g. [2] versus [3]. Melchoir (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Decibert:

Melchoir notified me that I needed to add citations so I rewrote the "Behaviorology" article to include quotations from several scholars who describe themselves as behaviorologists. Two of those scholars, Ernest Vargas and Lawrence Fraley, taught at West Virginia University and are now retired. The third, Stephen Ledoux, is still teaching at the State University of New York at Canton. See http://www.canton.edu/employee/ledoux/ and please note that the caption below Dr. Ledoux's photograph is "Behaviorology Professor."

I know all three of these men and I have sought the assistance of Lawrence Fraley and Stephen Ledoux to find references that I could cite when I rewrote the Behaviorology page.

To summarize what has been happening for the past several decades, Psychology sprouted a branch named Behavior Analysis. Then Behavior Analysis developed a fruit that matured and fell to the ground. The seeds in that fruit sprouted into a separate discipline named Behaviorology. Behaviorology is still a seedling but it is still growing. It attracts people who, like B. F. Skinner, believe that behavioral science can be productively applied to solving personal and social problems. The behaviorologists who live in the "cultural laboratory" named Los Horcones apply behaviorology to the management of their personal lives and their community on a daily basis.

I am not a scholar and I am not a member of Los Horcones. I am simply a member of the behaviorology movement. I thought that it was important for Behaviorology to be described in Wikipedia. I am doing my best to compose a Behaviorology article. What else do I need to do to make the article conform to the Wikipedia guidelines?

Greg987 (talk) 18:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Basically the concern here is Wikipedia:Verifiability as interpreted by Wikipedia:Notability. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." In the context of this article, it means the following: find at least two peer-reviewed journal articles (without Behaviorology in the journal title) or books by respected academic publishers (not ABCs); which discuss behaviorology's place in science; and which are not written by Vargas, Fraley, or Ledoux. These requirements would be easy to meet for any branch of science represented by a Wikipedia article that meets our content policies. I've started the AfD because I suspect that they can't be met, but I could be proven wrong. Melchoir (talk) 20:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Melchoir: Thank you for explaining what is needed. I will contact Drs. Fraley and Ledoux and other behaviorologists and tell them exactly what I need to satisfy the criteria that you have stated. Please do not delete the Behaviorology page yet. I am working on getting the kind of sources that you have requested. Greg987 (talk) 21:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

IMO it's still worth deleting the present article, as its content would not be useful to anyone writing an article based on independent secondary sources. Even in the best case from your point of view, it would still have to be rewritten from scratch. But we shall see if the consensus on AfD agrees with me... Melchoir (talk) 23:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Melchoir: The website of Comunidad de los Horcones contains an paragraph that summarizes Behaviorology (see the following paragraph). That paragraph is part of an article that was published in The Behavior Analyst, a peer-reviewed publication of the Association for Behavior Analysis International. See http://www.abainternational.org/Store/journaldesc.asp?pid=3517&strJournalType=tba Can I quote and cite that article?

"Behaviorology encompasses basic research, applied research and philosophy. Basic research includes (a) descriptive analysis of behavior (behaviography), (b) experimental analysis of behavior (experimental behaviorology), and (c) a theoretical or conceptual analysis of behavior (theoretical behaviorology). Applied research refers to behavior-analytic applications of the experimental analysis of behavior to the prevention and solution of social problems. As such, it includes (a) applied research in the form of experimental analysis oriented towards finding solutions to social problems and (b) behavioral technology, in the form of behavior-analytic procedures alone. The philosophy of behaviorology is that of behaviorism, which includes both, philosophical ( or metatheoretical) assumptions and the philosophical implications of data obtained by the experimental analysis of behavior and its applications."

I wrote to Drs. Ledoux and Fraley and I hope to hear from them soon. Thank you for your patience. Greg987 (talk) 00:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

An article whose listed author is "Comunidad Los Horcones"? Not even close to being independent. Melchoir (talk) 01:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. The current Academic Catalog of the State University of New York at Canton includes two courses about behaviorology:

SSCI 245 INTRODUCTION TO THE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY OF BEHAVIOR

SSCI 345 APPLIED SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY OF BEHAVIOR

See http://www.canton.edu/catalog/catalog.pdf Greg987 (talk) 00:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Melchoir: I accept the validity of the Wikipedia criteria that you have cited. However, I think that you should take into account the fact that Behaviorology a scientific discipline, whether that is documented in peer-reviewed scientific journals or not. Los Horcones has its own school and from an early age children are taught how to use Skinner boxes to condition animals and how to apply behaviorological techniques to the control of their own and each others behaviors. Several dozen children have been taught how to apply behaviorology and they do so every day. It's a fundamental part of their culture. One mother conditioned her baby to make pleasant "cooing" sounds to signal that it wanted to be nursed, rather than just screaming as loud as it can, as an unconditioned baby does. So behaviorological techniques are being used on children from birth. These are intimate fact of life for children who grow up in Los Horcones. Greg987 (talk) 02:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

This has only increased my certainty that "behaviorology" is not going to be attested in reliable sources. All independent reviews of Los Horcones actually describe its philosophy as radical behaviorism. Melchoir (talk) 08:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Melchoir: "Radical behaviorism is the basic philosophy of Los Horcones." http://www.loshorcones.org/philosophy/radicalbehaviorism.html And because Los Horcones is located in a remote area, the Los Horconans are free to practice their philosophy without condemnation by others. In contrast, university professors who acknowledge that they are radical behaviorists are often retaliated against by people who have a vested interest in maintaining the fiction that human behavior is initiated by a metaphysical or supernatural entity. The discrimination that is practiced against radical behaviorists has impelled some behavioral scientists to join together under the banner "behaviorology." They are trying to find safety in numbers while they pursue their scientific studies.

The powers-that-be have a long history of stomping on scientists who say things that contravene official doctrines. The story of Galileo Galilei provides an example of the state repressing unacceptable science. The campaign to "wedge" the intelligent design doctrine into science is a more recent example of efforts to distort science for political purposes. Greg987 (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately it is not in the interest of Wikipedia's readers for us to bend the rules in order to help people fight the power. If the articles Behaviorology and Radical behaviorism secretly share the same topic but approach it from two different points of view, then that is necessarily a violation of WP:NPOV. It's called a POV fork. Given this information, I think it is best to simply redirect Behaviorology to Radical behaviorism. Melchoir (talk) 17:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Melchoir: Radical Behaviorism is not a synonym for Behaviorology; it is a component of Behaviorology. Radical Behaviorism defines thoughts and feelings as natural events that occur within a person's body. These private events can be very difficult to study but they are nevertheless defined as natural events. These private events are not attributed to metaphysical or supernatural entities.

The "Radical" in Radical Behaviorism means "thoroughgoing." For a Thoroughgoing Behaviorist, everything that an orgasm does, whether it is observable or not, is behavior. For example, if I sit perfectly still and think about what I am going to write next then I am engaged in "covert verbal behavior."

Behaviorology grew out of Behavior Analysis. Wikipedia redirects Behavior Analysis to to Behaviorism. Could Behaviorology be redirected to Behaviorism, with Behaviorology being added to the "Versions" section of that page, together with a citation to the Los Horcones article about behaviorology, which was published in The Behavior Analyst. The "External links" section on that page might be expanded to include the behaviorologist associations that I cited. I think that I know enough about Wikipedia page coding to make these changes myself and I will make such changes if you approve. But I do not know how to make redirects. Could you help me with that? Greg987 (talk) 19:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Argh. Then this article is about a separate concept that lacks independent commentary, and therefore should be deleted after all. Melchoir (talk) 22:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Melchoir: If I added Behaviorology to the "Versions" section of the "Behaviorism" page I would write, "Behaviorology; Founded by Julie (Skinner) Vargas, et. al; the founders regard Behaviorology as a naturalistic science of the behavior of organisms." Dr. Vargas is the daughter of B. F. Skinner. Her page in Wikipedia is here: Julie Vargas. She is currently an officer of the The International Society for Behaviorology; http://web.me.com/eavargas/ISB/Contacts.html She is married to Dr. Ernest A. Vargas, who is also a Behaviorologist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg987 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Weak keep. There does seem to be enough about this in the various Google hits to warrant a seat someplace within Wikipedia, however, I cannot find a consistent definition of what it is to determine whether it should have its own article or be merged with something else. For example: 1) "Behaviorology is an independently organized discipline featuring the natural science of behavior."[4] 2) "'Behaviorology' names the science of contingent relations between actions and other events."[5] 3) "There are some pretty lengthy and complicated definitions of behavior out there..." [6]. This last one states that it is a broader field than applied behavior analysis but is quickly becoming its own field. Location (talk) 04:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. A professor at SUNY give a good definition and states that it used to be known by the "compromised name 'behavior analysis'" which in Wikipedia redirects to Behaviorism, of course.[7] Location (talk) 04:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Location: B. F. Skinner wrote a book titled "The Behavior of Organisms" ( http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1338876I ). I think that all behaviorologists would agree that "behaviorology is the naturalistic science of the behavior of organisms." Some of them would be adamant that the word "naturalistic" be included in the definition of behaviorology as a way of distinguishing behaviorology from psychology, because psychologists have the very annoying habit of using mentalisms as explanations. Behaviorologists have a zero tolerance for the practice of explaining behavior as a function of a metaphysical mind or supernatural soul. They regard such explanations as totally unscientific. Their dislike for this unscientific practice has driven them out of psychology and impelled them to found behaviorology, a NATURALISTIC science that does not countenance any metaphysical mumbo jumbo.

Dr. Julie (Skinner) Vargas wrote, "What B. F. Skinner began is not an 'approach', 'view', 'discipline', 'field', or 'theory'. It was, and is, a science, differing from psychology in its dependent variables, its measurement system, its procedures, and its analytic framework.1" (EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 2004, 5, 137 - 142). She and other refugees from psychology have chosen to give her father's new "science" the name "behaviorology." Greg987 (talk) 14:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as attempted neologism by Julie (Skinner) Vargas, No general acceptance. That she may claim that this is what her father meant, does not validate it. DGG ( talk ) 19:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

DGG: I don't think it is accurate to regard Julie (Skinner) Vargas as being responsible for the name "behaviorology". As far as I know, the members of Comunidad de los Horcones were the first to use the term "behaviorology", and that is their translation from Spanish to English. In their native language they used the name "conductologia". See http://www.loshorcones.org/psicologia/conductologia.html and then see their English translation of that page at http://www.loshorcones.org/psychology/behaviorology.html That page includes the following sentence: "Behaviorology" is a term coined by Los Horcones in 1974 to refer to the natural science of behavior. The study subject of behaviorology is the contingency (relationship between the behavior and environmental events).

It might be helpful to put behaviorology into a broader perspective. The development of chemistry out of alchemy took many decades. The metaphysical beliefs that were part of alchemy were gradually abandoned as alchemists became chemists. Similarly, the development of behaviorology out of psychology has taken decades. Behaviorologists reject mentalistic explanations for the behavior of humans and other organisms. This rejection is being driven in part by the results of functional magnetic resonance imaging studies of the human brain. These studies are proving that "the mind is what the brain does", and that kind of proof leaves less and less support for the proposition that human behavior is controlled by a metaphysical mind or supernatural soul. That kind of proof is very disturbing for people who have preternaturalistic or supernaturalistic world-views. It's not surprising that behaviorology is generating the kind of resistance that was generated by Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection.

Julie Vargas did not invent the term "behaviorology". However, she is one of the founding members of the behaviorology movement -- a movement away from mentalistic assumptions and toward naturalistic assumptions about the behavior of organisms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg987 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 20:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Very Weak Delete. I'm going to buy the neologism idea. It simply isn't a large enough field at this time. I would encourage the creator to recreate the article in about 5 years, or when more sources are available. (adding sinage) Gosox5555 (talk) 21:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Gosox5555: The term "behaviorology" is not a "neologism". That term is not new; it has been in use for about 35 years (since 1974). See response to DGG (above). Greg987 (talk) 03:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Black Kite: I see now that I put my response to DGG in the wrong place. Sorry about that! Greg987 (talk) 03:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I continue to think its needless jargon and I am not at all convinced of its broad use. From the explanation above, which is clearer than the article, it seems a synonym for 21st century psychology, which is almost 90% from that same viewpoint. If enough people do use it, it will have to go in, though, & my disapproval is irrelevant. DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

DGG, what think you of the snippets from this Google Books search; "Behaviorology" "the science"? Abductive (reasoning) 06:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

DGG: Richard W. Malott wrote about his trip to Los Horcones and about the children of Los Horcones, who have been reared "in a completely behavior-analytic environment". He reported his conversation with one of those children: “There are seven of us; four of Mireya and Juan’s children and three of Linda and Ramon’s children.” A whole first generation reared with behavior analysis. “There’s also a second generation; my sister’s two children.” http://dickmalott.com/behaviorism/comunitarianism/

Three generations of people have used behaviorology to shape their own and each others behaviors. Their numbers may be small but their achievement is enormously important to the future of our planet. They have proven that it is possible for humans to control the evolution of their culture, to live together in peace and prosperity, and to do so without destroying their ecosystem. Wikipedia should help to make the world aware of their culture and of the science that they have used to build that culture.

Behaviorology is important because it gives us the power to control our destiny. In contrast, mentalism does not give us that kind of power.

I am a member of the behaviorology movement but I cannot claim to be a behaviorologist. The Wikipedia page that I wrote about behaviorology is not very informative. I have tried to remedy that by seeking the assistance of PhDs who could do a much more complete job of explaining the history and practices of behaviorology. Could you mark the page as a "stub" and invite people to expand it? If you leave the page there I will continue working on it. I will try to find peer-reviewed sources that can be quoted. Greg987 (talk) 06:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Greg987 - place ((stub)) at the top of the page to indicate that it is in need of expansion. It might also be better to userfy this article until you can write a more complete and better substantiated article. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

2/0: I added a stub to the page but I am not sure that I can "userfy" it. I will have to make many interlibrary loan requests to get the articles that I need to expand the article in a "better substantiated" way. I am going to add a "Further reading" section and I will try to find articles for that new section that can be hyperlinked, so that a reader can easily find more information about behaviorology. The search that Abductive (reasoning) did on Google Books (cited above) will help me to find articles that can be added to Further reading. Greg987 (talk) 17:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Strong keep 234 google book hits including numerous text books. 256 Google scholar hits Many of these scientific papers and books have behavioralgy in their title. "Origins and components of behaviorology" "Origins, status, and mission of behaviorology" "Behaviorology and the other behavioral sciences" "General Behaviorology: The Natural Science of Human Behavior" "Behaviorology in China: A status report" etc. Ikip (talk) 01:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Editors: Abductive edited the Behaviorology page by removing a quote by Ernest Vargas and inserting a quote by Jerome Ulman. I believe that this substitution enhanced the page because Dr. Ulman's quote is in a book published by Sage Publications, a major publisher of science books. (Thanks Abductive!) I have made many other changes to the Behaviorology page in an effort to bring it up to Wikipedia standards. Please review those changes.

The quote that Abductive inserted notes that behaviorology "systematically excludes accounts of behavior based on notions of an inner causal agency such as ego, self, or similar trait-type psychological concepts." This is correct but it often gives rise to a misunderstanding. Behaviorologists assume that the behavior of an organism is a function of its physiology, its history of reinforcement and punishment, and its current environment. This assumption may be referred to as behavioral determinism. The use of this assumption by behaviorologists leads some people to conclude that behaviorologists reject free will; however, that is not the case. Free will is an ethnographic fact. Free will is an explanation for human behavior that justifies a socially sanctioned system of rewards and punishments. In other words, free will is a political ideology. A lawyer can properly use free will in a court of law to prosecute or defend a defendant. However, it would be wholly inappropriate for a behavioral scientist to use that political ideology as though it constitutes a theory of behavior. In summary, behaviorologists regard free will as a political ideology, not as a characteristic of a metaphysical mind or other non-corporeal entity. Greg987 (talk) 04:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Looking through the google scholar results that Ikip cites reveals that they represent a hodgepodge of uses, some evidently poor translations of foreign texts that clearly intend to mean behaviorism. The term in its general use is not consistent enough to warrant an article. The specific use that is currently the sole subject of the article is indeed a neologism and not sufficiently notable to be covered. I would note parenthetically that, as an admin and, years ago, a frequent AfD closer, I seriously doubt Greg987's advocacy is helping his cause. Chick Bowen 02:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Bowen: In 1990 Comunidad de los Horcones hosted an annual convention of The International Behaviorology Association. Los Horcones built a convention hall and more than a dozen additional rooms to accommodate convention attendees from 4 continents -- Asia, Europe, North America, and South America.

I started editing Wikipedia by expanding the Los Horcones page, which was marked as a "stub". I considered putting an explanation of behaviorology into the Los Horcones page but I soon realized that behaviorology is much bigger than just Los Horcones. Behaviorology has an international constituency. I tried to show the extent of that constituency when I composed the behaviorology page in Wikipedia.

In regard to my "cause", as you call it, please note that the B. F. Skinner Foundation advocates "better behavioral science for a more humane world". The science that Dr. Skinner pioneered can be applied to teaching. His eldest daughter, Julie Vargas wrote a book (published in 2009) that shows teachers how to apply techniques based on Dr. Skinner's behavioral science. I sincerely hope that many teachers will read Dr. Vargas' book and then implement the teaching methods that she wrote about. I believe that this would lead to more humane teaching practices and I am proud to acknowledge that this is my "cause".

In the United States, teachers beat hundreds of thousands of children each year. For example, in 2004 an 18-year-old high school girl was beaten bloody with a four-foot-long board. She was injured so badly that, when her hip subsequently became swollen, she was unable to walk from one classroom to another and had to be picked up off a hallway floor and taken to a hospital for emergency medical treatment. The Supreme Court of the United States later validated that extremely violent assault when it refused to hear her appeal.

The United States is an extremely violent country. I advocate the use of teaching techniques based on Skinner's behavioral science as a way of curbing that violence. And I fervently believe that the Wikipedia page about behaviorology should be expanded, not deleted! Greg987 (talk) 19:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - We do need an article on behaviorology, but not this one. It's a term that people will encounter and want to look up. The article should be something along the lines of "Behaviorology is a term which can refer to a variety of disciplines, such as Radical behaviorism, Applied behavior analysis...". Better to start again. Jll (talk) 11:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Bennington Triangle[edit]

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

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

No non-primary verifiable sources. No sources less than 28 years old. No indication listed references contain evidence of notability. Simonm223 (talk) 15:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Following is a copy of analysis of listed references on article.

• About.com: http://www.strangenation.com.au/articles/vanish.htm

Dead link

• Adams, Mary Gavel "The Bennington Monster." Green Mountain Whittlin's, 1950

59 year old periodical. Not reasonably verifiable.

• Stock, R.D.; Zeller, J. "The Strange Disappearances at Mt. Glastenbury." FATE, July 1957

52 year old periodical. Not reasonably verifiable.

• Brandon, Jim. Weird America. Penguin Publishing |Year=1978

31 year old book. I have not checked this yet, more later.

• Jacobs, Sally. "Ghost Towns." Burlington Free Press|Year=Oct 25, 1981

Only reference I could find on line to Sally Jacobs and Ghost Towns was in a book by Joseph Citro. No references to her primary sources. Furthermore reference is not 17 years old (as I previously posited, it is 28 years old.

• Citro, Joseph A. Green Mountain Ghosts, Ghouls, and Unsolved Mysteries. University of New England/ Vermont Life, 1994

Primary source.

• Citro, Joseph A. Passing Strange: True Tales of New England Hauntings and Horrors.

Globe-Pequot, 1997

Primary source.

