< 16 December	18 December >

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tapan Chowdhury[edit]

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

Unsourced biography of a living person Smileupper09 (talk) 01:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Smileupper09 (talk) 01:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: per Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Politicians (first level national office holder). Subject was an adviser (Energy and Power ministry) of the 2007 Caretaker Government of Bangladesh. An advisor in a caretaker government is the same rank as cabinet ministers. Subject had significant press coverage in the last few years. (BBC News, Daily Star,etc.). --Ragib (talk) 01:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How an “adviser” of a “short term (3 months) government” for conducting election only can be a notable post? Even the subject had been sacked (they are requested to ‘resign’ generally) before he could complete his term. There had been many dozens “advisers” generated for the last 20 years in Bangladesh and I assume Wikipedia is not a directory/book-keeper for them.--Smileupper09 (talk) 03:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha, I would recommend that you petition for changing the constitution of Bangladesh to reflect your view points. Also, do ask for changing Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Per Wikipedia's notability guidelines on politicians, first level national office holders are notable. This "Adviser" is a formally defined post in the Caretaker government of Bangladesh, and is equivalent to a minister. But I'm sure you already know that. --Ragib (talk) 03:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ragib. I would also like to stress a previous comment raised on Smileupper09's talk page (check edit history for deleted commentary). --Soman (talk) 09:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Michael Jackson and Look alike Michael Jackson are not the same things. Similarly, a True Minister and "3 months minister level adviser” are not the same things too. Hope Wikipedia Guidelines for Notability are able to differentiate the matter.--Smileupper09 (talk) 06:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to say this, but what you said above is patent nonsense. This is a constitutionally defined position with full rank similarity (and in protocol as well) as a full minister. I suggest that you take the time to read up the Constitution of Bangladesh, especially Part 4, Chapter IIA, Article 58C-11, which clearly states: The Chief Adviser shall have the status, and shall be entitled to the remuneration and privileges, of a Prime Minister and an Adviser shall have the status, and shall be entitled to the remuneration and privileges, of a Minister. If you have any problem with the constitution, perhaps you can take it up at the parliament. Also, please do not make me repeat the notability guideline on first level national office holders, which I've cited twice above. Thank you. --Ragib (talk) 06:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please... Wikipedia is not beholden to the constitution of Pakistan, there is no need to bend notabilty requirements to fit. Hairhorn (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even without the government position the Google News search linked above finds extensive coverage of the subject's business career. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've pruned text that was a clear copyright violation. The text was copied from here. Mind matrix 14:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I assume the last One reference, in fact One-Fourth reference about the "adviser" or businessman is not sufficient to establish his notability. Because the BBC page was about the news of Four failure "advisers" who had been sacked by the government of Bangladesh.--Smileupper09 (talk) 05:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - the advisor stuff is pretty borderline. In this case, however, his business stuff would appear to satisfy (relatively) the amount of coverage needed to meet GNG. Cocytus [»talk«] 02:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Most of the subject's notability stems from only a few month period during which he held a semi-important position.--Pink Bull 04:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Innocence Project. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Bain (innocent prisoner)[edit]

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

I'm going to go ahead and put this one here, because this man has been the subject of a number of news stories today for being exonerated of rape. However, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E seem to apply. Glenfarclas (talk) 23:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BLP1E, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 09:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided, I'm unclear about the usual practice here. Compare Innocence Project and the cases mentioned there. The case should at least be mentioned at that page BTW. Perhaps it would be best to create Innocence Project of Florida and move the content of the article nominated for deletion as one section there. --Pjacobi (talk) 11:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note press coverage: http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=James+Bain --Pjacobi (talk) 12:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes, but WP:INTHENEWS. --Glenfarclas (talk) 22:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all against recentism and using Wikipedia as news portal, which is unfortunately rather widespread. Added the search link as the article itself would need improvement, whether kept, moved, or merged. --Pjacobi (talk) 11:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I took you as making a deeper point but stand corrected; and the link is helpful because the (innocent prisoner) in the article's name makes the autogenerated search links useless. --Glenfarclas (talk) 11:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd keep or merge with Innocence Project - he's the record holder. Bearian (talk) 04:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge: I added a link from Innocence Project and noted that he's the "record holder", as Bearian points out. I think that's very notable but wouldn't claim there's enough here to keep the page separate. PeterHansen (talk) 17:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His post-release comments and the fact that he's the record holder cause to satisfy notability requirements. --Pink Bull 04:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge with Innocence Project, not notable enough for own article. Boleyn3 (talk) 12:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exomissiology[edit]