Checking for the Jim Brandon book now to see if I can dig it up.Simonm223 (talk) 15:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Update: I looked up Jim Brandon and found out that this is actually a pseudonym for William N. Grimstad, a conspiracy theorist. I confirmed that Weird America is a real book although it isn't on google books or available online that I can find so I can't confirm that it contains anything that would count as a verifiable source for commentary on Citro's proposition. I don't want to look too hard at Grimstad as I am at a work computer and the first page of google links to his name mostly brings up white supremicist sites. I'm AfDing as I am now convinced that none of the bullet-point sources constitute RS.Simonm223 (talk) 15:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep- Just by the flawed reasoning of the nom. With comments like "59 year old periodical. Not reasonably verifiable", the nom needs to understand that Al Gore invented the internet in the late 20th century and anything pre-2000-esque is not heavily covered on the net. Old books and ""59 year old periodicals" without internet hyperlinks are not and have never been excluded as reliable sources per WP:RS or WP:NOTABILITY. (to the humor challenged, the Al Gore bit is a joke) --Oakshade (talk) 15:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment Not saying old books aren't notable. However when there is literally not a single source less than 28 years old commenting on the subject I would question if it remains notable in the modern world.Simonm223 (talk) 15:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment So unless some 10th century king has not been subject to a biography since 1981 we are deleting them now? Plus the article itself says the term was coined in 1992 and one source says it is 1994. Have agree the nomination logic is screwy, but will hold off on vote until I look a little more. --Milowent (talk) 16:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment My understanding was that notability depended on critical commentary of the subject at hand. The majority of references cited are primary sources or, as Milowent pointed out, predate the claimed coining date for the phrase. A fringe theory about a mountain in the USA is not the same as a 10th century king.Simonm223 (talk) 16:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

As they predate the coining of the term they can hardly be references to the notability of the term. They do not represent second or third party commentary on Citro's primary source.Simonm223 (talk) 16:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - The various sources listed do support the existance of individual stories about "weird event X that is said to have happened in Y town" .... but they don't support the the idea that these individual stories are connected together in some way (ie the idea that there is a "Bennington Triangle", the topic of the article). The idea that the individual stories are connected in some way is a theory created by author Joseph A. Citro, and dates to 1992 (well after the listed sources). Thus, to establish that the topic of this article is notable, we need sources that comment on the theory that a "Bennington Triangle" exists, not sources that simply retell the disperate tales that form the basis for the theory. Blueboar (talk) 16:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Change of opinion: It seems that sources that do support the notability of the tipic, and comment on Citro's theory, may exist after all (see Milowent's comments below). If this is indeed the case, then the article needs to be fixed, and if fixed should be Kept. Blueboar (talk) 17:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

comment Thank you, that is what I was trying to get at. I am not entirely convinced but will not kick up a fuss if the decision is to keep the article. With that said please, pretty please, get some verifiable in-line citations into it.Simonm223 (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Far more than enough sources and weight to be notable. BTW, I was able to access the relevant pages of the Weird America (2005) book via Amazon inside. I also fixed the "dead link" to about.com by finding that article preserved at the Internet Archive. While Citro coined the phrase "Bennington Triangle", he's apparently been able to publish at least 3 books which talk about it, and many other sources also reference the phrase. Google News Archives reveals a number of references in local papers such as the "Bennington Banner" to the phrase (most of these are pay archives to be able to access full content). Any references in the articles prior to 1992 are not going to use the term "Bennington Triangle" but are instead references to the underlying events which led to the coining of the term. But there is lots and lots out there on this term, beyond just the tons of ghost/weird-things type websites out there, like the ref I just added to The Cracker Barrel, which is a southern Vermont publication put out by the Deerfield Valley News. I think this is part of the local folklore now based on my 30 minutes spent on the subject, and that an article on this subject improves the project--Milowent (talk) 17:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Sources in article do indeed back up the statements, and indeed do constitute reliable sources (please see WP:RS and WP:V). That said, some improvement on the article would really be nice ;) Cheers, I'^mperator 20:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Certainly seems to be enough substantiation of both the name and "mystery" for inclusion. In addition to the work others ahead of me have put in, a search around the internet throws up a wide variety of discussions well before this wikipedia article was published. Lochaber (talk) 13:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Kind of silly and fictive. Derivative name. There are probably thousands of these in the US alone. Why encourage nonsense? Student7 (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Whether a source is one month old or 59 years old. A source is a source and should never be judged by its age. The source listed are correct and should be kept on the basis of its source. Jeremy (talk) 04:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I agree the sources do establish notability. Dream Focus 14:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep The sources provided establish notability. I'm unaware of a requirement that sources about an individual be under 28 years old. Such an arbitrary rule would eliminate all articles about anyone under 28 years of age, say Britney Spears or companies like Google or Ebay. Alansohn (talk) 17:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 12:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Black African genetic contribution to the population of the European continent[edit]

Black African genetic contribution to the population of the European continent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

POV fork of Genetic history of Europe and African admixture in Europe. Dougweller (talk) 11:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• speedy delete, POV fork and may meet the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. If there is any useful information, it can be included in African admixture in Europe. Wapondaponda (talk) 12:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Agreed, delete Unnecessary content/POV fork. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Content fork aside, a cleanup won't help (it's horribly written to the point of being painful to read). Can't say nonsense - I was able to read enough of it to know it does make sense (i.e., all of it (!)), but it all boils down to a content fork. I can't even call POV - that, to me implies politics. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Changed !vote to Speedy Delete G5 (Article created by banned user). This one's on the fringe of that if anything, but I'm thinking it should be OK. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• NoteI nominated this article for rescue because it is completly sourced its kind of messy but that means it should go under wp:articles for cleanup .The Count of Monte Cristo. (talk) 23:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Agreed,
• Week keep this article is well sourced although it may need some cleanup also it should be noted that it is not a POV fork since it is reliably sourced (E.G from scientific journals ) . Podoko (talk) 23:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)Strike, editor Sophian under different signature.
• Agreed, The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 23:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete and send article creator back to the 19th century. "Negroids"?!?! What next, articles on the existence of aether? Fences&Windows 23:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• The article no longer uses the word Negriods Concerned Editor (talk) 23:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)Strike, editor Sophian under different signature.
• Delete. Obvious fork of African admixture in Europe. Unfortunately, there is no WP:CSD criteria which justifies speedy deletion. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Note: several of the comments above with various signatures (The Count of Monte Cristo, Podoko, and Concerned Editor), were all left by User:SOPHIAN, who is the creator of this article. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete pointless fork.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Userfy, redirect, or merge I am concerned that the first edit of the nominator was this AFD nomination, in violation of WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE.[8] Could a kind note to the creator have allowed him to userfy or redirect this page to a more proper place, avoiding the disruptive process of AFD? We will never know now. I don't really understand this article, and I doubt anyone else here does too, maybe not because it is badly written, but because we are all ignorant of genetics. That said, I see it is well referenced. I am going to encourage the creator to userfy the article, regardless of AFD delete, as should have been done originally. Ikip (talk) 01:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Update, damn, I hate how editors bad behavior makes me look bad. The creator has been blocked indefinitely. Ikip (talk) 01:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Hi Ikip, the answer is that a kind note almost certainly wouldn't have worked. I don't mean to be rude, but I nominated this with probably a lot more background knowledge than you have, I think your concern with my actions are misplaced. Dougweller (talk) 05:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Merge wherever appropriate if we can find attribution to an expert of the gist of the article (i.e. that the sub-saharan genetic contribution to the genetic makeup of the European populations is very small). Otherwise, this is OR and should be deleted.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Merge with African admixture in Europe or Genetic history of Europe. This article and African admixture in Europe are about the same thing. What is the difference between the subject matter? However African admixture in Europe is also subject to deletion/merge pressures, so maybe Genetic history of Europe is more survivable.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• comment I don't see the need for an extended discussion on the matter. SOPHIAN who created the article has been indefinitely blocked for disruptive edits related to creating this article. There is no difference in subject matter between this article and African admixture in Europe. The reason he created it was simply to avoid having to come to a consensus with other editors. This is not the first time SOPHIAN has created a content fork, he was blocked for recreating Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe, only a day after it was deleted. I therefore see this as worthy of "speedy close". Whatever content is here is already being discussed and debated in African admixture in Europe, and the article is therefore redundant. The title of the article is very direct but it is unscientific, politically incorrect and opens up a can of worms as to exactly is a "black African". The question we should address is whether to preserve the title as a redirect or delete it altogether. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I see no need for a redirect. Redirects make sense when an article has been around for a long time and has accumulated a body of links (and perhaps extra-wiki bookmarks) to it which you don't want to break. Or, when it's something which is likely to be typed in cold to a search box. This is neither of those. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete because it is a self evident POV fork, the work of one author whose opinion clashed with others in other articles about essentially the same subject.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy delete -SOPHIAN is obviously trying to circumvent the collective decisions of the WP community. How does a user who is indefinitely banned manage to create articles???????PB666 ^yap 16:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The article was created before the block. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - a complete POV fork. The Ogre (talk) 16:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Jack007 (talk) 12:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, fork. Abductive (reasoning) 06:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. slight consensus towards deleting. Article doesn't have any strong refs nor have they been provided. In other words, it appears to be notable for a single event only. Thus, deleting with no prejudice against creation if/when reliable sources are found. tedder (talk) 07:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Computer TakeBack Campaign[edit]

Computer TakeBack Campaign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable recycling initiative. No sources support notability. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 20:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Gotta look for them, to find them. Inept nomination; 'power user' does not mean horsepower, but finesse. Incident found with "What links here": Yahoo Search for "Computer+TakeBack+Campaign+plane+banner" and sources for the incident that I added to the article. Anarchangel (talk) 01:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: A single publicity stunt does not create a notable organization.—Kww(talk) 12:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete No actual evidence that what they did was important in the recycling movement. DGG ( talk ) 23:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: This is a stub, needing significant updating, expansion and citations, but should not be deleted. The Computer TakeBack Campaign (now the Electronics TakeBack Coalition) is a critically important electronics recycling initiative involving organizations and individuals across North America and having significant impacts on both private sector behavior & public policy. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 21:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Relisting comment. For some reason this debate was not transcluded on the log for the 15th of August and has remained open since then. Since it can use a little more participation, I have relisted it. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Wood (environmental campaigner) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Of notability, although rather low. Plenty of extra ref can be found. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Seems to be cited frequently in the media regarding electronics recycling. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. If DGG has satisfied himself that the article should be deleted, that is good enough for me. Stifle (talk) 20:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: Of the article's two sources, the second doesn't even mention the group. And while the stunt may have gotten two sentences in an article about Jobs (and btw: an article by the Associated Press is not the same as a press release), that doesn't mean that Apple's actions before and after the stunt can be said to be related. If there's anything sourced and encyclopedic here, move it to Ted Smith (environmentalist). Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. There is support for a merge, and some for a redirect, and discussions about this may continue on the article's talk page; but it's quite apparent from this discussion there is a strong consensus that Elaine Marley should be a bluelink on Wikipedia. NAC—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Elaine Marley[edit]

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

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

Wholly insignificant minor character. No claim of notability and negligible reference to third-party source. Negligible real-world treatment of the topic; article is a regurgitation of her appearances in several games. Original research on "inconsistencies" in the franchise to boot. --EEMIV (talk) 02:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Not just a character in an obscure game, but the deuteragonist and primary heroine of an entire series of very well-known adventure games (Monkey Island). To echo User:Jclemens in related AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LeChuck (and see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guybrush Threepwood), "AfD is not for cleanup." —Lowellian (reply) 06:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Nifboy (talk) 03:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to List of MI Characters. While I can see Guybrush and LeChuck being kept, this character, while the only other major recurring one, does not have the same level of significance in the games, as she usually kidnapped or incapacitated in some manner for 90% of the game, and almost would be considered a minor character if she didn't recur so much. The present article only has one source and this is to establish something as part of a time line, not about the character's creation or reception. Sources I've seen aren't demonstrating any more about her either. --MASEM (t) 12:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

A "list of characters" is already a component of World of Monkey Island. Itself a collection of plotcruft and NFC abuse, it offers appropriate blurb/brief treatment as appropriate for this minor character. None of the content in this article -- uncited, plot regurgitation -- warrants merging anywhere. --EEMIV (talk) 15:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Merge per Masem. Fences&Windows 15:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Merge and remove needless plot summary. Merge Inconsistency section to Escape from Monkey Island. LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 15:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Why on Earth would you suggest moving the "inconsistency" section -- which is both entirely trivial and entirely unreferenced original research -- anywhere? --EEMIV (talk) 15:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought that if the article is merged, the Inconsistency section would not be important enough to mention in a list of characters, but could be included in Escape from Monkey Island, which the section is mostly talking about. But you're right, it is OR. LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 20:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Redirect as a likely search term. merging as necessary. Protonk (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per User:GlassCobra/Essays/Hotties are always notable as well as that character is verifiable in multiple reliable sources as seen here. In any event, I have added out of universe information on this notable character concerning her production and reception, i.e. the article is not merely plot anymore, contains information verified third-party sources, i.e. not original research by the peculiar Wikipedia definition of the term and reveals the importance of this major character from multiple noteworthy games. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

A gratuitous copy-and-paste from a single source does not establish notability. While you're whacking at these articles, please trim/paraphrase your bulky block quotes. --EEMIV (talk) 16:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the character is mentioned in multiple reviews, previews, etc. for multiple games does. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, how do "mentions" help us build a decent article? Nifboy (talk) 07:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You're right! I'd forgotten about WP:HOTTIES. Fences&Windows 17:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Wait, since when has That Guy with the Glasses been considered a reliable source?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge I'd like to say there's enough development and/or reception information to warrant an article out there, but really...there doesn't seem to be. I could see Daphne from Dragon's Lair ending up more plausible for an article to be honest.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - Perfectly fine existing article. No need to delete. --AStanhope (talk) 18:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep; Looks like there's enough coverage in published sources from reviews to justify the article. Most are reviews, but they're acceptable (offhand, this Good article) for instance has almost nothing but, and not a single external reference which focuses directly on the subject itself). --Monere (talk) 22:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Closing without prejudice against re-nomination.  Skomorokh  01:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Elvis's Twin Sister[edit]

Elvis's Twin Sister (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

The article doesn't assert any notability for this poem, so we're left to guess (from the template) that the creator considers it notable because it's included in the AQA Anthology. The fact that it's in the anthology is already indicated in the article on the anthology; the fact that certain British pupils are required to study this poem does not confer inherent notability on it or justify a separate article. Simply being in an anthology is not a substitute for the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" requirement of WP:GNG. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

If this survives AfD I might improve it. These articles are ripe for expansion. For example Education for Leisure recently featured on the main page as a DYK. The problem is not notability but the fact this is a useless substub atm.  Francium12  11:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for finding me something to firefight while you delete List of schools in Romania though!  Francium12  11:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN requires notability to be demonstrable at any time, not airy pronouncements about how this might be "ripe for expansion" at some unspecified date. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 03:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to AQA Anthology. The poem isn't notable enough on its own for an article. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Gosox5555 (talk) 01:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
• Question The Google Book search [9] shows the poem has been published in other books. Are any of them notable? Dream Focus 14:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep or merge It appears like the 11 google books are all in fact talking about this article. Including [10] which is a text book, 6 other textbooks, mentioned in the book Carol Ann Duffy By Deryn Rees-Jones Ikip (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Its in a textbook. Dream Focus 22:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Dream Focus, time to dust off WP:RS again: "Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion". Ikip, care to show any source providing (per WP:GNG) "significant coverage" of the topic that "addresses the subject directly in detail"? - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, although an article may "not establish notability", that does not mean the subject has no notability; merely that the article must be expanded - as I have taken the liberty to begin to do. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 14:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Notability is established through "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". That has not been established in the slightest. Footnote 1 is a self-published teaching guide, without editorial oversight, that violates WP:SPS. Footnotes 2 and 3 merely mention the subject in passing, as part of a long list of poems, and in no way can be considered "significant coverage". Footnote 4 is from a textbook, the use of which is discouraged by WP:RS, whenever "detailed discussion" of the subject is absent in secondary sources (which is the case here). As for footnote 5: sorry, any poet can read her own work, and while Duffy's notability is not in question, her having read one of her poems once in no way confers notability upon it. Thus, we still lack "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", a requirement for demonstrating notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. The article was changed significantly in the middle of the AfD, so many of the earlier comments can't be properly applied to the article as it stands now. The comments surrounding the most recent version appear to be heading towards keeping the article, yet there was such amount of contention surrounding a few points (such as the relevance of WP:HOWTO) that make me uncomfortable with a keep closure. No consensus seems like an optimal closure as it satisfies the recent keep votes yet takes into account the unusual circumstances in regards to the significant improvement and the remaining concerns by those asking for deletion. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 12:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Graphical methods of finding polynomial roots[edit]

Graphical methods of finding polynomial roots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Unsourced original research. Contested prod. A previous version of the article contained the sentence "Plotting the imaginary roots using empty circle in the Cartesian coordinate system is something new I am proposing" so was obviously OR. This sentence has been removed by subsequent edits, but contents of article have not been substantially changed and no sources have been provided to demonstrate it is not OR. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Note that during this discussion the article was moved to Graphical methods of finding polynomial roots. Title, topic and contents are now completely different from the nominated version. The original (and still unsourced) contents of the article were moved to its talk page and so effectively removed from Wikipedia article space. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep We have active discussions on the article's talk page by interested editors. The nomination seems to be forum shopping and/or forcing the issue in a disruptive way. There is no need for a 7-day deadline and so, per WP:BEFORE, ordinary methods of editing should be tried first. Note that I have provided multiple good sources which touch on this matter. The nominator disputes them but so it goes ... Colonel Warden (talk) 12:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment Escalating to AfD when a prod tag is removed (and removed by you, let us note) is standard practice so I invite you to withdraw your unfounded accusations of forum shopping and disruption. I still see no sources that describe this specific method of visually finding complex roots of a quadratic equation. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep This is hardly OR. LOL! Mathematicians have known about exactly this aspect of analytic geometry for quite a while now. To say that they haven't would mean the author of this article deserves a Fields medal (assuming they are under 40 years of age, of course, which he/she probably is). --Firefly322 (talk) 12:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment WP:NOR: "To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented". I see no such sources.Gandalf61 (talk) 13:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Loads of potential sources (1) The American mathematical monthly, (2) ON-Math Spring 2003 | Volume 1, Number 3 "Connecting Complex Roots to a Parabola's Graph", (3) "Roots of Quadratic Equations from Parabola graph". Since this is a mere cursory look, hardly involving the digging that an expert could perform, the potential sources and possibility of article expansion here seem quite vast. An argument that there is a lack of sources doesn't hold up, falls foul of WP:BEFORE. --Firefly322 (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment In fact WP:BEFORE reads "When nominating an article for deletion due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources aren't likely to exist." I see ZERO effort on the part of the nominator to have been made. --Firefly322 (talk) 21:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete because it is original research that doesn't cite any reliable sources. It seems like good material, but that isn't a sufficient excuse for having the article. Independent reliable sources would need to be found. Recommend the material is userfied until then. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• It's trivial to find maths articles which have no sources - see Disjoint union for example. It is clearly not our policy to delete them as a matter of course. See our actual policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment Yeah, WP:OTHERSTUFF. Let's stick to the point. You (or any other editor) can preserve this article very simply - you just have to "cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented". I still see no such sources. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF is a good argument when the precedents are valid - please read it. Your appeal to it is therefore a WP:VAGUEWAVE. As for sources, I've already made a good start and this fork in the discussion isn't helping as we are now diverted by tiresome AFD rhetoric rather than getting at the facts of the matter. Do you actually dispute the correctness of this mathematical method? I just took another quick look and soon found this paper which seems to apply the same idea to quintics. The topic is clearly not original and our task seems how best to present it rather than punishing a naive editor for his impudence contrary to WP:BITE. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment The method is correct, but that is irrelevant. Unless it has been described in a reliable source it does not belong in Wikipedia - our benchmark is verifiability, not truth. A paper on finding real roots of quintics is not related to an article on finding complex roots of quadratics. I still see no sources. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. --  pablo_hablo. 15:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete WP:OR due to lack of WP:RS, which also means it fails notability requirements. Open to userfication per above. Verbal chat 16:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment Again if this is OR, then its original editor deserves a Fields medal. If one doesn't believe this editor deserves a Fields medal, then one must logically conclude that this OR-argument is false. --Firefly322 (talk) 21:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

FireFly, please stick to wikipedia reasons. Provie RS or stop going on about the Fields medal. If someone has won such an award for this, then provide the RS. I realise you've had problems understanding our guidelines in the past, but you've been here long enough now to know that these sorts of arguments aren't valid. Verbal chat 21:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, it's a "how to". Abductive (reasoning) 16:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment There are seven points in WP:NOTHOWTO none of which mention mathematics articles. This is a specious argument that also falls foul of WP:BITE. Just as the argument labeling it WP:OR does. --Firefly322 (talk) 21:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

See point 4 and 6, for starters. The reference to "bite" is unsupportable. Verbal chat 21:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. Point 4 clearly wasn't written with math articles in mind. Using it here seriously distorts any semblance of right or wrong on wikipedia. Nearly all mathematics articles seem to violate point 4. But clearly math articles are wanted. As for point 6, how in the world does that apply? I don't see any relevance to this AFD debate. And WP:BITE does indeed apply. --Firefly322 (talk) 03:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Not all math articles need be guides on how to perform certain mathematical operations, and even if many of them do, WP:WAX is not a good argument. Point 4 seems to clearly apply to this: as currently written, it is just like a textbook, and should therefore be put on wikibooks. I believe that the topic itself could be treated encyclopedically, but I think it would require major work to make it that way. — DroEsperanto (talk) 07:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Delete Unsourced how-to. I don't see how the topic could be made into something suitable for Wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 22:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Changed to keep. Article has been effectively deleted and a new one made in its place. Still has how-to problems. Should be stubbed if nothing but the lede can be sourced. --Ronz (talk) 22:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, Scjessey, and Verbal. Ozob (talk) 23:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment When there are those here who claim to have Ph.D.'s in Math, but their comments don't really hold up to such a claim, using them to bolster arguments via per is naive at best. See Essjay controversy. --Firefly322 (talk) 03:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Please don't resort to personal attacks, which have seen you blocked for very long periods quite recently. Verbal chat 18:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Please don't threaten me with a past in which I called a spade a spade ([Orangemarlin stopped because he was about to get wiki-sensored or banned]). The fact that you continue to go to great lengths to defend an editor capable of such junk is not a good indicator of your judgement then or now. --Firefly322 (talk) 17:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• keep The basis of this nomination seems dubious at best. previous version of the article contained the sentence.... What a previous version of the article contained seems to be completely irrelevant. In fact I went and looked at the list of arguments not to use in a deletion discussion and was wondering if maybe I could find something along those lines already listed. I didn't find it, but maybe we should consider adding it. Finding the roots of a parabola is certainly a notable topic. I can pull books off my shelf that discuss the topic. The method is certainly verifiable, in the discussion on the discussion page, I pointed to at least one discussion of imaginary intersections, in Hamilton's Elements of Quaternions article 214, with the only problem being that this particular article discusses the imaginary intersections of lines and circles. A little digging would probably turn up parabolas as well, but if not found in that particular text, it seems pretty obvious that this topic has been discussed some place before.TeamQuaternion (talk) 05:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• For the sake of argument LOL, lets say that the current method being presented is original, and has never been proposed before. That is not really relevant, because if there exists any notable published graphical method for finding imaginary roots of a parabola then the article could be fixed by substituting that method, for the current method. Suppose that Gandalf61 could prove not only that this method is original, which I doubt, but also that no method of graphically finding the imaginary roots a parabola has ever been found up until the present article under discussion. If this were the case he could certainly find reliable sources stating this to be the case. If he wants to claim that this is indeed the case, I challenge him to find documentation for this remarkable fact. Yet that would still not be grounds for deleting the article as its contents should then read that there is no known graphical method for finding the roots of a parabola, citing the sources that Gandalf61 has provided. Of course if this were the case, this wonderful new method will soon be published in reliable sources, and we can then once again include it as well.TeamQuaternion (talk) 05:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
• How about this? The method only works for the parabola given. Try 0.75(x – 7)² + 5; the "visual method" gives about 7 ± 2.235i, but the actual roots are closer to 7 ± 2.582i. The problem is the choice of nothing but powers of two in the example in the article; 0.5(x – 4)² + 2. Can any mathematicians check my work? I think I'm right. Abductive (reasoning) 07:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• You're mistaken. The "visual method" gives the correct answer. It doesn't give anything like 2.235 as the imaginary part. Certainly the proposed method is correct; that's easy to see. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• But this visual method is essentially useless for anything other than the rare cases where the intercepts are integers, since one can't accurately read answers with square roots as terms. It's still original research and How To and against the rules. It should be on wikiHow.com. Abductive (reasoning) 05:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

If you have problems with the visual method, Abductive, put the image up for deletion, you don't delete an article because of the image in the article, wouldn't you agree? The image can be easily removed. Just like sources could have easily be found by the nominator, in which he neglected to do, in violation of WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE Ikip (talk) 09:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Response to Ikip: If it is so easy to find sources for the original article, then it is strange that the original article material remained completely unsourced right up to the point when you removed it all from the article. I see nothing in WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE that requires a nominator to entirely rewrite an article, changing both its topic and its contents to fit an arbitrary list of available sources, as has been done here. Your ad hominen attacks on myself and other editors simply reveal the lack of substantive arguments for retaining any of the original material. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the award for biggest personal attack goes to.....Hfran.[11] When I asked him to remove these personal attacks, he deleted my response.[12] Asking an editor to follow WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE is not a personal attack.

Ummm. Grandlf61. There are 20 references now to the article. No amount of accusations against me change this. No amount of accusation against me change the fact that the original reason you wanted this deleted was, and I quote, "Unsourced original research." Sources are provided, substantive arguments are addressed, and now the reason for deletion changes by most those editors who want to delete. Ikip (talk) 14:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Response to Ikip:... and not a single one of those references is about the very specific visual method of finding complex roots of a quadratic equation that was described in the original article. Not one. None. The text of the original article (i.e. the text that you removed to the talk page and that Spinningspark is now attempting to restore to the new article) is still completely unsourced. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• • Just now I took a few seconds and drew the graph of Abductive's proposed example by hand on paper. Just eyeballing it, I'd read the answer as about 2.6 for the imaginary part. That is was algebra confirms. Quite aside from his advertising his inability to handle such a simple problem, his claim that by staring at the page he can come up with the thousandth's digit is astonishing. Even if you used a microscope, how would you draw the graph that accurately on a microscopic level with a pen and paper? Michael Hardy (talk) 18:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep beating that drum, it makes you look like a great person. Which parabola did you eyeball? Abductive (reasoning) 18:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This is well-sourced encyclopedic content on a notable topic that comes up in many math courses and is treated in a number of texts and journal articles. Nominator ignored WP:BEFORE guidelines and did not tag problem areas with tags such as ((Notability)) or ((Original research)) prior to nominating for deletion. Normal editing processes should be pursued to improve, and article has been substantially improved already.Math.geek3.1415926 (talk) 13:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Response to Math.geek3.1415926: Strongly suggest you get your facts straight before lobbing round nasty little bad-faith accusations like that one. This version shows that the article was tagged (with ((Unreferenced))) when I nominated it, and discussions on its talk page before nomination had failed to produce any relevant sources. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The unreferenced tag was added a mere 45 hours before your proposed deletion. Why the rush to propose deletion without giving the normal editorial process time to improve the article? In isolation, "unreferenced" is not sufficient criteria for deletion IF the references exist to add them. However, tracking down references often takes some time and a trip to the library. Experienced editors should gently guide new editors toward more encyclopedic practices, not rush to justify throwing their contributions int the delete bin. The march toward possible deletion should be a slow one, giving editors ample opportunity to improve articles.Math.geek3.1415926 (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Response to Math.geek3.1415926:You do not seem to realise that prodding and AfD nominations are part of the "normal editorial process". The original article was a rambling, unsourced, badly written, poorly illustrated "how to" manual for a trivial, non-notable method of finding approximate solutions to quadratic equations which any high school student can solve algebraically with far less effort. In the 4 weeks between 2 August when the original author last editted it and 30 August when I prod-ed it, it was editted twice; both edits were tags. Now in ten days it has been re-titled, re-focussed, sourced and entirely re-written, with input from numerous editors. Sometimes the "normal editorial process" needs a wake up call. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

This thinking is fallacious because it ignores the opportunity cost of this kafkaesque farrago. Our time and patience is limited and, by diverting us into unproductive bickering and bureaucracy, we are prevented from doing more useful work. When articles such as Graph of a function need improvement, we do not immediately start an AFD to start the clock ticking and stimulate activity. The proper process is to improve the article ourselves or, if we are incapable of that, to tag it for attention in an orderly manner by the relevant projects and interested editors. Moreover, by generating ill-will and strife, the deletion process tends to reduce the number of editors willing to exert themselves on behalf of the project. Please see WP:ZEAL for more details. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Or, this could be taken as evidence that the Article Rescue Squadron needs to be more selective in the battles it chooses. Abductive (reasoning) 17:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Editing break[edit]

• Comment Everyone can see that it's a clumsily written article, neglecting WP:MOSMATH at every opportunity (not to mention all the incorrectly capitalized initial letters in the article's title). But as I also pointed out on its talk page, the graphs are grossly incorrectly drawn in a way that causes secondary-school pupils to lose points. That doesn't encourage me to sympathize with its author very much, even if the remedy would be to clean it up rather than to delete it. But now to the content of the main point: that content is worth maybe a couple of paragraphs if an article is to be made of it. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. It looks like WP:OR, and appears to violate WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. One of the two supposed potential sources presented on the talk page does not verify the content of the article (indeed, it is about Cardano's solution of the cublic equation, which is a different though related matter). I cannot access the other suggested source, so I will not comment, but the editor who presented it also failed to indicate any details, merely stating that it is "another interesting angle". Verifiable material would, in any event, most likely be better covered in an article on quadratic equations since it seems very unlikely that a single method of visual would rise to the level of notability that a dedicated article must surely demand. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Merge some fraction into completing the square. It is kind of worth a graphic illustration there. Otherwise, frankly, it seems to be the sort of mathematics you leave for people to discover for themselves. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I have requested input from WikiProject Mathematics for this discussion. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Merge (part) into completing the square#Complex roots. If there is anything worthwhile, it should be there. The article title is a misnomer, but understandable; however, even if the method could be sourced, it belongs in completing the square. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• That is a ridiculous suggestion - completing the square is not a graphical method, it is an analytic method, how can that be suitable target for a merge? Completing the square is relevant only to quadratics, how can that be a suitable target for an article about solutions to polynomials? Completing the square is only one method, how can that become an article about multiple methods? SpinningSpark 15:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Transwiki to some Wikibook module, per my comments above. — DroEsperanto (talk) 07:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I have developed the article to improve its structure. Numerous sources have been added including Graphical Solutions for Complex Roots of Quadratics, Cubics and Quartics (National Mathematics Magazine 17 (4): 147-150) and Graphing the Complex Roots of a Quadratic Equation (The College Mathematics Journal 16 (4): 257-261). These demonstrate the notability of the topic and rebut the complaints that sources are lacking. The only issue remaining is that the article might be a how-to but this is a stylistic issue rather than a reason to delete. To see how we present such matters generally, please see our category: Root-finding algorithms which contains numerous articles of a similar nature. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • These changes have not made the article any better and it's still a clear delete candidate. Verbal chat 08:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Straw man, Colonel Warden. You have added a series of content-free one sentence sections as a coatrack for sources that are not related to the original material. No one has claimed that general graphical methods of finding roots of polynomial equations were not notable or could not be sourced. However, the original material, on a specific visual method of finding complex roots of a quadratic equation (which does not generalise to higher order polynomials) is still completely unsourced and should be deleted from Wikipedia. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Per MOS:MATH, Most mathematical ideas are amenable to some form of generalization, and this seems the best way to go as I said at the outset. See our general editing policy, "Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. For instance, one person may start an article with an overview of a subject or a few random facts. Another may help standardize the article's formatting, or have additional facts and figures or a graphic to add. Yet another may bring better balance to the views represented in the article, and perform fact-checking and sourcing to existing content.". Colonel Warden (talk) 09:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: WP:NOTMANUAL, and specifically not a compendium of unsourced (even if mathematically valid) material on how to solve mathematical equations. That is the function of a maths textbook not an encyclopaedia. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Clarification: as of this latest version, the vast bulk of the article (being the 'Quadratic equations' section, from the second sentence onward) is unsourced, and can thus reasonably be described as WP:OR. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I understand if you would have made the claim that this article is unsourced 3 days ago, as many editors above did. But 35 minutes before you stated this page was unsourced (9:01), editors had finished adding 20 sources. There seems to be a real disconnect there. I would suggest striking this unsourced comment. Ikip (talk) 09:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The text you mention Hrafn has now been removed from the page. So every section is now sourced. Nullifying 7 editors arguments here of OR and unsourced. Ikip (talk) 10:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Revised basis for opinion: the article as of this latest version contains no substantive content. It amounts to little more to a slight and trivial elaboration on the statement that 'you can solve polynomials graphically'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL. No matter what happens to this article, you and other editors will always, always support deletion.[13] Where is the compromise, the give take, the ability to say, you know what good job editor, you really made that article get turned around. Nope. Ikip (talk) 10:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Kindly keep your inane laughter to yourself. This article had no substantive, sourced content -- only a bunch of unsourced/WP:OR WP:HOWTO and a small amount of repeating the blindingly obious. After removal of the OR & the reptition, there is nothing substantive to keep, so little point in a "compromise" to preserve a non-informative stub. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Strong keep exhaustively researched now (as of 6 September), making the nominators original "original research" arguments of nominator, User:Sławomir Biały, User talk:Ronz, User:Ozob, User talk:Verbal, User:Scjessey irrelevant. I have no idea why Hrafn wrote that it was unsourced though. This is how it will work now >> these same editors will come back and say the sources are not good enough, ignoring that their original justification for delete is now invalid. I agree with Colonel's arguments about sources above. Ikip (talk) 09:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Exhaustively researched? You either tire easily, or missed out the fact that his research has failed to add references that support the content or the notability of the article, per nom and Hrafn. Verbal chat 10:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Verbal's original argument: "Delete WP:OR due to lack of WP:RS, which also means it fails notability requirements." Verbal's arguments now: "his research has failed to add references that support the content or the notability of the article" Now we go into the inadequate reference phase, editors will name a reference, and the editors here can claim it is trivial or irrelevant. Ikip (talk) 10:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note to closing nominator since the nomination, this article has gone though extensive improvements, with an astounding 20 footnotes added.[14] Ikip (talk) 09:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Further note These "improvements" are merely superficial and coatrack additions that do not serve to show notability or support the text. Verbal chat 10:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
    • "This is how it will work now >> these same editors will come back and say the sources are not good enough, ignoring that their original justification for delete is now invalid." Did I predict folks, did I predict it! Nevermind that verbal's original AFD argument is invalid now.Ikip (talk) 10:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
      • My reasons haven't changed: wikipedia policies and guidelines, and the good of the project. Pleas stop your personal attacks on other editors. Hfran has it right above. Verbal chat 10:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
        • Another editor you regularly work with was nice enough to write me. Is this reversion okay? I am willing to work with you Verbal, to compromise with you. Ikip (talk) 11:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. I think there's no reason to delete this article after it has been repurposed as Graphical methods of finding polynomial roots. There are enough sources for that topic, as evidenced by the 20 citations, and the quadratic equation is just a particular case. Sure, the quadratic section needs to be cleared of (potential) WP:OR by comparing, and potentially replacing its contents with what the sources say, but there's no reason to discard the contents that has been added to the article after this deletion nomination has been made. This new contents meets WP:V and WP:GNG. Pcap ping 12:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Update: I see that the unreferenced section has been removed now. Pcap ping 12:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Update. Delete link after article move, as the old name has nothing to do with, and no content in common with, the new article. Delete or Userfy new article anyway, as the only content is 3 unrelated well-sourced sentences, but still not related to the topic of the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Trout for the person who renamed it, breaking links to the AfD from the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
    • That was verbal, he deleted several paragraphs,[15] and then argued that it be deleted because it is an "appalling stub".[16] Ikip (talk) 14:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Could you please provide a diff to where this supposed deletion took place? These highly misleading comments are becoming disruptive. Please stop or I will take this further, which could result in a block or ban from AfD. What I see there is several identical sentences, except for one word. I removed the duplication. It could be argued that the repeated one sentence sections were a misleading attempt to make the article look like it had some actual content. It became an appalling stub as soon as you removed all the WP:OR. Verbal chat 15:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
        • Also, I didn't do the rename. Please strike. I also find your changes to comments, after they have been replied to, a misleading altering of the record. Please strike and then rephrase, do not hide the problem edits (usually). Verbal chat 15:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• I am going to restore the original article. It is ridiculous that the article has been stubbed in the middle of a deletion debate on the grounds that it is unsourced. Either the article is unsourcable and will be deleted at the end of the debate, or it is sourcable, in which case the text should be left in place while the sources are found. Besides, I suspect that the stub is innaccurate, or at least misleading while there does not appear to be anything actually wrong with the article. SpinningSpark 16:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• I undid this, as you can restore the material with sources as you find the sources. Otherwise it is silly to add unsourced WP:OR to an article during an AfD, unless you want it deleted! Verbal chat 17:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Unsourced has never, by itself, been a reason to delete. You are removing the very article this debate is discussing. The worthless stub you have left behind certainly deserves to be deleted, sourced or not. SpinningSpark 17:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• I fully agree. I don't think anyone has made the claim here that the article should be deleted merely because it is not sourced, and I agree that that once the unsupportable OR is removed what is left certainly deserves deletion. Perhaps you should change your !vote to reflect your new view? Verbal chat 17:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Don't tell me what to do, I have said what I think and sarcasm won't change my mind. What I was going to do was to actually work on the article, but there is no fucking point if you are going to keep deleting it unless it is perfect. If you want to complain about my incivility you will now have to come to my talkpage as I am now unwatching both the article and this debate. SpinningSpark 18:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Editing break 2[edit]