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

Seems to be just a WP:NEOLOGISM which primarily exists in a paper by Thomas Hoffmann. The unpublished master's thesis (Word file) the article cites is by a doctoral student writing about Thomas Hoffmann who expressly put the term in quotation marks to indicate it is a made up word ("Hoffman has called for an 'exomissiology' to raise the Christian mission field to a vast new level . . . ."). Not presently a notable term. Glenfarclas (talk) 22:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we so don't need made-up stuff about missions to martians! Errr... that's WP:OR and WP:RS and so on... andy (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find very little other than that paper...and no evidence that the term has been picked up or that that paper was influential in any way. Cazort (talk) 23:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 01:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retain (Do not delete) This is no "neologism", but a established term used in widely-read theology journals. Would not use of this term "exomissiology" in two theology journals (DIALOG and NOVA RELIGIO), as cited, be enough to qualify the term as "notable"? If not, then citations in how many established academic journals would be excepted in order to qualify for notability? (If more than two journals are required, then we could wait, for a few years, until the term comes into use in more journals; which is likely, given that more theologians are beginning to take an interest in astronomy and the implications of astronomy -- if not among Christian theologians, then among theologians of other religions, or perhaps the theologians of modern UFO cults, or at least among science-fiction writers.)0XQ (talk) 13:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The mere use of the term, or citing of the original paper, in multiple sources is not enough to make it notable. If you could find several articles (written by a few different authors) which were written specifically about the topic / concept of "exomissiology", using that term to refer to the concept, then I might be on the fence and possibly recommend keeping it. But the only source I could find with this level of detail was the original article coining the term. This is important for WP:N standards, because as is, there's not enough material to write a balanced article based on reliable sources--you can't base an encyclopedia article on a single source. Cazort (talk) 16:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary for terms that happen to be used obscurely in two theology journals. When there are third-party independent sources that discuss this term in a rigorous and comprehensive way, then Wikipedia should include it. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsurprisingly, the subject does not meet notability requirements. Johnuniq (talk) 03:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nonsense topic that is not encyclopedic in nature. Hardyplants (talk) 05:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even for serious scientific notions we require more than a handful of appearances in scientific journals. In addition to an article in "Dialog", a "journal of theology" addressing "the frontiers of theological discussion" and apparently not even peer reviewed, it seems to be mentioned in one scholarly paper on UFO religions and one fringe book. That's simply not enough notability for anything, especially not for fringe. Hans Adler 09:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Texas vs. Texas A&M football game[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/2009 Texas vs. Texas A&M football game

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

Notability: the article has not text, but the threshold for individual games to be notable is very high. I don't believe this game meets it. rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Single game of this notable rivalry has no independent notability. May be a plausible redirect to State Farm Lone Star Showdown. KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that there is no place for articles about individual games in a series. There's room for someone to write about the football rivalry which goes back a long way. I note that Texas-Texas A&M rivalry redirects to an article about State Farm Insurance's program about a year round competition in all the sports, although the Texas-Oklahoma game and the TAMU-TCU game are bigger football rivalries. Mandsford (talk) 22:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frankie Hopkins[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A somewhat promotional article on a non-notable filmmaker/writer/comedian, which appears to be the work of a SPA. I can't turn up any reliable sources that would establish the notability of the subject. A google search fails to turn up any reliable sources. Even if every claim here is true, this doesn't really come close to being notable. This article was prodded by Gigs, seconded by me, then de-prodded by the author. This was previously speedied during it's first AfD as a hoax, as a non-admin, I can't comment on whether it's been improved since then. (However, I would suggest that if this is deleted, some salt be applied). Bfigura ^(talk) 22:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For completeness, I'm also nominating the other non-notable works by this subject. Nothing here has any reliable sourcing, much less enough to pass the relevant notability guideline -- Bfigura ^(talk) 22:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the lot of them - the articles all rely on a non-notable show (as I said when I prodded the list of characters article yesterday). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 00:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After poking around, signs are pointing to elaborate hoax. was not able to corroborate the claim about the WGN airing anywhere on WGN's site. I couldn't find mention of this on rottontomatoes either. If it's not a hoax, then it's not verifiable and not notable anyway. Gigs (talk) 01:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax, no evidence that any sells his supposed albums. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At worst it's all a hoax. At best it's unverifiable. Sarilox (talk) 20:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Emperor (talk) 15:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the lot and salt - as the site says they are self-publishing the comic and no-one seems able to turn up any kind of coverage (not even the awards which is a little suspicious), so fails WP:N and WP:V, which are pretty fundamental. As this has been deleted once and recreated with no additional effort to satisfy even the most basic of requirements I'd suggest salting the articles - if anyone thinks they can prove notability then they can start something in their sandbox for people to look over and see if it meets the required standards. (Emperor (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Delete - Sarilox put it nicely. Airplaneman ^talk 21:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sarilox DRosin (talk) 00:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cutting the gordian knot, this AFD was opened to test some new sources. This has now taken place and the established editors are of one mind - that this is non-notable and the sources provided do not cut the mustard. I really see no point keeping this open with the extensive off site canvassing and this particular comment was really enough. I guess it was meant as a joke but no encyclopedic value is served by keeping this open a second longer Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

QutIM[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)).

AfDs for this article:

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

This is the third nomination of this article. The first result was delete as non-notable. The second I speedy deleted as a recreation of an article previously deleted at AfD. However, on my talk page, editors provided a range of additional sources. Some of these certainly do not meet RS criteria. Some are in Russian, so I can't tell. One is to HAKER, which may well be a reliable source. However, I'm not qualified to tell. I have now restored this and brought to AfD so that more eyes can see it, and hopefully reach a final community decision.