• Strong Keep. This is almost a self evidently notable method. I am pretty certain that quality sources will not be hard to find. The argument that this is a "how-to" also holds little weight for me, mathematics articles commonly include at least simple examples for clarification. Such articles include the alternative methods of completing the square and quadratic equation both include either analytic or graphical examples, as does the parent article polynomial. SpinningSpark 16:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. As per others and WP:BEFORE. Biofase ^flame| stalk  18:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Article has been completely remade now, but only Verbal's version [17] is appropriate. The other version still has How To and OR. Abductive (reasoning) 18:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree with Abductive; this is a total rewrite, and promising - that version should be kept; I hope it will continue, since the new article is far from complete, and I am curious how it will treat quartics with a single real extremum. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Sigh......... Keep, but it's strange to see nothing of the article's original topic in the revised and moved version. The original one belabored elementary points to an excruciating degree and contained simple mathematical errors, but it still had a valid point, even if it wasn't clear that it was worth a Wikipedia article. But it was worth at least being stated briefly somewhere in some Wikipedia article. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• • Now I have reinstated the original topic within the context of the new article. It fits neatly. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Are tactics like these even legal? I mean changing the topic of the discussion of an ADF this drastically? I feel bewildered. I am assuming good faith here, but I find this development really shocking and unexpected.TeamQuaternion (talk) 20:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• • I have reinstated the original topic within the context of the new article. It fits neatly. Next, we need some concrete examples from the cited book, Visual Complex Analysis. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep article at its current state. The pruning and new diagram by Michael Hardy have given a very good result which conveys the point of the original in a comprehensible (and correct) manner. Johnuniq (talk) 01:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Yowza! Above we have everything from an f-bombs to a photograph... To be totally honest, this discussion is difficult enough that were I an admin, I could not imagine closing as anything but "no consensus"; however, editors are making active good faith efforts at improvement and by and large we should give them further opportunity to do so beyond the week long AfD. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep There is a good article in here trying to get out. Cardamon (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Silliest edit summary in a while: "Removing OR. This "method" does not work for most parabolas. Try doing this with 0.75(x – 7)^2 + 5 and you will see that the roots can only be approximated. Prove me wrong". This is childish. To call a method "visual" or "graphical" is to say it's intended to give approximations, not exact answers. To say it "only approximates" the answers is to say that it works, not that it doesn't. Likewise to get the real x-intercepts in cases where they exist, by looking at the graph, is to get approximations. To use a calculator or a slide rule is to get approximations. (Even in cases where a calculator gives an exact answer, it doesn't tell you that that's what it is; you have to use your head.) This was by the same person who claimed this method in a certain case gives 7 ±0.235i. He claimed accuracy to the nearest thousandth! Childish. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • A clear violation of WP:CIVIL. Please apologise. Abductive (reasoning) 01:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
    • • • I've never, ever seen "A clear violation of WP:CIVIL. Please apologize" lead to an apology. My conclusion is that it's not a very diplomatic (read: effective) way of making civility happen. Just sayin' -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• See WP:RANDY. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• I know something of math, but am rusty, as it turns out. Are you saying that I am not "allowed" to challenge this OR/HowTo/non-functional "method"? Abductive (reasoning) 09:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Nobody's saying you're not allowed to do that. What is being suggested is that you shouldn't make a fool of yourself by making repeated adamant assertions about things you don't understand. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• I made one mistake, using the method exactly as described. You keep repeating my one mistake, in an attempt to avoid confronting the very precise claims I have made about the sources not using visual methods to find imaginary roots. You still don't get what I am saying; the root is not some approximation, it is a number of the form a + bi, and once the parabola gets at all interesting, you can only estimate b (and poorly). Finding and estimating are not the same thing. If a student turned in a result like "about 2.6", would they receive points? No. A root is defined precisely; a root (or a zero) of a complex-valued function ƒ is a member x of the domain of ƒ such that ƒ(x) vanishes at ${\displaystyle x}$ Abductive (reasoning) 19:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• • • • How a student would be graded for writinng "about 2.6" depends on what the question is. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I followed the directions, made a graph, and zoomed in. That's what happens. Abductive (reasoning) 01:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • When you say "use your head", what you really mean is at some point you have to use the quadratic (or a version of the quadratic) to find out what the roots are, with this graphical method intervenes. Once you make the inverted parabola, you have to fall back on algebraic methods to find out where it crosses the x-axis. Therefore this methods is just a more complex way to force yourself to use the quadratic. Abductive (reasoning) 01:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Geometrical methods may be used - see compass and straightedge constructions for details. In practise, one might use tools like a set square to perform operations such as finding the abscissa. On a graphical calculator, there are equivalent functions or techniques. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• My argument is that this method is not constructable. Abductive (reasoning) 09:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• That is nonsense. And "OR". Michael Hardy (talk) 21:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I have now permanently laid to rest the "OR" worries. Could we now turn to the other issues? Michael Hardy (talk) 20:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Utter falsehood. And how to you plan to overcome the plain fact that it is HOW TO? Abductive (reasoning) 01:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
    • There's nothing to overcome. It's clearly not a "how to". It identifies a mathematical fact. Like any mathematical fact, it can be used as a "how to". It can also used in other ways; it can be relied on in a proof. And how can you say it's an "utter falsehood" that the OR claim is laid to rest? The cited source describes exactly this content. Abductive, why does someone like you, who repeatedly loudly advertises his ineptitude at even routine secondary-school math, insist being so involved in this discussion? Michael Hardy (talk) 18:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Because you keep insulting me. Because I am not as inept as you think. Because I am not the only one who has said this article is not appropriate. You have failed to address the problems here or on the talk page, and instead just keep repeating your claim that the OR issue is laid to rest. I, one the other hand, am making much more specific claims about the invalidity of using the sources provided, claims which you do not directly address. I have repeatedly asked anybody to use this method to find some roots for some every so slightly more comlicated parabolas, and nobody has risen to that challenge. If you are so good at math, how come you are using verbal methods to shout down my "pitiful" mathematical ones? Abductive (reasoning) 18:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
        • I did go through finding the roots in one of your examples, and reported the results on the talk page. I don't know what your "specific claims" about invalidity are. At one point you mentioned that they use algebra. Is that supposed to be a claim about invalidity? I can only offer guesses of that sort as to what you mean. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
          • A root is a number. This visual method does not give numbers, it gives guesses (in other words, an interval). If a student was told to find the roots, and responded with anything other than the exact numbers, they are just as wrong as somebody who says the answer is "cat" and "dog" are the roots. If you use algebra, the method is a roundabout way of using the quadratic. Picture progamming a computer to find the roots using the visual method. It would have to hunt in the interval, narrow the answer down, and then hunt again. This will require the same or more operators than just solving it algebraically. Abductive (reasoning) 23:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
            • Abductive, you are committing several errors: You say algebra will find an exact answer every time. That's not true: that holds only in cases where you know the coefficients exactly. If they are physical measurements, you don't. If you have only the graph, you can approximate the coefficients "visually", and then use algebra to find the roots (also approximately), but if you don't have the coefficients and can only approximate them based on the drawn graph, it's quicker to approximate the non-real roots "visually" using the method described here than to first approximate the coefficients and then use algebra. Secondly, you say students are not given credit for approximate answers. But that depends on what question was asked. Sometimes students are asked to get such approximations using graphs. If I assigned a problem like the ones contemplated here, I'd have students CAREFULLY draw the graphs, then use this method, then write a careful verbal explanation of what they did and how they did it. The next point you seem to miss is that this article explains the relationship between the roots and the graph, and that can be used for other things than numerical work. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
              • That seems to me to wander into the even less likely realm of having a graph but no equation. And it sounds HowTo-ish. But at least you are more understanding of my concerns. Abductive (reasoning) 02:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
                • Um... if you're working from physical measurements, then you'll have a graph, consisting of data points, but no equation. Finding an equation that fits your data points is a big part of applied mathematics, you know. God doesn't tend to give us equations directly from His hand.

                  Why do you think your instincts about what's likely, or what's useful, are going to be better than the instincts of actual working mathematicians? How many absurd claims will you make before you start doing your homework on these topics?

                  The How-to issue is worth thinking about. However, your other claims... (1) The method does work. (2) The method is used by real mathematicians and real math students. (3) Complex solutions do have concrete physical meanings. (4) Obtaining approximate solutions is useful and does happen in both pure and applied contexts. (5) Having a graph without an equation is as common as dirt; it's how experimental science always works.

                  What are you going to claim next, Abductive? I recommend you stick to the "How-to" argument and stop pretending you know what goes on in mathematics. You've made it painfully and repeatedly clear that you don't. Start asking questions instead of making wrong assertions. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - I haven't been called nasty names in a while, and !voting "keep" here seems to be an efficient way to make that happen.

  Seriously, though, this discussion raises an interesting question. I've known this method of locating complex zeros since middle school - where did I learn it? It's not in the College Algebra textbook from which I teach today. Most books at that level that I've seen don't address any kind of geometric understanding of complex numbers; they're treated in an entirely algebraic manner, with no notion of a complex plane sticking out from the page. It's a shame really, because the visual approach probably would help a lot of students. I show fellow grad students this, though, and they've never seen it! Bizarre.

  I'd like to see the method extended to roots of cubics... -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Fellow grad students having never seen it supports the hypothesis that this is Original Research. Policy is that Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, point 1. Abductive (reasoning) 01:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
    • • • • Abductive, let me help you by summarizing all of your comments on this page: Abductive hardly knows anything about mathematics. Since when are graduate students omniscient? On can also find people with Ph.D.s who've never heard of this. Therefore they shouldn't hear of it, by reading this article, you seem to tell us. The OR claim was silly from the outset and is dead. Leave it alone. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
            • On the talk page of the article I have made a case for why the method doesn't work, and so far you have not responded. I say this is because the method doesn't work without sneaking in some algebra. I have made a case that the sources are being misused, and nobody has responded. Nobody has reponded to the problem of avoiding How-To. Insulting me will not make me go away, but I again ask you to stop. Abductive (reasoning) 18:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
          • I did respond. I wrote out a detailed proof that the method works. Your "case for why the method doesn't work" is only a report that you tried it and you did it wrong. It's just a routine high-school homework problem, and you claim did it wrong, without specifics, and professional mathematicians tell you it works and write a proof that it works, and the proof is accessible at a secondary-school level, and you respond that you "have made a case for why the method doesn't work, and so far you have not responded". Michael Hardy (talk) 18:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
            • No, my case is that you can't seem to actually use the method to find some roots. I have given two example parabolas and asked for the roots; you have not responded with the roots. Why not? Isn't it easy? Abductive (reasoning) 18:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
              • Where are these example parabolas? I'd like to have a shot at it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
              • Never mind, I found it, and solved the problem you posed. I only used a graph and my eyeballs, and I got 6.3 ± 2.3i. The trick was to find a nice, accurate graph - that's easy to do online. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
                • • I did it in less than one minute with no algebra, no calculator, no online or otherwise electronic help, just pen and paper, plotting just seven points and estimating the answer visually. For 0.83(x − 6.3)² + 4.4, the imaginary part of the root appeared to be a bit more than 2. There you go. This is trivial. I was doing stuff like this when I was in 7th grade and so was everyone else (except those who don't care about things like this). Abductive, you keep pointing out that Norton & Lotto use algebra, as if that were an objection. Their algebra explains why it is possible to do this sort of visual stuff with no algebra. And if you couldn't, this article would still explain the geometric relationship between the parabola and the locations of the roots. That is the main point. Michael Hardy (talk) 11:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
                    • Your bold text won't steal my thunder. I got there first. :p -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC) I'm joking
                      • My contention is that you aren't "finding" the roots, your're estimating them. If I plug in "a bit more than 2" or "6.3 + 2.3i" into the equation, do I get 0? No. A root is defined as a number x that makes f(x) = 0. Also, none of the sources talk about finding or estimating the roots in this way, and the article contains too much HowTo. Abductive (reasoning) 18:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
                      • I also note that we have gone from "this method is genius!" to "this method is trivially easy!" during the course of this debate. Abductive (reasoning) 18:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
                        • • I must have missed the part where someone said it's genius. Is the person who said that among those now saying it's trivially easy? Michael Hardy (talk) 04:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
                        • Yes. The article now states that the method is for approximation—for estimating roots—and not for finding exact ones. Everyone knows that, and nobody disagrees. As for whether someone thought it was "genius", that has nothing to do with anything, unless you're just looking for reasons to criticize people. Personally, I'm here to write an encyclopedia, and not to talk about other editors. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• • • • You wouldn't believe how much mathematics my fellow grad students don't know. They're all younger than I, for one thing, and math education has been changing. The fact that I was taught it by a middle-school teacher inclines me to think it must be written down in a book somewhere. I suspect it's the newer textbooks that have cut a lot of material that used to be standard. I'm attending a mathematics conference right now, working with a researcher in complex analysis who went to school before I did. I'm going to ask him about this. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The article is not OR because the first two external links show the method (the third may do as well, but I'm not sufficiently patient to read it all). Johnuniq (talk) 05:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the second source, but not the first, seem to resemble this visual method, with a crucial exception; the authors do not claim to be able to read the roots off the graph; they have to use regular algebraic methods to get the roots. The other sources rely on algebra also. Abductive (reasoning) 08:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Graphical methods of root finding is clearly a well covered subject, although one that possibly might be duplicated on Wikipedia. OR issues surrounding the finding of complex roots can be, should be and in fact are beeing hashed out as part of the ordinary editorial process. Taemyr (talk) 07:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Great work improving the article, though I generally preferred the original version. As Giano advises we should write articles as though we are addressing a bright 14 year old with no knowledge of the subject. Maths is best learnt by doing math, and to facilitate that we need a more beginner friendly presentation. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment on Abductive's edit summary "the even less likely realm of having a graph but no equation": That's not unlikely at all. Physical measurements give you a graph but no equation. Physical measurements happen all the time. Michael Hardy (talk) 11:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Why whould you need the imaginary roots of a physical measurement? Abductive (reasoning) 18:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Holy cow, are you seriously asking this question? Do you not know that imaginary solutions have extremely concrete physical meanings in, for example, electrical engineering? Do you not know that complex roots have extremely concrete physical meanings when talking about systems that display simple harmonic oscillation? Do you really imagine that complex roots are somehow apart from physical reality? Wow. No more, just: Wow.

      In parallel to your statement above, your argument has changed from "you can't actually use this method", to "What are complex (or as you call them, "imaginary", although none of the examples we've looked at have pure imaginary roots) good for, anyway?" Wow. I'm sorry, Abductive, but that's sad.

      Let me clue you in a bit: When a system of differential equations has as an eigenvalue (6.3 + 2.3i) that means the system evolves by growing at a rate of e^6.3, while oscillating at a rate of 2pi/2.3. I was kind of assuming you knew that — my bad. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

      • Well, excuse me for not knowing everything. Nevertheless, even if everything you have said is valid, I fail to see how it is not pure HowTo advice, and I would like to see a reliable source from the electrical engineering literature that suggests approximating roots in this way. Abductive (reasoning) 19:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
        • You're excused. Nobody's born knowing this stuff. I was just surprised, given your level of participation so far in this debate. Sorry for my presumption. Regarding the HowTo argument. I don't disagree. The only points I've made here are that the method does work, and that complex solutions do have physical meaning. I, like you, would like to see a book that details this method, partly just because I'm annoyed that it's not taught much these days. As a math teacher, I wish the textbooks covered it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
          • So, no sources then. Abductive (reasoning) 20:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
            • None from me, at this time. I need to ask my handy pocket professor on the morrow; I'll let you know what he says. Again, I'm confident that this used to be taught (from books, even!). Everything's been dumbed down in the last few decades. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I urge people to try and understand; Wikipedia articles are not built on truth, they are built on reliable sources. As I have stated, this article twists the sources on their heads to claim that they use graphical methods to approximate (not find) the roots, when the articles are only using the graphs to show why the roots are well-behaved. Abductive (reasoning) 19:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete or at best smerge to whatever suitable article there maybe. Wikipedia is not a textbook. WP:GNG does not require us to keep every single article with at least two sources, or every single paragraph with at least two refs can become its own article. This is such an elementary exposition of an imprecise method (or methods) that I have difficulty believing that any student of mathematics will have any use for it. We are not writing for mathematicians, of course, but we are not writing for 12-year-olds, either. Tim Song (talk) 04:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• But it's not primarily for the purpose of graphically estimating the roots; it's for the purpose of explaining the geometric relationship between the parabola and the locations of the roots. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, so I'll assume for the moment that the title of the article does not mean what it says. Why, exactly, is this information not in, say, parabola or quadratic equation or quadratic function? Why does it need its own article? I see no compelling reason to have a standalone article here. A couple paragraphs, at the most, in the appropriate article would suffice. Tim Song (talk) 04:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The article contains information that is not in the articles you mentioned because some of it would not be relevant there. The information is relevant to the title of this article, and it may be expanded. A large number of people have claimed that the material is OR and presumably have been unable to locate the concepts in textbooks. Yet, the material is sourced (and so is not OR). It's interesting to hear the article described as "elementary" after some previous comments that it was wrong, and mathematicians really do spend time considering graphical or geometrical solutions that may appear redundant given an algebraic alternative. Johnuniq (talk) 05:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Notice that the title of the article is actually now Graphical methods of finding polynomial roots, and that some of its material would not fit under quadratic function. I'd like to comment on the accuracy of graphical methods like this. Typically, it would be 2 or 3 significant figures, if done on paper by a skilful person with some sort of drafting tools. With practice, using a method like this to guessitimate the answer just by looking at a graph might be accurate to about 10%. With a graphics program, this method could be accurate to many decimal places. Finally, yes we do write for intelligent 12 year olds, among others. Cardamon (talk) 05:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I was responding to Michael Hardy's suggestion that this is a WP:COATRACK "for the purpose of explaining the geometric relationship between the parabola and the locations of the roots" (emphasis mine). My point is that we are not writing a kid's encyclopedia. But I guess I'm not the best judge for that. Tim Song (talk) 12:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Tim: "I have difficulty believing that any student of mathematics will have any use for it" Have you ever taught algebra? This is an excellent method, and I teach it to algebra students. Approximating solutions by looking at a graph is an important skill that I personally use in my graduate study - quadratic equations come up in all sorts of contexts (differential equations, for example), and we often find ourselves looking at approximate graphs. Simply knowing the sign of the real and imaginary parts of a solution can yield important qualitative information about the nature of a solution - e.g., whether an oscillation will be damped, or grow exponentially! (When you're driving across the Tacoma Narrows Bridge in the famous video, this sort of thing matters.)

If you want to know whether a method will be useful for math students, why not ask some math teachers? -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, it's useful. Heck, I know that, I even use it myself sometimes. Does not mean it is entitled to its own article. I've struck that part of the comment, happy? But the title is ..."of finding ... roots" (emphasis mine). Determining the sign or approximate value of the root does not sound like "finding" the root to me. Tim Song (talk) 12:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment Moving away from this specific article, some uses of graphical methods are:

1. For many people, seeing a problem and its solution helps the understanding.
2. If for some reason analytical solutions or numerical methods are not available, graphical methods can be very useful. This was more important historically (before computers and handheld calculators became common) than it is now. Note: Wikipedia does care about history.
3. They can be used for "sanity checks" if one suspects a malfunction, a bug in a program or a calculation error. In this regard, the ability to guesstimate a graphical method just by looking at a plot is useful in catching gross errors, because it can be fast. One way to gain such an ability is by learning graphical methods. Cardamon (talk) 05:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Molson_Indy_Vancouver#Deaths. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Jean Patrick Hein[edit]

Jean Patrick Hein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

I would love to redirect this to the 1990 Molson Indy Vancouver article, but the trouble is does it exist, hence my nomination. Also my other reason is failure of WP:BLP guidelines. Donnie Park (talk) 15:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete: per WP:BLP, WP:N, and WP:RS..South Bay (talk) 16:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I wouldn't delete the text developed here, though it could be merged into Molson_Indy_Vancouver because that's a short article. Ideally that latter article will be expanded over time to reflect any other notable events during the history of that race. --Milowent (talk) 16:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I purely think it could be intergrated into the 1990 Molson Indy Vancouver article if there is somebody who is willing to create it, I would love to do that but trouble for me is I'm trying to scale the amount of edits and created articles down before it start to take over my life. Therefore I tagged ((rescue)) as it is savable for that redlinked article but not as an bio. Donnie Park (talk) 20:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems crazy to have to create individual articles for each year this race was run, so as to include a section on this death in the 1990 article. The current Molson_Indy_Vancouver already mentions the death, it makes sense to put it there because it is a notable event in the history of the series. Other events may follow. Maybe some day some splitting will be needed. But not now. --Milowent (talk) 23:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't think it really is when what it will also offer is results as every F1 season has that. Donnie Park (talk) 16:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Redirect to Molson Indy Vancouver, and perhaps merge as well. No independent notability; this is a WP:BLP1E. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect to Molson Indy Vancouver#Deaths. The mention in that article seems sufficient; anything further (such as this article) borders on WP:MEMORIAL. Nonparticipant fatalities in motor racing are unfortunately fairly common. Deor (talk) 06:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 20:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Hela metal[edit]

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

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

The subject does not seem to meet WP:N and WP:V. The sources in the article are unreliable and/or do not contain any significant coverage (and are used very dubiously as well, as if just thrown in there somewhere). Nothing on Google News and there are no reliable sources among the few Google hits either. This seems to be just another case where a (barely notable) band claims to have invented a new genre. Prolog (talk) 06:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep . Per comments on the talk page when it was PRODed, At least one of the links is to a Sri Lankan newspaper, and if you search the Sri Lankan edition of Google for "Hela Metal" (with quotes) you get around [2380 results], about 8 times the number of hits as you do in the US version, so I think great care needs to be taken in using search results as an indicator of notabillity. Clearly this subject is going to be more notable in its home country than elsewhere. It needs improvement, and I've already tried to move the article in the right direction to assist the original editor, but I think there is enough 'buzz' in the Sri Lankan results to suggest it is a genuine genre in Sri Lanka and should be given time for better editing and sourcing rather than just deleting outright. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 07:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• The comments on the talk page do not address the issues for which the article was prodded and nominated for deletion. If there is no coverage in reliable sources, Wikipedia's requirements for verifiability are not satisfied. And if there is no significant coverage, the requirements for notability are not satisfied. The newspaper article contains absolutely nothing about this "genre" and the metal webzine interviews are about the band speaking about themselves. Prolog (talk) 09:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• the PROD stated "No proof that this is a real genre. All sources are blogs. Google gives you 302 hits, the majority being just random words that happened to be in that order. ", so I addressed that the first ref is a newspaper and if you use the correct version of Google you get 8 times as many results, so yes the talk page post did address the concerns given in the PROD. The ref shows a local newspaper using "Hela Metal" to describe a band, so while it isn't much use as a cite for copy in the article, it does give evidence of the genre existing, as indeed do most of the other results coming back on google. The article definitely needs substantial improvement, but deletion is not cleanup.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 09:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• The article's bad state is not a valid reason for keeping it. The problem is the subject, of which an article that would meet Wikipedia's standards can apparently not be written. Instead of concentrating on the prod, you should be addressing the issues brought up in this discussion. The only way this article is going to be kept is if someone finds significant coverage in reliable sources. Terms used to describe a band do not classify as genres or as Wikipedia article subjects. Per WP:NEO, sources specifically about the term are needed, not just ones which mention it briefly or use it in passing. Prolog (talk) 12:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• I addressed the Prod issues as you raised them. I still think there is enough here to give the author time to improve the article and find sources. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 12:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• There is no "correct" version of Google. Using a localized version will get you the same hits as the English version, only in a different order. Even with your link, it's less than 300 hits, with the majority still being random (Swedish) words that happened to be in that order. Go past page 4, and you will see. You might have clicked to see similar/several hits from one page, which will turn 9 hits into 600 hits. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 12:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• When I click that link (in the UK) I get in excess of 2500 results, so clearly we are not going via the same routines. Not sure why that is, google is odd sometimes!--ThePaintedOne (talk) 12:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
• Also, having gone to about page 10 on the results, only a handful (less than 10 total) have been random Swedish words. The overwhelming majority are discussing this topic. Mostly in unusable forums, blogs, etc, but there is quite a bit of it, which I why I said there is a buzz. Clearly there are a bunch of people in Sri Lanka who beleive this to be a genre.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 12:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. There are 2 things to take away from the news article linked. 1. It's only a small mention, and not about hela metal in general. 2. It says "Featuring the likes of Hela metal band Funeral in Heaven, ...", with band being in singular, meaning that only one of the bands self-identifies under in this term. Also, if you use Google to search within this news site, you will get 1 hit only, which means that there is no buzz! With that source disputed, it leaves us with a couple of blogs. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 12:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
• delete per nom and previous delete comment. Fair Deal (talk) 14:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Cannibaloki 16:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. —Fences&Windows 17:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Fences&Windows 17:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Trim and merge to Music of Sri Lanka as a small section of "Record music". We know there are influential heavy metal bands in Sri Lanka such as Stigmata, and the term "Hela metal" isn't a WP:MADEUP term, though it doesn't have enough currency for a stand-alone article. Fences&Windows 17:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
• Strong delete per WP:MADEUP. No reliable sources at all (webzines, blogs and Metal Archives don't count, so would need removing at any rate) and a pitiful 2000 odd Google hits isn't helping to establish notability, even if WP:GHITS were a valid argument, which it is not. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:MADEUP doesn't apply. It says "Wikipedia is not for things that you or your friends made up." But Hela Metal isn't a term just used by a bunch of kids in school, Sri Lankan journalists have used it. Google hits are totally irrelevant, you should realise that Sri Lankan sources are likely to be more poorly covered on the web, see WP:Systematic bias. By all means argue that there are insufficient reliable sources to show notability, but don't throw in invalid arguments. Fences&Windows 14:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment If you really want further reasons for its deletion, try WP:NEO. There are no reliable sources that discuss this supposed genre in any depth whatsoever, and if Sri Lankan sources are more poorly covered then that's just back luck for the article. A genre consisting of one (very, very) borderline notable band is no genre at all; Raaksha may well also be referred to as hela metal, but are (thus far) not notable, and a genre of two would still fail a basic WP:N check. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 22:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. There is only one band that is talked about as being a "Hela metal" band. There is no proof about this being a popular phenomenon anywhere, aside from Funeral in Heaven. It is just like how Nile calls their music "Ithyphallic death metal", yet there is no wikipedia article of that "genre" and they are the only band that has been described as such on a non-rare basis. Also, the article does have repetition problems. Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 00:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Now that's just not true. Raaksha are also called Hela Metal.[18] It's easy to make sweeping statements to back up arguments, but it doesn't make them correct. Fences&Windows 14:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Notable news source even uses the expression. Thus the type of music is notable enough to be mentioned. Dream Focus 14:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

But is there significant coverage of the genre? Newspapers using an expression isn't enough to show notability. Fences&Windows 17:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Guys, I looked through the Sri Lankan Google returns; the term is only found in association with the bands Raaksha and Funeral in Heaven, and only in blogs. 100% of the rest are random combinations of the words hela and metal in Scandinavian languages. I cannot see this as a sound basis for an article. Abductive (reasoning) 16:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep, without prejudice against merging should local consensus so decide. Arguments to delete here were weak – variants on WP:RUBBISH, WP:NOEFFORT, WP:PROBLEMS and WP:JNN, but those advocating keep did so primarily on the basis of an important rather than verifiable conception of notability. Ultimately, the strength of the identified sources will determine whether or not a thoroughly verified, reliably sourced description of the topic is sustainable as a stand-alone article.  Skomorokh  21:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

LeChuck[edit]

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

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

No assertion of notability. Insignificant references to reliable sources. Is essentially a regurgitation of plot summary covered in games' individual articles. Article has been tagged for clean-up for almost two years, with negligible improvement. --EEMIV (talk) 21:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Just like Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Guybrush Threepwood, there are plenty of sources for this character who transcends multiple notable works of fiction. Google Books has 51, Google Scholar has 24, and Google News archive has 218. AfD is not for cleanup. Jclemens (talk) 00:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Your search is actually a little flawed: it's looking for LeChuck OR "Monkey Island", not both together. This is far more accurate

12 from google books (Icon Group International does not count as they use wikipedia as their source o_O)

21 from google scholar

187 from google news archive

Now how many of them are actually usable as sources is another matter...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Not just a character in an obscure game, but the primary antagonist of an entire series of very well-known adventure games (Monkey Island). Note: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guybrush Threepwood and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elaine Marley were also offered for deletion by the same nominator. —Lowellian (reply) 06:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Nifboy (talk) 03:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep with no prejudice against a Merge. Too much reiteration of game events and some amount of OR (the Powers section); remove this and you're left with a relatively short article with established notability. It may be expandable based on what other sources there are but probably is better served in a list of MI characters. --MASEM (t) 12:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Main antagonist in one of the most notable computer game series of all time. A merge might be an option, but not deletion. Fences&Windows 14:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep A notable character in multiple notable works of fiction. And by Keep, I mean actually keep it, not claim it was merged and replace it with a redirect with little if any content copied over somewhere else, or mass delete most of the article then claim there isn't enough left for its own article and then merge it. Dream Focus 14:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herman Toothrot, which includes Stan (Monkey Island). Not very good for the nominator to fail to mention the related nominations. Fences&Windows 15:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who stumbles into this one will stumble into the others, esp. since they also were inevitably linked in various lists of AfDs by theme, color, and hairstyle sorting. Relax. --EEMIV (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

In fairness to EEMIV, he'd simply redirected those other characters, and I didn't undo the redirects until after he'd nominated the two he didn't redirect, someone else added them to DELSORT fictional elements, and I got around to investigating their notability. Jclemens (talk) 15:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Merge or weak keep. LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 16:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Merge. Prediction: Every single person who want a complete keep result will spend not one minute fixing the glaring problems of it. A single line of unsourced creation concent =/= good enough. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Merge When cut down, little actual stand-alone article exists. Merging it would be fine at this junction.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect; the article is unacceptably bad, being about two-thirds redundant plot summary and one-third original speculation/observation about the character. Once you've taken those two out there's nothing left. Nifboy (talk) 07:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom's rationale and Nifboy; +non-notable, unsourced fan-service material. Wikipedia is not a fansite. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 10:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete or partial merge - this is excessive plot information (WP:WAF), which in any event belongs in the Plot sections of the relevant games. The small amount of out-of-universe context and verifiable information is shoved into the final "Notes" and "Legacy" section which can surely be included in the series overview. Marasmusine (talk) 14:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per the above. Nothing here that is not better served at the main article. Spinouts are for content that is genuinely outside the accommodation of the main article. The idea that this applies here is laughable. Eusebeus (talk) 21:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup per Masem. At least get it into a verifiable, accurate article without OR and see what there is after cleanup. MuZemike 02:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep.  Skomorokh  03:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

List of riots[edit]

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

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

This article has been noted as being statistically skewed, incomplete, and even inaccurate.

While the idea is perfectly acceptable (a listing of a type of event) the sheer magnitude of incompleteness makes the article functionally less useful than no article at all and depending on the Wiki user to find the information they want w a more complex search than just going to one article that implies an accuracy it does not have. Nomination fixed for Aaaronsmith (talk · contribs); no position on the merits myself. Tim Song (talk) 01:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Article is unmanageable and mostly uncited – who knows if many of these really happened, and if they were of any historical importance. Bullet format conveys little useful information for the (many) 'riots' without an article. --CliffC (talk) 02:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, impossibly huge list if it were to be inclusive. Not user friendly, mixes riots by place. Also, categories handle this better, see Category:Riots by century. Abductive (reasoning) 05:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• categories do not handle red links at all and this list has many. See WP:CLS for more reasons why categories do not supersede lists. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Strong keep, a lot of work has gone into this. A lot of the riots have Wikipedia links, there are also some that do not but that have references. Perhaps some more citations would be helpful but I really think that deleting this would be helping no one. This is not listcruft, this is also, I think, fairly manageable. Tris2000 (talk) 15:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I think this would be a more appropriate to-do list for a WikiProject than an article in mainspace. Abductive (reasoning) 16:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. If our sole criterion for deletion were "skewed, incomplete and even inaccurate", we'd have a lot less articles. Riots exist and have a clear definition. I can point to them. Thus, a list for them is not unreasonable. If it's poorly written, rewrite it. If it's unsourced, look for sources. If it's inaccurate, breathe fact into it. If it's too long, subdivide it by century, location or type. But don't delete it because it's "unmanageable" (which can be said for much of this project) or "impossibly huge" (which indicates the need for subdivision, not deletion). --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. There is not a clear definition of what constitutes a riot and list without constraints is not a list that wikipedia should have. Googlemeister (talk) 21:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Perfect is the enemy of good. This is a good start on a list covering notable incidents for which we do or should have articles. The list will assist creation of the articles where they do not exist and navigation to them when they are done. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Not a vote, I'm the guy who requested the AfD. I'm not expecting perfect. I expect "adequate" to actually being useful. If we could also not push someones political POV, that would also be nice. By my own estimate (based on published crime statistics, an article in Time, and just plain noticing what is reported in the US press that never makes it here) this article is coming up short as much as 100 riots PER DAY in China only. Leaving out current events, historically it is short a few million or so. The point is that this article makes about as much sense as as a listing of barroom brawls. There's a lot, not all are reported, not all are accumulated, not all have names, the ones in the classy joints are over reported, the ones in a town (country) trying to pick up tourist trade are suppressed, etc. I will continue to be against this type of listing until someone can show how a completely incorrect and politically biased list, that LOOKS like it might be accurate, is better than no list.

By the way Colonel Warden, if you want a list of "notable incidents for which we do or should have articles" how about we put it somewhere so it doesn't pretend to be informative to the general user? Please.Aaaronsmith (talk) 17:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Our approach should be like that for all other lists - that we focus upon the entries which are notable, i.e. the riots which have been reported and written about. Scholars have already compiled lists of historical riots - see sources - and our job is to summarise their writings. If we leave out mundane and commonplace disturbances this is fine and in accord with our policy that Wikipedia is not the news. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
• Sigh. Unfortunately, I see your point. Wiki is full of "lists" where someone w an agenda is trying to show the evils of one group or another. Usually by creating a list that reports both sides, but is heavily skewed. I consider that such poorly done (whether or not deliberate) are counter productive. One possible solution would be to do a really good job of 1) Title 2) Disclaimer as the first sentence at the top. If we have a list of "riots" somewhere (and I prefer the dead center/top/all caps/bold) we need our defintion of what we are listing, inclusion criteria, and the articles incompleteness/weakness. As it is, most Wiki list just let that pass by default and the reader has no idea what they are getting (on the other hand, this is very common on the web).Aaaronsmith (talk) 18:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment Then tell me, how many people constitutes a riot? How much damage do they have to do? How long does it have to last? Otherwise, how are you going to differentiate between a riot and say a gang war? Googlemeister (talk) 19:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

We use reliable sources as we do for everything else. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Precendent We previously had a discussion on a similar unbounded list. See archived discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_megafauna Googlemeister (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to look at WP:OTHERSTUFF, you should choose more similar cases such as

• List of battles
• List of coups d'état and coup attempts
• List of revolutions and rebellions

Historical sources suffice for these and riots are no different in character. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep per Colonel Warden. Ks0stm ^(T•C) 00:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per above dml (talk) 18:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Being "skewed and incomplete" can not be a reason for deletion. That was a lot of good work. Such list is obviously better than nothing.Biophys (talk) 14:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep There is no legitimate reason to delete this. It is a perfect valid Wikipedia List page. It helps show all the notable riots in history, with links to their Wikipedia articles for those who want to read more about it. Dream Focus 14:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a list of notable riots, nothing wrong with that. If it is missing notable riots, add them. If it gets too big, split it. If you're worried about too many red link, write the articles to fill them in. Fences&Windows 15:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Not a vote, I'm the guy who requested the AfD. Having started this AfD, I'm trying to remain fairly neutral. I will point out that the arguments to keep because "a lot of work has gone into it" is meaningless. A lot of work has gone into a lot of mistakes. "It's a valid listing of events" is legite, but applies to many other article in Wiki w exactly the same problems - impossible size, extreme potential for abuse for any editor w an agenda, non existent functional definitions. It especially has a weakness shared by other articles - which of the 10 or so I am aware, no one has successfully fixed - of a complete failure of definition. (The most successful fix I know of is changing "list of massacres" to "list of events named massacres". That solved a lot of problems for the editors, but the article is now a joke). It is assumed everyone knows "what is a riot". This isn't even legitimate in as limited a venue as the US where different political precincts (down to the level of city) have different defintions and riot is not even a crime by the laws of the federal government.

Allow me to explain by giving an example (artificial and exaggerated for demo purposes only). If I started a Wiki list of "atrocities" and structured it the same as this article (and many other questionable articles in Wiki), and listed only "events" under the British Raj, we would have at least two problems. 1) What is an "atrocity"? We could discuss this for weeks so I won't go further here than to note: It is perfectly acceptable for the article to contain a definition "for the purposes of this article". 2) The fact that the article is horrifically biased against the British is acceptable to some people, because "if you think it is incomplete, research, correct, expand". This immediately puts the reader (IF they catch the mistake) in the position of researching, correcting, expanding - essentially writing an article in which they have no interest (or maybe even expertise) other than they have noticed it is a "really bad article".Aaaronsmith (talk) 23:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The way to fix that list would be for another editor to add events from other places & times -- for example, atrocities committed against Native Americans. Any list will unfortunately be incomplete, because individual editors have incomplete knowledge about most categories like this one -- which is why aggregating our knowledge ends up creating a stronger product. And while this list is incomplete (Late Ancient & Early Medieval Papal elections usually involved at least one riot, for example, & none seem to be included in this list), there is nothing that one or more reasonably dedicated editors couldn't fix here. -- llywrch (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  04:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

List of current ISKCON sannyasis[edit]

List of current ISKCON sannyasis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - WP:OR list based of mostly non-notables, not supported by decent sources. A fork from other lists of ISKCON members. Reference is made to blogs sites and otherwise disputed sources. Wikid^as© 08:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 17:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, plus, compare to List of Catholic priests, all blue linked. if this list was trimmed to notable members only, it would probably duplicate the List of ISKCON members and patrons. if not duplicated, then merge the contents with this list. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Agree with the above completely. Eusebeus (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Disclosure: I am primary author. WP:BIO Topic is notable in itself as it is significant and interesting, both in general and within the assigned category. Blue names are all notable. Red names: WP:SALAT all are notable within Category:International Society for Krishna Consciousness. I think this article falls under WP:WPLIST#Incomplete_lists and that is why I have tagged it for Expand list. I think the red names are safe to include per WP:LSC - one would expect to see all these names on this list, each member is verifiably a member of the listed group (can add sources given some time) and it is reasonable to expect an article should be forthcoming in the future. Notability of all names cannot be compared to a list of cardinals or catholic priests as English Wikipedia would naturally contain more data on Catholic cardinals than on Vaishnav sannyasis, and Wikipedia recognises its need to expand Hindu Vaishnav content WP:HINDU/V. WP:PSTS primary source may be used to support content in the article but does not contribute towards proving the notability of the subject and also it may be used to only make descriptive claims i.e. the names in the list. No analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims have been made about information found in a primary source. Not a fork as List of ISKCON members and patrons includes non-sannyasis and past sannyasis, its purpose is different and it is not a duplicate. Reference to blog removed. Also compare List of Ayatollahs with List of Grand Ayatollahs - there is significant overlap yet both articles are valid as the List of Ayatollahs contains non-Grand Ayatollahs.--Tintomat0es (talk) 21:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC). Added secondary sources for most red names.--Tintomat0es (talk) 14:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC). Added sources for all remaining red names.--Tintomat0es (talk) 10:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Just as notable as any of the lists listed at Lists of patriarchs, archbishops, and bishops, and reasonably well sourced.--UltraMagnus (talk) 16:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
• Note - the above two arguments should be ignored, because 'other stuff exists' is not a valid reason, but is often used. Wikid^as© 07:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
• Note No logical argument should be ignored. WP:OSE can be used effectively to assess precedence and consistency. Comparison to other lists of religious leaders provides an important insight into the general notability of the concept. There is precedence in usage of the inclusion of names in various finite lists of religious leaders in order to make Wikipedia comprehensive; it serves no useful purpose to endlessly argue over the notability of a minority of these items. Most of the leaders are notable within the category of ISKCON, yet many do not have articles due to WP:BIAS#Biographies - this is one reason why WP:HINDU/V was created.--Tintomat0es (talk) 20:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Keep a notable, if foreign, body of priests. All unverified members should be removed from the list, perhaps to its talk page. Only a weak keep because I would like to see sources describing the body as a whole, instead of using them only to verify individual members. ThemFromSpace 02:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • @ThemFromSpace: I have added sources for all red names. Blue names have sources on their individual pages. The only source currently available describing the whole list is the official ISKCON Sannyasa Ministry website. Such a source may serve to support content as I mentioned above.--Tintomat0es (talk) 10:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note - Sannyasis in ISKCON are not priests. There is no independent source to even suggest there is a notability to it. There are NO sources describing body as a whole. Wikid^as© 14:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - Excellent reference probably not available anywhere else, let alone in English. --AStanhope (talk) 03:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note - All and certainly main sources on ISKCON are in English and not in any other language such as Hindi, even its Governing Body annual minutes; and any form of communcation in ISKCON is in English. All scholarly studies and media coverage of ISKCON are in English. None of these sources describe such body as 'sannyasis of ISKCON', since sannyasa is just a stage that is awarded to a preacher or a preist, it is not a position. Wikid^as© 14:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. It's clear that this list not only needs work but clearer criteria for inclusion. But no consensus to delete it exists at this time. Chick Bowen 02:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

List of stock characters in science fiction[edit]

List of stock characters in science fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

Delete With respect, this is hardly a definitive list of stock characters, and very much open to debate. The entire list is based on one source, The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, and Wikipedia would do much better to have an article on this than just quoting entries like "computer", "lotus-eaters", "Hitler" and "God" without any explaination. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 17:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep The main purpose of the list, as currently constituted, is to assist navigation. All the entries in the list are links to other articles. This is one of several lists of stock characters and so forms part of a hierarchy. If the nominator wishes to write some other article about the Encyclopaedia of Science Fiction he is free to do so and this article is no impediment. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment My main concern is that this article doesn't show what it is supposed to: there are multiple interpretations of what stock characters exist in science fiction, and this list just replicates (or plagiarise) one written text, and presents it as a definitive list. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 22:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• The list does not represent itself as definitive. The current format just dates from the last time-wasting AFD in which I did some cleanup by reference to a good source. Perhaps I shall add again to it but AFD is not cleanup. If you think the article can and should be improved, you should either engage in talk upon its talk page or, better yet, improve it yourself. Please see WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment If one more source could be provided that says a list or compilation of stock characters is an interesting topic, this list would be okay in my book. Otherwise it is just a sub-index entry in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction. Abductive (reasoning) 23:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep The purpose of a list is to assist navigation. The list itself does not have to be notable--its just a device to help find articles. If the subjects of the articles are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles, then a list is justified. If it were an articles about Lists of stock characters in science fiction, instead of a list of the stock characters, the objection would be valid. DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep and move over the first paragraph from each article and add one character, add a fictional mad scientist for example. A list still needs context, other wise a category does it better. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete It's rare that an article gets even worse after it was nominated (see [19]), but this pathetic excuse for an article accomplishes that feat. The first time around, the objections were that this, although an interesting read, was original research. I'm afraid that an indiscriminate list doesn't improve with 32 mentions of the "The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction". Send this one out the airlock. Mandsford (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a legitimate subject for an article. The solution for poorly-written articles is improvement, not deletion. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
• Weak delete Reliance on the single source is troublesome. there are some discussions of 'stock' characters in fiction and science fiction but so many of the sources and references are dispersed across different genres and discussing different things. Might come back later w/ some more discussion. Protonk (talk) 04:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• I have added two more sources. This was done by ordinary editing and you do not explain how deletion would assist further improvement. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I hope that you will not mind if some of the former text is put back in. Mandsford (talk) 16:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

We don't really need much narrative to explain entries like Mad scientist, do we? Especially when they are linked to separate articles. But you're free to edit as you please in the usual way. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• You still haven't offered an affirmative defense of the claim that ordinary editing will produce a list that is more than a recitation of a single source or a pastiche of unconnected references to "stock characters" in fundamentally unrelated situations. Protonk (talk) 00:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• The article has multiple sources and adding more is easy to do. The topic seems quite clear and so your other point seems irrelevant. All I'm seeing here are variations on WP:RUBBISH and WP:IDONTLIKEIT which are easily dismissed by reference to our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - this appears to be just a random list with no rhyme or reason, and a whole lot of duplication. Are there Alien invaders, Little green men, Bug-eyed monsters, or Martians that aren't Aliens? Or just Bug-eyed monsters that aren't Monsters? Is Superman not a Superhero? When is a Mad Scientist not a Scientist? Are there Computers or Robots that aren't Machines? And Hero and Villain are stock characters in all fiction—so what makes them different in an SF context? Hell, how on earth can you even consider having a list like this that doesn't include "teenage boy" and "benevolent wise old man"? Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 04:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I totally understand your distaste for the rawness and seeming OR of this list, but those problems can be fixed by indenting, no? Here is a scholarly source that thoughtfully analyses the evolution of the mad scientist character. There are many reliable sources out there on the subject of stock/standard/stereotyped characters in sf, but so far only one that attempts to list them all. I think that notability requirements are a bit relaxed for lists. We wouldn't be debating this list if looked like List of stock characters in military fiction, which is so obviously true (and hilarious) that its total lack of sourcing can be overlooked. Abductive (reasoning) 05:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Reply: If you think indentation solves all problems, do you put Bug-eyed monster under Monster, or under Alien? And does Superman go under Superhero (which is under Hero, yes?) or under Alien? And do you group Cyborg, Robot, and Android together, or do you have to classify them as whether or not they're Machines? And so on, and so on. At that point, the list is based on people's opinions, which makes for a lousy page. (and what do you do when someone puts Child under Monster?) Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 04:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't think indentation solves all the problems, I think that this list is going to be kept. I also think that it will take somebody some effort to fix it up, but that that person will stumble on the list in the fullness of time. In the meantime, I am sure that people will be able to use this list even if it is a bit raw. For example, suppose some kid wanted to assign all the characters of Futurama to a stereotype for a school report. The list would be more than sufficient to get them started. Abductive (reasoning) 09:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Additional thought: along with my other reason above, also note that most of the links are poor. Sex object is a redirect to Sexual objectification. Shapeshifter is a redirect to Shapeshifting (disambiguation). Lotus eaters redirects to Lotophagi. Alien to Extraterrestrials in fiction, and so on. When the link isn't even related to the topic, I don't think that it's a useful list. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 04:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. the main source material, despite being an encyclopedia, is to my reading of it very POV and unencyclopedic, though very entertaining and thought provoking. this list could easily be recreated in a few minutes, so its loss until properly written is not a problem. Um, List of stock characters in military fiction is not a good example, note the tags. it absolutely needs sourcing, and if not sourced should be deleted. WP articles cannot be simultaneously hilarious and encyclopedic. but the biggest problem is: no rational criteria for inclusion. "stock character" is a real term of course, but would Severian from Gene Wolfe's Book of the New Sun novels be considered a stock "torturer turned messiah"? unlikely, but where is the measureable dividing line between "stock" and "original" or "unconventional" characters? criteria would be inherently POV, just as it would be for a "list of unusual sf characters" or "list of stereotypical sf characters" or "list of flamboyantly gay sf characters" etc.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "WP articles cannot be simultaneously hilarious and encyclopedic." Disagree. Abductive (reasoning) 08:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • What kind of sources can such a list be reasonably be expected to have? Abductive (reasoning) 08:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• We do not require an exact definition because we are not here to conduct original research. What we do is summarise the work of reliable third-parties concerning stock characters in science fiction. They may well have different working definitions but this is of little moment because, if we properly cite and explain our sources, the reader will be informed rather than being deceived. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• What I was saying is that the sources are as good as it is going to get; one (I wish it was two) tertiary attempts at a list, plus quite a lot of secondary sources on individual types. This list is not going to be deleted because there is secondary and tertiary sourcing available, and AfDs end up keeping lists of minor characters from individual works for which there is nothing but primary sources. Abductive (reasoning) 10:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Assist in navigation, which is what a Wikipedia list is suppose to do, and there is a book published listing these, which would count as a reference for those obsessed with the suggested notability guidelines, and most importantly, its just WP:common sense, a policy that outweighs everything else on Wikipedia. These are common stock characters found in science fiction. Aliens, robots, mad scientists, monsters, whatever. If you have a problem with a specific entry, discuss it on the talk page. Perhaps we could list the most popular science fiction works that use each feature, although it would probably be a rather long list. Dream Focus 15:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Your use of the word "obsessed" seems as if it is meant to imply that editors who, in good faith, try to build a better encyclopedia by the use of proper sourcing are doing so for fetishistic reasons understood only by themselves. Given that I, an editor who tends towards deletionism, am arguing on behalf of this article and the article is likely to be kept, this seeming dig also seems rather pointless. Abductive (reasoning) 19:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
    • WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY Is a good policy to read. You don't follow the suggested guidelines mindlessly, they not absolute law you must obey. And the Wikipedia was far better off before the mass deletion of articles do to this ridiculous obsession with sources, instead of just using your own reasoning ability to determine if something was notable or not. Dream Focus 14:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
      • That is true; I don't follow the guidelines mindlessly. Thank you for noticing. Abductive (reasoning) 17:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per DGG FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep.  Skomorokh  14:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Cindi Love[edit]

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

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

This person does not meet Wikipedia's noteworthy guidelines. Serpentduv (talk) 08:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Disagree: For the past four years, this woman has been the chief operating officer of a global Christian denomination, and she helped create a national anti-discrimination campaign that is still in operation. Moreover, she has had a successful career both as an entrepreneur and as an educational advocate for the state of Texas. I admit that it is difficult to find news items about her apart from the church's official announcements, but I would say that she is presently a significant figure within LGBT Christianity; whether she will stay this way, I cannot tell, but at present she is an internationally known leader. Aristophanes68 (talk) 10:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: Your argument seems to appeal to moralizing rather than locating sources to verify notability. The encyclopedia is supposed to document the verifiable state of a topic others have noted. You can appreciate the problems in trying to rely on sources that tend to be more promotional than scholarly. If you are concerned with lack of coverage by mainstream media, you may be able to make a case for independent coverage by unrelated but edited special interest publications- educational journals, unrelated churches, etc. The wiki criteria want something more than "local" interest but if you can find sources that could be presumed to be reliable and independent at least you could argue about this subjective area. Arguments about "worthy cause" and "I would say" from an anon source may not make her life encyclopedic as this could cover just about everyone. The social networking sites may be more receptive however. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Aristophanes said "I admit that it is difficult to find news items about her apart from the church's official announcements" I was about to remark on that fact, together with the observation than most of those references were 'trivial'. We have no other way of judging if someone is notable, so I would say she fails WP:N Ohconfucius (talk) 14:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - I didn't have too much trouble finding news items about her, and the article already had a couple of worthwhile references. While it is true that some of the references only have trivial mentions, a few are definitely non-trivial and meet the notability requirements. She's actually an interesting figure, it seems, and has been noted for a number of very different roles in her life. - Bilby (talk) 15:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Just to comment about the sources, in case it helps: I think it depends a bit on how you see the Abilene Reporter-News, as they've given her a fair bit of coverage over the last decade. If it counts towards notability then there isn't a problem at all, but if not then we need to look at the others. Of these, PC Week, Network World and Call Centre Magazine all have non-trivial sections where they interview her, but most of the content is in relation to what she's been doing at companies, rather than on her personally. I'm inclined to count them, as they're covering decisions she's made in her roles, but others may vary on this. Less doubtful is one of the Network World articles, as it has non-trival coverage where they also refer to her background, so I'd count this towards notability. The Dallas Morning news article also seems non-trivial and general enough to count as well. Personally, I think there's enough to meet basic notability guidelines before we start including the marginal stuff, and the marginal stuff (local news, mostly) may not count towards notability, but it is enough to limit the dependency on self-published or primary sources. And the more I dig the more I've been finding, mostly because of what she was doing in the mid 90's, which was far more prominent than I expected. I'll keep looking, if only because I'm really enjoying learning about her. - Bilby (talk) 03:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Commentary at User_talk:Aristophanes68 and elsewhere may seem to be going down the wrong road. Let's keep this civil. The Squicks (talk) 16:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment I do not see that Aristophanes68 has been in any way uncivil in this discussion. His text ("For the past four years, this woman has been the chief operating officer of a global Christian denomination, and she helped create a national anti-discrimination campaign that is still in operation. Moreover, she has had a successful career both as an entrepreneur and as an educational advocate for the state of Texas. I admit that it is difficult to find news items about her apart from the church's official announcements, but I would say that she is presently a significant figure within LGBT Christianity; whether she will stay this way, I cannot tell, but at present she is an internationally known leader") does not appear to be anything other than an argument in favor of keeping the article. Could you please tell us which part of this seems to violate WP:CIVIL? Mandsford (talk) 18:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Serpentduv typed on User_talk:Aristophanes68 that "I advise you to learn the meaning of the word propaganda." I interpret this (although I certainly may be wrong) as an attack on Aristophanes68's editing that is unhelpful to the discussion. The Squicks (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Then I would observe that Serpentduv has not said anything at all uncivil in this discussion either. As a nominator, he or she has expressed an opinion pertaining to Cindi Love, saying that "This person does not meet Wikipedia's noteworthy guidelines". Whatever comments may been made by one person on another person's talk page are irrelevant unless they are repeated here. I would caution all editors to not raise WP:CIVIL within an AfD discussion unless they are responding to comments made during that discussion. Mandsford (talk) 21:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I was going to type something, but then I realized that I could not put it any better than Bilby just did. The Squicks (talk) 16:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Wait: Looking at the article, it is possible notability could be established but if you take out the self-cites, you have a few isolated local stories: I didn't check which ones were non-trivial but all the sites looked like small town news or stations. Personally I'm big on obscure-but-notable but there needs to be something that has already been noticed by wiki criteria. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 17:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - of course she's notable. Tris2000 (talk) 11:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Bilby. The article seems to have plenty of sources. --Alynna (talk) 12:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep She is clearly notable, plenty of mention of her, and an important figure in this movement. Dream Focus 14:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• I conclude that she is marginally notable, thus keep. There is enough non-local coverage by independent sources to get over that bar. However, being the executive director of the MCC is not a primary leadership role for the denomination, the denomination being led by a moderator and board of elders that appoints the board of administration, which would then hire administrative staff. Indeed, it appears she was not even on the board of administration, as she held her position with them until May 2009, yet in a document updated April 2009 listing the members of all the church's leadership boards her name does not appear.[20] I conclude that as regards the denomination, she was an employee rather than a leader. GRBerry 21:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. There is very strong support for a merge to Freshwater drum, but this is not quite unanimous and valid objections have been raised. What is apparent from this discussion is that Lucky stone should not be a redlink on Wikipedia; discussions about a merge can continue on the relevant talk pages. NAC—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Lucky stone[edit]

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

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

fails WP:GNG. Ironholds (talk) 12:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Merge if sourceable to Freshwater drum, otherwise delete. Thryduulf (talk) 12:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Merge Worth including in main article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Merge The Freshwater drum article needs info like this to keep it interesting. Would that include a redirect, should someone search for "Lucky Stone?" SithToby (talk) 08:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

This article could be merged with the article on the Freshwater Drum. However, I believe it merits a stand alone article which could be named either "Lucky Stone" or "Lucky Stones." I have now enumerated various sources which point to the importance of Lucky stones in Ancient Native American Culture and in Modern Culture. Certainly, "lucky stones" merit more importance than recent articles I have read on Wikipedia regarding Pop Culture video games. The otoliths of the Freshwater Drum have been collected for centuries, especially along the main breeding grounds of the Freshwater Drum along the shores of Lake Erie and Red Lake in Wisconsin. Brow66Dani Brow66dani (talk) 13:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

No doubt, but not being a native of the area, when I think of "lucky stones," this is not what I envision. Would a Merge and Redirect to the fish article be suitable for the time being?SithToby (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It strikes this author that perhaps it is Ethnocentric or Eurocentric to consider that the topic of "lucky stones" is not noteworthy enough to merit its own article when I just read a new article on Wikipedia titled Rick Dancer about a minor celebrity/politician in Oregon (where I currently reside). I will plead guilty to my own ethocentrism as well as the article would be stronger with more research regarding the Native American link to lucky stones. Unfortunately, most references I have found give only vague references to lucky stones having been collected for centuries by Native Americans and that they have been found in "ancient archaeological sites" etc.... I do remember reading one article that gave a specific tribal reference. Others could help me strengthen the article by doing further research as well. The broader point, however, is that lucky stones are artifacts which have been collected for centuries and seem to this writer far more noteworthy than many other articles that appear on Wikipedia. Comments by others?? Brow66Dani 68.118.60.87 (talk) 14:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC) BroDani Brow66dani (talk) 02:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep The topic of lucky stones is clearly notable and the worst case is that we would merge this article into Amulet which has much more to say on the subject. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, there is an article on otoliths, with no reference to these, nor the archaelogical significance. Perhaps that's a better home? SithToby (talk) 15:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Merge to Freshwater drum. The sourcing seems quite weak to me, consisting of small mentions alone the lines of "neato". Abductive (reasoning) 03:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. There is sufficent consensus from non-SPA accounts to close this AFD for a keep, otherwise there was no consensus for deletion anyways. JForget 22:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Logan Lynn[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows. Suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)), suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)), accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username))

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

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

Non-notable musician. Does not satisfy any relevant notability guideline (WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC). ^Bongo_matic 17:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Yes, wikipedia gets waaay too many non-notables bands and singers but this seems to get above the bar with reliable sourcing and generally well-written. -- Banjeboi 04:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Which source do you consider reliable that provided significant coverage?

• New Now Next. Self-described blog. Not RS.
• Willamette Week Online. Local interest paper. Reliable vis-a-vis facts, but not for notability purposes.
• Google profiles. Self-published, not independent.
• Own website. Self-published, not independent.
• Just Out blog. Self-described blog. Not RS.
• Just Out (potentially main site, not blog). Not RS.
• Logo online. Not RS, not significant coverage.
• Billboard. Directory entry only, not significant coverage.

^Bongo_matic 04:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• • New Now Next is from the LGBT cable channel LOGO from MTV. They are not only reliable this is an extended interview.
  • Willamette Week is the local LGBT newspaper, and the article is all about ... Lynn.
  • In addition here is a review from URB Magazine, a blurb in USA Today, Lynn featured and interviewed on MTV’s “NEWNOWNEXT” show on Logo, Concert review at Melophobe Magazine and a single review at Indie Rock Cafe Music Blog.
  • To me these suggest not only is this subject meet GNG but a good article can be written. For the record I would be more concerned if the article was peacocky or otherwise seemed bloated, but even that is simply a reason to clean-up. -- Banjeboi 05:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Willamette Week is not a GLBT specific newspaper. Just clarifying. Danielquasar (talk) 06:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• KEEP. First of all, this TTony01 person seems to be a ruthless, arrogant individual who goes around labeling pieces of information as "fluff" when he absolutely has no basis for doing so. His actions and words have made me infuriated. You don't go nominating someone for deletion when there are more than a dozen notable sources on the person cited already, and when they've already had music video play on a major cable channel! His album will be in stores everywhere on November 3rd! The story of Logan's grandmother tutoring Johnny Cash came straight from him and his mom Debby, but apparently the citing of two Cash-related books aren't enough to satisfy these fuss buckets. Uh, hello..last time I checked, literature was a reliable source! I will return the full explanation of LaVanda Mae Fielder's lessons with Cash at a later date if I can get Logan to put a complete mention on it on his official site or elsewhere. Otherwise, the man is just TOO notable by now to throw away an article for. KEEP! KEEP! KEEP!!.User_talk:XxSoulSurvivorxX 07:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC) — XXSoulSurvivorXx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Please dial it down a bit. We go by verifiability. If you have content and reliable sources to improve the article please do so. Whatever the motivations to nominate this article are doesn't matter. We're discussing if it should stay and hopefully the best decision serving our readers is made. -- Banjeboi 23:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Particularly since I did not nominate the article for deletion and have not even provided an opinion. BTW - the comments in the article about Cash might be good in an article about Lynn's mother, but I am not so sure it adds encyclopedic value to Lynn's article. ttonyb1 (talk) 23:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment, likely the three album articles should be merged here. -- Banjeboi 23:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • What do you mean by merging it? Make them into one article, or include them on the main article instead? I made them separate so it would look and feel like other well made band articles. Danielquasar (talk) 05:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
    • They were split off pre-maturely. An album article should only be if teh album itself is considered notable as verified by multiple reliable sources. I would insteda merge them back and very briefly mention each one. For our readers that's enough -- Banjeboi 01:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• KEEP. Looks like the more promotional language has been deleted, as requested. This artist is VERY RELEVANT and the page is written in a 100% credible, truthful, and factual manner. I highly recommend keeping this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.193.40.138 (talk) 17:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC) — 66.193.40.138 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• KEEP. I added a couple of missing references. Hope that helps! —Preceding unsigned comment added by PDXProlific (talk • contribs) 18:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC) — PDXProlific (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Relister's Comment': This AFD was relisted despite 5 keep votes so to have more discussion/comments from non possible SPA accounts.JForget 23:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Warrior4321 23:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Comment - The Dandy Warhols are a HUGE band who just put out Logan Lynn's new record on their label this week. The video for Logan's new single premiered NATIONWIDE on MTV's Logo Network last night 9/6/09. This is the 3rd single which has aired on the channel since 2007 and his last video was picked up by Time/Warner ON DEMAND for the month of October '08, was picked by MTV as #8 in Logo's "Top 10 Videos of the year for 2008) here: http://www.logoonline.com/video/logan-lynn/259577/feed-me-to-the-wolves.jhtml?id=1600444 and he filmed a 1-hour hosting interview episode of the show "NewNowNext" in 2008/2009 here: http://www.logoonline.com/video/misc/274255/logan-lynn-on-newnownext-music.jhtml?id=1594234. "The Deli Magazine" just reviewed "From Pillar To Post" last week and called it "the best album, electronic or otherwise, to have been released out of Portland this entire year." here:http://www.thedelimagazine.com/portland/index.php?name=delirious-audio&itemId=221825&mode=comments#post —Preceding unsigned comment added by PDXProlific (talk • contribs) 16:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC) — PDXProlific (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• KeepComment Deleting this article now would be a terrible and foolish waste of time, given how notable Logan clearly is at this point to Wiki guidelines. If an abortion happens, we will just be starting over from scratch two months from now when his album hits stores everywhere. From Pillar to Post is available digitally now via his website for purchase, and will be in stores on Tuesday, November 24, 2009 (a revision from my last post; the date has been moved up from November 3rd). His previous videos, along with the new release "Write It On My Left Arm", have been airing on Logo for the last two years. I seriouly doubt any of you would have contested the inclusion of A Fine Frenzy or Corinne Bailey Rae on Wiki when both were up-and-coming artists (just like Logan) three years ago on VH1's "You Oughta Know" playlists. Logo, a sister channel to VH1, has "NewNowNext" which is the exact same thing as "You Oughta Know". I think instead of hastily deciding to delete this article, we should be encouraging others to recommend what facts should be cited more/better/clearer, and if the writing tone needs adjustment. Also, there are many more important missing pieces of info I need to provide, including how Logan began working with Carlos Cortes. XxSoulSurvivorxX (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep. I believe the article should be kept. I have been working on the article as well and I believe it falls under the guidelines that it needs to fall under. He has been recognized by multiple reliable sources, which have been noted on the article itself. From local papers to a national cable channel and even reliable internet sites and reviews. He recently has even been included as the featured artist for ads run by sonicbids.com. Would adding something like that make him more notible then he already is at this moment? I don't see what is wrong with the article. If you can, please clarify what about it is not within guidelines. danielquasar (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 21:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC).
• Keep MTV says she is notable, so she is. Otherwise they wouldn't bother interviewing her and showing her videos. Dream Focus 14:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Who is "she"? In case you haven't noticed, Logan is clearly male. XxSoulSurvivorxX (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • And the reason we should use MTV's standard of notability instead of our own is...? - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per the above..--Judo112 (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Per what? The fact that she? was on MTV? The article does not pass WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Please see WP:PERNOMINATOR as well. warrior4321 17:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Per what the other keep sayers has pointed out already.. which i agree on.--Judo112 (talk) 17:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Well all i can say is that it seems like most people dont agree with you andthat the article indeed passes WP:GNG, you need to read WP:Assume good faith.--Judo112 (talk) 17:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

"What" have the other editors pointed out already?

Are you talking about this: MTV says she is notable, so she is. Otherwise they wouldn't bother interviewing her and showing her videos.

Or this :I believe the article should be kept. I have been working on the article as well and I believe it falls under the guidelines that it needs to fall under.?

One is talking about another person, and the other has been working on the article, and does not want their article to be deleted. Please provide a reason for deletion by yourself. warrior4321 17:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

"Who" does not agree with me? Are you talking about these users : XXSoulSurvivorXx (talk · contribs) PDXProlific (talk · contribs) 66.193.40.138 (talk · contribs). All of those users have made no contributions outside of Logan Lynn. So, who exactly does not agree with me? Three single purpose accounts, someone who worked on the article and does not want it to be deleted, or someone who has the wrong person in mind? warrior4321 17:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The article is well-written and all sources indicate notability in one way or another... Even one source would have been enough for establishing the minimum of fame/notability for a singer. You dont have to be extremely famous like Britney Spears etc etc.. to be worthy of your own Wikipedia article.--Judo112 (talk) 17:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Are any of those sources reliable? warrior4321 18:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

And the fact that she has released a number of studio albums talks for itself....--Judo112 (talk) 17:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Logan is a male? Who exactly is she? warrior4321 18:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Dont blame me for someone elses mishap... i know that she is a he:)--Judo112 (talk) 19:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

KEEP - well-written and sourced article already exists. Keep it. #REDIRECT Target page name —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astanhope (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Just too much splitted on notability criteria here. Tip: Please add some references in the second half. That would be helpful in the event of a future AFD (if this happens). JForget 19:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Manon Batiste[edit]

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

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

Wholly insignificant character; player's character in the MOH/COD games might as well be nameless avatars. No claim of notability and zero citations to third-party sources (currently, article is referenced only to the games themselves). This is merely a regurgitation of game plot and a listing of "awards" (i.e. military recognitions) garnered by this make-believe fellow. Easily/sufficiently covered in main franchise article. No attempt to address the subject in an encyclopedic manner, undoubtedly because no significant third-party sources responding to/scrutinizing this might-as-well-be-nameless character exist. --EEMIV (talk) 02:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Nifboy (talk) 03:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep due to improvements. I did some searches on Google News and Google Books and was able to address the various criticisms of the article above. The article is indeed a significant character who appears in multiple well-received mainstream games, including as the main character in one game who is additionally notable in the real world as being based on a historical figure. The article is not solely plot and I am not opposed to condensing that aspect of the article to make it more balanced, but in any event, the article now contains out of universe development information and some reception information. Looking at reviews, I expect to be able to add even more out of universe context, but just wanted to note the progress thus far. But as we have seen the article is being addressed now in an encyclopedic manner, because significant third-party sources regarding this fascinating character do indeed exist. If the nominator can live with a redirect, then per WP:BEFORE a discussion concerning the redirect should have been discussed on the article's talk page and if the article's referenced content can be covered elsewhere then per WP:PRESERVE and Wikipedia:Merge and delete we would still at worst redirect with the edit history intact. As there is no pressing need to redlink here and no one is really calling for that, this discussion really should be speedily closed with a merge/redirect discussion taking place on the article's talk page. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

A sentence about real-life inspiration and a blurb about developing the soundtrack (note it's not a third-party source) are not evidence of significant third-party coverage. The article remains a bastion of trivia, plot summary, unreferenced speculation and other cruft. --EEMIV (talk) 16:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:ITSCRUFT is never a valid reason for deletion, especially when the article contains non-trivial referenced information. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Please see what my "cruft" link leads to. Hint: I anticipated you once again tossing up your "don't call things cruft" boilerplate. Please stop responding to me on AfD discussions; I find engagement with you frustrating, and I think we can mutually agree we won't change each other's mind, much as we're confident in the soundness of our own arguments. I'll similarly refrain from acknowledging your existence or relevance in AfD. --EEMIV (talk) 00:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but you replied to my keep argument first... Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Page currently stands as entirely in-universe description. Not enough real world content for a standalone article. Shii (tock) 19:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • That is actually totally not true given the out of universe Development and reception sections... Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep due to excellent improvements of out of universe context. Very well referenced article. On the list of the best selling video games of all time. Ikip (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Note that Ikip has !voted below. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the correction! I removed the one below. *Blush* I am so embarrassed, thanks again for pointing this out! Ikip (talk) 11:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep even though the principal character, a proper merge might be bertter, but there is the difficulty in getting a merge to a. be sufficient, and b. to stick. I'm thinking right now of World of Monkey island,; a number of combination pages were merged into here a year ago, biut the entire merged section was edited out at [21] just been removed earlier today, along with a good deal else, and with the edit statement for one of the deletions, at [22] , that " these sections are going to be turned into bullets." I think it's much better to merge, but not if things like this are going to happen. Until we have a way of preventing this, the only alternative to loss of content is to keep the separate articles. Combination articles was the one viable compromise, but it is only viable if done in good faith. I am not happy feeling it necessary to support keeping individual articles than I would really like, by people who are taking an truly extreme position on removing content outside of AfD DGG ( talk ) 21:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I think a single article might have a better flow in general. Shii (tock) 21:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete (Without prejudice to merge however) I'm sorry but there doesn't seem to be enough real-world information to warrant a full article here...what there is is being blown out of proportion.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

but that argument is support of a merge, not delete DGG ( talk ) 22:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• • Regardless, in addition to there being enough real-world information to warrant a full article or at worst to justify some kind of redirect, the content has already been merged and as such, we cannot delete per the GFDL. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Okay could the two of you please get off my case? DGG, I respect you, though in this case I don't think too much could really be salvaged if anything. However with that said I'll agree there's no prejudice on my part for a merge if it goes that way. And A Nobody...let me vote how I want. You can disagree with me or you can spend that time actually fixing what you rush to rescue. Leaving a bad article after a closed afd still bad is a hollow victory and setup for another AfD down the line by someone else.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - The character is does not assert true notability (actual significant coverage in reliable sources), and the content is not worth salvaging. The content that was "merged" is part of an attempt to force the article to be kept, so the edits should be deleted as well. TTN (talk) 02:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The character is indeed notable and anyway WP:JNN is not a valid reason for deletion. Sourced out of universe content is indeed worth salvaging. We are here to build an encyclopedia and so no reasonable admin would ever delete merged edits that actual improve other articles. Look, I know it annoys some who for whatever odd reason are bent on deleting to have something merged, but that is what we are supposed to do per WP:IAR and WP:PRESERVE and so upon doing actual research I discovered that Manon is based on a real and noteworthy French resistance fighter and was able to use some of the information from the Manon article to both improve the article on the actual game, which had no real references, and write an article on someone of actual historical importance. How could adhering to some snapshot in time AfD somehow trump using content to improve articles that pretty much no one would reasonably dispute? If we are really here to build an encyclopedia then it is not about forcing anything, but about making the most of the available content and in this particular case we have information that regardless of what you think of her article does actual help two other articles. Moreover, given that she is one of an overall minority of main characters in a game series based on a real world historical figure she is worthy of coverage in some capacity, whether it be continued improvement of this article or further merging, but clearly there is no pressing need to red link here. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep now has out-of-universe material, and notable as main character from important game. well done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment re disruption of this AfD; see:
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AManon_Batiste&diff=312242721&oldid=185007402
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AManon_Batiste&diff=312248708&oldid=312242721

  Talk:Manon Batiste now asserts that

  • Manon Batiste "must not be deleted so long as Hélène Deschamps Adams exists"
  • Manon Batiste "must not be deleted so long as Medal of Honor: Underground exists"

  See: Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion where it says:

  • You should exercise extreme caution before merging any part of the article. If you are bold but the community ultimately decides to delete the content, all your mergers must be undone. (This is necessary in order to remain compliant with the requirements of Wikipedia's licensing). It is far better to wait until the discussion period is complete unless there is a strong case for merge under the deletion policy.

  This is blatant disruption with the aim of subverting the AfD process.

  Sincerely, Jack Merridew 06:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as above; this is unencyclopaedic trash material. Wikipedia *is* a fansite, but it's not supposed to be. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 06:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Per the above, performing the necessary revision deletion through deletion of the target page and selective restoration. Disruption of AfD through merging in order to force an attribution problem is unacceptable. Protonk (talk) 06:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • You have not provided any actual reason why this verifiable out of universe content concerning a main character based on a real historical person is so detrimental to the project that it must be outright redlinked rather than even redirected and why content from this article that actually improves an article on a major figure of the French resistance and of a notable video game would be better off removed thereby diminishing the quality of those articles. Seriously. Are we here to build an encyclopedia of actual content or play games? I am a volunteer. I have the information now; I could use it now. Using it improves two articles that no reasonable editor would want deleted. This article is not a hoax, not libelous, not a copy vio, i.e. not something that we must prevent the public from seeing and certainly not something anyone can provide a reasonable reason why at worst would not be redirected. Why on earth would anyone NOT be WP:BOLD and do what we are allegedly supposed to be here to do? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
    • And you haven't done anything except gainsay points made above by inverting phrases and spout platitudes about building the encyclopedia. When I want to have a conversation with you, I'll drop by your talk page. As for the article, this was covered in the ample nomination but the article subject is not covered in detail by independent sources (even including the large number of game reviews which mention the title character incidentally), the article itself is a recitation of plot points, and a redirect placed over a deleted article works just as well to bring readers to a notable subject as does a redirect over a history. I'm not against redirected rather than deleting. Where I get my hackles up is when the redirection is forced by virtue of a merger undertaken during the AfD. Protonk (talk) 07:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
      • The article contains information on development ranging from noting that it is based on a real historical figure who served as a consultant for the game as well as interview information on the music chosen for the character as well as reception information noting the character's inclusion in a list of best female video game characters. There's actually more available from the Google Searches, but I, as a volunteer, thought it more important to a) focus on the historical figure she is based on for now and b) spread some wiki love by giving my colleagues Happy Labor Day messages. Anyway, none of that out of universe context is simple "plot", i.e. not plot cannot apply to something that is not entirely plot. Yes, the majority of the article may be plot and a case could be made for compacting that aspect of the article further, but certainly not the whole thing, ergo not plot is not valid in this case as the article is not all plot. And if anything, where I and many others get frustrated is when on something that does not have a deadline we volunteers are "forced" into acting urgently to do something to save the article while arguing with those who are not helping in that process. Instead of being able to gradually improve things, we are forced into kicking things in gear in a mere week to impress, to be honest, some who no matter what we do will still just keep arguing against us and I know that after I saw at least one participant here try to get rid of the article on a character from a work of classic literature that has been adapted into nearly TWENTY films. What I did to improve this article and to use information from this article to improve others is what should happen through normal editing. It does not require an AFD and if a redirect is valid, then there is no need when something that does not appear to be a vandalism magnet should not maintain its edit history as when additional sources become available, editors can have the basis from which to work without having to trouble any admin to undelete. I am not forcing anything on anyone. The article can still be merged further or redirected accordingly or if additional sources emerge outright kept. And anyway, how is that any worse than the usual half dozen accounts who happen to be there for a week or so discussion determing the fate of something that may have lasted for years and been edited by hundreds or thousands who just happened to miss that five to sveen day discussion? We have to be reasonable in these discussions. When we actually have material that benefits other articles, we should not have to wait to improve those articles and certainly not when the article under discussion is not something controversial that needs to be deleted for legal reasons. We are supposed to try everything we can to improve our articles and only when all else fails delete. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - plot information belongs in the plot synopsis of the relevant game articles. The remainder (an extensive fictional biography? Good grief) is not within the scope of this project. The extent of reliable, independent coverage appears to be "this is the character you play in the game." Marasmusine (talk) 14:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Article contains out of universe information that is being expanded and cannot be deleted anyway do to merge that improves two other articles. Please be honest. The following:

• • • She is based on Hélène Deschamps Adams, a real life member of the OSS,^[1] the forerunner of CIA, who also served as a consultant for the game.^[2]

• • • Michael Giacchino explains that for "Manon, I wanted a theme that could convey one emotion at a particular moment, and then a completely different emotion the next without having to rely on two completely different themes. As a result, Manon's two main themes are very similar and yet very different. One version of the theme stays the course in a major tone, conveying a feel of great national purpose against the Nazi menace, and the secondary theme dips into a minor 6th chord which describes Manon's more intimate and emotional feelings as an individual and a woman who is pitted against the fascist war machine. Both of these themes are bookended with what liner notes author Paul Tonks has aptly named 'the resolve theme'. This theme was meant to represent the moments where Manon is called upon to steel her nerves and gather the courage to continue on with the fight....Manon travels to places that are not quite so militaristic as Jimmy Patterson. Her journey was a bit more 'scenic'."^[3]

• • • Producer Scott Langteau offers that "Manon used petrol bombs and also used her femininity to gain access to restricted areas. We used the freedom of telling her backstory- she was in the French Resistance, then joined the OSS-to give the game its own flair and widely varied missions that took us all over Europe: Greece, Italy, etc."^[4]

• • • and

• • • RealPoor ranks her among the 12 Best Female Characters in Video Games.^[5]

• • is more than just she is playable in the game. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 14:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Merge to Medal of Honor: Underground, where 95% of the real-world relevance is duplicated yet none of the plot is. This is a classic case of one articles' worth of content being split/forked across two articles for no good reason, and without any rhyme or reason as to what content goes where. Nifboy (talk) 16:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - typically sterile fancruft (and yes, A Nobody, I know you don't care for that word; no need to remind me). Utterly fails to respect WP:RS - aside from quoting the game itself, we have a blog, a forum, and self-published sites with no editorial oversight. What part of "[material] published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses" is unclear? - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Please remember to make honest and valid arguments in AfDs. WP:ITSCRUFT is never a legitimate reason for deletion, especially when the article is referenced through reliable sources, i.e. sourced through reputable sources with appropriate editorial oversight for our purposes. And again, as the content has been merged to improve two other articles, this article cannot be deleted per the GFDL. No editor with the project's best interests in mind would want to interfere with our ability to improve those article and no rational case can be made for why at worst we would not redirect this valid search term with edit history intact. "I don't like" it doesn't cut it. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
    • 1) Like I said, we know of your aversion to the word "cruft"; no need to remind us every time. Cruft is still cruft, though, whether you like it or not. 2) Ah, the old "keep this or else!" trick. Sorry, but nothing in the GFDL prohibits merged text to be cut, augmented, otherwise altered or, yes, deleted at some later date. There's nothing sacrosanct about some junk about what some cartoon character did, which doesn't actually "improve" the encyclopedia one bit. 3) Let's cut through the fog and pose some direct questions. Where's the editorial oversight here? How about here? Here? Here? Let's have answers, not palaver about this being "sourced through reputable sources with appropriate editorial oversight for our purposes". - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
      • "Cruft" is a nonsense term no real academic would ever use and thus precludes discussions from being, well, serious. Most importantly here though is that you refer to the main character of a video game with multiple appearances in a game series, who is based on a real historical figure and who is covered in third party reviews and previews of the game a "cartoon" character is revealing enough. I encourage you to focus on discussions concerning subjects for which you have expertise. Cartoons and video games are two different media and both have their legitimacy for coverage and should not be dismissed out of hand per personal preferences. Moreover, you really don't think GamePro has editorial oversight? And no, we do not remove sourced content from articles that actually improves them to humor such uninformed viewpoints concerning another article. Thank you and happy Labor Day! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
        • 1) I can do without the sanctimony, thank you very much. "Cartoon" was merely used as a way to disparage "Manon Batiste"; I am aware of the difference between the two media. 2) Even if we concede GamePro has editorial oversight, that still leaves this, this and this afoul of WP:RS. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
          • Just as I reckon you probably know more about say Romania than I do, anyone with any actual knowledge on video games can recognize that Manon Batiste is a notable character, possibly one of the top 100 female video game characters of all time as she serves as the focus of one noteworthy game and appears in another. In addition to GamePro, she is also verifiable through a few other reliable sources as confirmed on Google News and Google Books. Thus, this article is not a hoax, not libelous, not a copy vio, etc., i.e. there is absolutely no pressing need whatsoever to redlink it on the paperless encyclopedia for everybody. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
            • First of all, having the ability to go through three search engines is not evidence of any big expertise, so I would stop playing that card if I were you. Secondly, you're constructing an ad populum and ad hominem discourse that really bogs down this discussion and does not advance your claims in any conceivable way. Now, to the point. I for one find the issue of GamePro and its reliability very unconvincing - its appears to be merely a fanzine among the thousands. That aside, the links you keep flashing about are flogging a dead horse. The google news search only mentions her 7 times in all, of which 6 are direct reviews of the game in specialized magazines, and even those, as focused as they are, mention the character in passing (when a wikipedia article on the game already exists). The remaining one is a tidbit in an overview of WWII-themed games. Not one of them appears to be mentioning her name more than once. That you would still be citing the google books stuff after my comment below is quite astounding: there are 4 mentions of her name in all, of which two are in textbooks you cited against recommended practice, one is a video game almanac, and the remaining one is a patent for the game (primary source, trivial etc.). And I can make neither heads nor tails of your "there is absolutely no pressing need whatsoever to redlink" argument. Dahn (talk) 22:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
              • You find one of the leading game magazine's reliability unconvincing?! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
        • [Edit conflict] Oh, for Christ: "I encourage you to focus on discussions concerning subjects for which you have expertise. Cartoons and video games are two different media and both have their legitimacy for coverage and should not be dismissed out of hand per personal preferences." For the last time, nobody is objecting to these articles because they are "cartoons and video games", and you, A Nobody, know it. No one suggests deleting Medal of Honor: Underground or its main subsets. The issue here is an article about a minor character in its own genre, when we wouldn't even have/need articles on secondary characters in world literature classics (in general, I mean). It is also quite evident that, unlike this article here, articles on secondary characters in world literature classics have been subject to critical commentary in prominent secondary sources, and don't rely on fabricated or utterly marginal references in some of fanzines. It is therefore not the delete votes that are asking for an exception, it is the keep votes, so please stop your negative campaigning. The slogans are getting really old, really fast. Dahn (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
          • The issue here is about a major character, one of the 100 or so most notable female video game characters of all time. No one has presented anything even remotely compelling as to what urgent desperate need there is to redlink this. This is where people lose me when a main character is falsely dismissed as minor. No, she is the heroine of a major game, appears in another, and is notable as well for being based on a real life heroic figure. There is a reason why people care enough about her to give her over 700 Google hits. Why on earth would we not want to do a service for our readership and at least have a redirect? Moreover, reliably sourced content from this article was used to improve two other articles that no one contests. Thus, no reasonable editor would want to diminish those articles by getting rid of this one. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
            • "one of the 100 or so most notable female video game characters of all time" - assessments in various blogs don't establish relevancy; it is role in the narrative that ultimately does, provided of course the narrative itself needs that kind of detailing. Google hits, the relevancy of what she is supposedly based on and other such sophistry don't weigh anything in other discussions, and they sure don't weigh anything here. I see no biggie in redirecting the title, but I see nothing at all worth keeping from the text. In fact, I would salt it to prevent future attempts at recreating the content. Dahn (talk) 22:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
              • We only salt libelous or hoax content, not stuff actually covered in notable magazines. I see nothing here that we urgently have to protect the public from by deleting. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
                • "Notable". Yes, the circular argument. I'm done here, unless someone needs me to comment on something else. Dahn (talk) 22:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete content and Merge title into Medal of Honor: Underground. There really is no reason for a monument to fandom, with overfocused detail on episodic appearances of a secondary character, particularly since the sources are very questionable. This edit, which is advertised as a "rescue" added two google book snippets (the "snippets" part is itself indicative fir the negligence of sourcing here) from two textbooks (which we are not supposed to be using as sources) and the so-called Soundtrack Review which, by the looks of it, is a self-published site and personal project ("Soundtrack Review.net is finally closing down. My time is taken up with other pursuits and my desire to continue the site has waned to the point of extinction. (...) Many thanks go out to all of my readers.") Dahn (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I am not opposed to a valid discussion about merging and redirecting, for which someone could make a reasonable case, although most evidence points to an outright keep with further improvement also being a sound way forward. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Merging what? The superfluous profile? The ridiculous and sloppy "sourcing"? Let's be reasonable. As for "further improvement" - the potential sound of a falling tree in the forest should not prevent an article from being deleted. Dahn (talk) 22:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
      • The out of universe content from reliable sources is indeed mergeable. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
        • You don't seem to have a clear understanding of WP:RS. Dahn (talk) 22:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
          • Published books and GamePro count as reliable sources that verify this information and because it is addressed in multiple of them it is enough to justify at worst a merge and redirect of the content sourced from those books and magazine. These serve as relaible secondary sources. Moreover, an interview with the actual game's composer serves as a reliable primary source. The mixture of these sources is sufficient to justify something other than redlinking. Regards, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
            • I believe I've already answered to these points, please don't make me repeat myself by stating the same over and over again after I've answered them and stated that I don't intend to continue this conversation. It's a cheap tactic of diverting focus. In short: the claim about the article being sourced from reliable sources is debatable to say the least; the primary source is utterly irrelevant in proving notability (WP:PSTS); and, no, not all published sources are reliable sources. Dahn (talk) 00:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
              • This particular published source is. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• As with Jimmy's article, please keep in mind that we are discussing one of the two main characters from the 30th best selling video game franchise. Surely the two main characters, who are even featured in the game's cover art (see Medal of Honor: Underground), from such a successful franchise are at least worthy of a redirect with edit history intact. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• I can only refer you to my comment above, and only add that your entire claim about notability through someone else's notability is a fine sample of association fallacy. Dahn (talk) 00:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• By being one of the 12 best female video game characters of all time, who is based on a real person, appears on a major game's cover, etc. she is notable in her own right. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• You mean being called "one of the 12 best female video game characters of all time" by a guy named windshell in an internet forum... This type of "referencing" is what you base your claim on. Dahn (talk) 00:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• That and common sense, i.e. the cover girl of a major game, based on a significant real world person, also verifiable through reliable reviews and preveiews, etc. all add up. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Let's call a spade a spade: 1) the one "source" ranking the character in any way is a guy in an internet forum, whose opinion you cited as a reference in defiance of wikipedia policies; 2) that type of reasoning is not common sense, it's a fallacy; 3) if you base the claim that the subject is "one of the 12 best female video game characters of all time" [sic] on the personal judgment that it is "the cover girl of a major game, based on a significant real world person, also verifiable through reliable reviews and preveiews" [sic], you're not only in breach of WP:OR and WP:POV, as in introducing your own ranking, you're also doing it in the most ridiculous manner I have seen so far. Dahn (talk) 00:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Deleting this article would go against everthing this project stands for by being the comprehensive encyclopedia anyone can edit. If we call a spade a spade, then we would rightly call this article notable and its subject verifiable through multiple reliable sources as confirmed by Google News and Google Books. Suggesting otherwise is a ridiculous logical fallacy, because the subject is so obviously notable by any reasonable standard that no one can present any evidence that it is a hoax or libelous or that it does not have a valid redirect location or that no one finds it relevant. Rather, it concerns a cover character based on a real historical figure who is confirmed through published books and on magazine sites who is part of the 30th most successful video game franchise of all time, i.e. it represents unorginal research from multiple perspectives. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep as notable. A merge discussion can take place on the article's talk page as guideline instructs. Yes, the content might benefit from trimming.... but that's a matter for cleanup through the course of normal editing, not outright deletion. I note that even though this not-so-insignificant character is the MAIN character in Medal of Honor: Underground, and not some background throw-away, she is spoken of in only one meager sentence in that entire article... despite her being in books and in multiple reliable sources [23]. It should make no difference if it is a fictional character or not... no difference if you like the game or not... no difference if one likes the article or not... If a subject can be shown to meet the criteria of WP:GNG, the subject merits an article. If no option is considered other than outright deletion, the project is not being well served. Time to consider acceptable compromises... and a merge that fleshes out the skeletal coverage of her in the main article is definitely worth discussiong. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 23:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Again the same link to google news... Look, as I've said above, of the seven titles linked there, none address the subject in more than one sentence. This is the same for every source that was "cited" or quoted here, except for some of those that are unreliable - they may into whatever detail they want, but they're unquotable. the sources you mention simply state that the character exists, and this, I gather, is not up for debate. Since wikipedia is by definition less detailed and more synthetic than the sources it uses, and since not even parroting the reliable sources would make the entry grow in size (individually or as part of another article), your claim that something more could be said looks like inclusionist wishful thinking. Dahn (talk) 00:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• It is not simply the link, but the multiple reliable sources with those link and after all Google News and Google Books are NOT the end of reliable sources. The most relevant sources would be articles in other magazines that do not necessarily show up in the online archives and that none of us volunteers can reasonably be expected to have to scroll through in a mere week's time and on a holiday at that. Moreover as indicated above, the sources go beyond just that the character exists, but to confirm as well that she is based on a historical person, how the music was chosen to represent her, how she is one of the best female video game characters of all time, her role in the game with regards to character backrgound, etc. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• No, I won't debate with esoteric claims about what "else" should be out there but isn't. And all the existing sources have to say about the character goes into a sentence or two, whichever way you look at it. Full stop. Dahn (talk) 00:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• No, they do not. The following is more than a mere sentence or two: Michael Giacchino explains that for "Manon, I wanted a theme that could convey one emotion at a particular moment, and then a completely different emotion the next without having to rely on two completely different themes. As a result, Manon's two main themes are very similar and yet very different. One version of the theme stays the course in a major tone, conveying a feel of great national purpose against the Nazi menace, and the secondary theme dips into a minor 6th chord which describes Manon's more intimate and emotional feelings as an individual and a woman who is pitted against the fascist war machine. Both of these themes are bookended with what liner notes author Paul Tonks has aptly named 'the resolve theme'. This theme was meant to represent the moments where Manon is called upon to steel her nerves and gather the courage to continue on with the fight....Manon travels to places that are not quite so militaristic as Jimmy Patterson. Her journey was a bit more 'scenic'."^[6] Some of the reviews from not mere blogs but magazine websites verify the plot information concerning her specifically in full paragraphs. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• But that one is an alleged statement from a primary source, republished by a venue with no real reliability. That presuming that the information has any relevancy to an encyclopedic coverage, which it appears is not the case. And also presuming that, if it has, it cannot be summarized in a few words - which it could. This is another thing to which I had already answered. As for the equivocation in "some of the reviews from not mere blogs but magazine websites verify the plot information concerning her specifically in full paragraphs", I have to say simply: nonsense. I and several other users have combed through your precious sources, and showed that this is clearly not the case, no matter how much you blur the issue at hand. Between that and your manifest ignorance of WP:RS, there's really nothing more to discuss here. Dahn (talk) 00:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• We are allowed to use some reliable primary sources when we have other information verifying the rest of the article in reliable secondary sources. Anyone with any practical knowledge of video games and video game sourcing is arguing to keep or merge this article and that is the bottom line here, because even an amateur with regards to video games knows this character is worthy of at least a redirect with edit history intact, just even someone with only cursory knowledge of this subject recognizes the interview and magazines and books as reliable sources for this subject. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep While it could be referenced better, it is much to large to merge into the main article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Searching through google books and other google searches I could find no claim of valuable history or major significance, every link I could find simply mentioned the name, and there were very few mentions, nothing reliable to verify meaningful notability and this proves the character is too trivial to merit it's own article.- Josette (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Are you kidding? As pointed out above, Google News and Google Books both demonstrate that the character appears in multiple games, as the main and cover character in one, is considered one of the best female game characters of all time, is based on a real historical figure, etc. Moreover, as the content has been merged, deletion is not an option. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I would also like to note that like any other editor in good standing, I have the right to state my opinion at any AfD and do so without being harangued. I have read this entire thread plus done my own research as I am supposed to do and I still remain unconvinced that there is enough value in this character to have it's own article. I do not appreciate your disparaging remarks against me and I respectfully ask that you agree to disagree with me and leave it at that. Thank you. - Josette (talk) 19:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
      • This is a discussion. In a discussion editors interact with each other. I am totally unconvinced that there is any reason to delete here, because there is no reason. The article contains reliably sourced content concerning one of the most notable female video game characters who is based on a historical person of enough importance that she also has an article and who appears on the cover of a game in which she stars as the heroine. She is covered in out of universe context in interviews and reviews. Even cursory research reveals as much. We can reasonably disagree about whether the article should be improved further or redirected to one of the merge locations, but as the lone participant in this discussion who actually shows real evidence of what sources I found, who actually added them to the article, and merged them to improve other articles following WP:PRESERVE, Wikipedia:Merge and delete, Wikipedia:Before, Wikipedia:BOLD, and WP:IAR, I cannot allow factually inaccurate statements to go unchallenged. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup – could be much better sourced and prose cleaned up, but it looks like a valid spinout. Perhaps a merge could be discussed in the future, but perhaps it should be best put on hold after a good cleanup. MuZemike 19:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep The character gets plenty of mention in reviews. Cnet's editor review[24] speaks of her notable role in a game which really built on her history, and whatnot. She isn't just some static character. And she is the main character in a notable game. Dream Focus 18:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • • Plot cannot be discussed without discussing characters, and every version of NOT PLOT thatn has ever been proposed requires the discussion of PLOT--the extent to which plot is to be described varies in the different versions, but they all say its an essential component. This will lead to: "In this game, a character whose name we don't think important enough to tell you, engages in various adventures" -- or possibly not mention it at all, and have the article deal only with the production and distribution, and not say what the game is about. I guess that's the way of approaching fiction if one doesn't think the contents of it are of the least importance. DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Meticulously well-written article on an arguably popular subject, at least within a certain gaming sub-culture. A lot of work has clearly gone into this article - and gone into making it adhere to Wikipedia standards. This should be an easy KEEP. --AStanhope (talk) 03:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect to Medal of Honor: Underground. Real world content already exists in the main article, and without knowing which came first, GFDL would seem to indicate it should be redirected. Much briefer plot summary could also be merged to the main, which currently lacks any. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Medal of Honor: Underground. This article is really just a glorified content fork.Singingdaisies (talk) 14:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Article has been substantially improved; there are no more delete votes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SebastianHelm (talk • contribs)

Munchie Strikes Back[edit]

Munchie Strikes Back (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

Unspeedying deletion. Was incorrectly tagged as A1. It's a terrible start for an article, but it does have some links that show that it has some marginal notability.

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Sebastian 23:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• • Comment Yup.... quite a poor beginning. However, A quick search has conviced me, that poor as it is at the moment, there is enough available so that the article can be markedly improved. As I have some time today, I will do just that. I'll be back in a couple hours or so with a progress report. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep The article has now been expanded and sourced. I found numerous reviews of the film and all reviewers agree that it is a piece of crap... but even crap can have the coverage needed to meet the GNG. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per MichaelQSchmidt's message. — Sebastian 03:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - The only hits, at Google News as shown here [25] give 6 listings. One a brief review, one a Press release that the DVD just came out, two just listings of the time it will be playing at the local theater and finally two quick reviews in a foreign news paper. This does not meet our notability standards unless they changed drastically recently. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 06:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Struck delete and moved to keep based on the work doe. Nice job by the way, and Keeping my word (yes Pun intended). ShoesssS ^Talk 23:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • With respects, Google News is not the only place one might find in-depth articles in genre-specific reliable sources that show a film meeting WP:NF and WP:GNG. But thank you for showing the way to even more than are in the article. Best, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 08:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. However you failed to point out that the guidelines also state "... The following are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist:The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following: Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release. 1.The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release. 2.The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.3.The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema. 4.The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.5.The film was selected for preservation in a national archive. 6..The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program. " If you can point me to any one of the 4 criteria, I am more than happy to reconsider, but I can not find them. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 08:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Ahh... as I'm sure you've read, the WP:NF guideline begins wiith "As with all subjects, a film should satisfy the general notability guideline." which itself states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." I am hard pressed to understand how you see the provided in-depth reliable sources as somehow failing to meet the GNG. The quoted attributes are simply criteria for determining when or if one might expect that "the required sources are likely to exist". They are not themselves notability criteria. They advise that if the listed circumstances exist, one might likely expect to find RS... they do not instruct that lack of meeting the guiding attributes ipso-facto means that one will cannot and will not find reliable sources. I hate that Wikipedia is being more and more couched in confusing overlays of verbiage, when a simple sentence might say it all. Consensus and multiple discussions has agreed that W:NF's general principles pretty much advise "if some of the following circumstances exist, you should be able to find sources". Following the guideline of WP:NF, I found "the required sources"... meeting WP:NF, WP:GNG, and thus WP:N. Thank you. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note to closing nominator This article has gone through significant improvements since it was put up for deletion.[26] Ikip (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included on the  and Munchie page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
• Strong keep In the alternative, redirect to Munchie, there are several notable sources in this article now. I respect the nominator, SebastianHelm, for changing his mind and deciding not to delete. That is very respectable. Ikip (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep due to improvements and as film does get over 40 Google Books hits, i.e. is verifiable through reliable sources. Moreover subject is indeed covered in at least one published encyclopedia and per our First pillar, we are in part a collection of what appears in specialized encyclopedias. So, good work Michael (I have added one source to help out that reception section some more) and kudos to the nominator for being open-minded enough to switch stances upon evaluation of the improvements. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

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