Apologies in advance for the length of this nomination! I have no particularly strong feelings either way, this is a procedural nomination really.

For your convenience, below are the sources added to my talkpage.

https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/lucid/+source/qutim -

And some more links: http://qutim-forum.de/forum/ http://www.qutim.cz/ Nokia has done port qutIM to Symbian: http://www.forum.nokia.com/info/sw.nokia.com/id/d0134921-0894-42a3-a1a8-f3d0fdb7a9b3/Qt_for_Symbian_qutIM_Example.html

http://qt-apps.org/index.php?xsortmode=high -

nokia.com qt-apps.org are famous secondary sources, Also some more secondary sources, but now mostly on russian: http://valentine.viviti.com/ http://habrahabr.ru/ http://mac.softpedia.com/ http://mib.pianetalinux.org/ http://itshaman.ru/ http://www.opennet.ru/ http://iblog.su/ http://hakushka.wordpress.com/ http://jenyay.net/ http://t-34.name/ http://megaobzor.com/

Also information about qutIM was published in some famous magazines like }{aker (April, August), ITFormat

XAKER is a journal with more than ten year history,

ITFormat looks to be journal with both professional and user articles.

English language: Qt-Apps (btw it's a software portal rather than forum) Freshports - FreeBSD software ports Gentoo Packages Softpedia - Software encyclopedia, Mac section Archlinux software Maemo software Macupdate - Mac software Software informer Slax packages Mops Linux packages

Ged UK 21:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In the above I see tons of blogs, forums, and download directories. In the conversation on Ged UK's talk page, the developer goes on at length about which libraries and open source projects he uses code from and how many package repositories the software is in. None of this is evidence of notable: remarkable, distinguished, or prominent. Miami33139 (talk) 22:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep wiki.russianfedora.ru qutIM is default messenger in Russian Fedora Remix 12, and as it was said erlier it's represented in repositorious of FreeBSD and other Linux Distributions. Notable also means 'widely known', and by the way it's hard to find any russian linux user who doesn't know qutIM. EuroElessar (talk) 05:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC) — EuroElessar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

"hard to find any russian linux user who doesn't know qutIM", yes but we need multiple, reliable, verifiable sources to prove this. WP:THISNUMBERISHUGE TheWeakWilled (T * G) 02:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As noted before qutIM was used as example in Nokia's Qt for Symbian Developer's Library. It was mentioned in Basyskom's presentation at aKademy 2008 [1] as example in one of sections. As well qutIM is one of few examples of cross-platform opensource multiprotocol IM. For example, how many ICQ clients you know which support *nix systems? And which of theese are up-to-date, support other functions besides just chat and has nice gui? KPanic (talk) 09:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)— KPanic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at of 5 edits, this is the only comment (UTC).[reply]

"how many ICQ clients you know which support *nix systems" doesn't show notability. We need multiple, reliable, verifiable sources to prove notability. WP:THISNUMBERISHUGE TheWeakWilled (T * G) 02:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way what about Nokia.com and Basyskom's presentation? EuroElessar (talk) 06:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The presentation mention is as one bullet point in a list of Qt/KDE communications programs; one bullet point is hardly "significant coverage" as required by WP:N. The Nokia source I grant does seem to count towards notability. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Miami33139 you are dumb! This app really rocks! It is very popular in Russia, Germany, Czech Republic and many other countries! xtazz (talk) 11:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)— xtazz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

There's absolutely no need for personal abuse. If you continue, you will be blocked. Comment on the content, not the editor. Ged UK 15:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We get it, you like it, but we need multiple, reliable, verifiable sources to prove notability. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 02:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Doing a small walk through all the articles in Wikipedia, dedicated to various IMs, I've found that (apart from the one regrading Pidgin) the rest: first don't have (more) RR and second by the look of them are not (more) notable then qutIM's one is, but they are not suggested for deletion. Of course, articles like Bukkake have their RR and are definitely "notable". Dear Miami33139, if people don't find it notable enough why is it translated to other languages? You definitely spit on these people's faces (including me), that are trying to contribute. For me QT-Apps is one of the most reliable sources, when looking for OS software, and for sure highest rated apps are notable. Cheers! Boyan.kiroff (talk) 12:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)— Boyan.kiroff (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS TheWeakWilled (T * G) 02:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Besides all, qutIM is rather popular client. When the 0.2 version was released, there were more than 70000 downloads of the program only in the release day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.218.186.254 (talk) 13:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC) — 195.218.186.254 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- WP:THISNUMBERISHUGE --Cybercobra (talk) 06:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Qutim in our days from day to day will be added in most of Linux and BSD distributions. I really willing see article about it in wikipedia. Hubbitus (talk) 13:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)— Hubbitus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Pure speculating; see WP:ATA#CRYSTAL --Cybercobra (talk) 06:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep QutIM - is the most valuable and worthy pretender to be named "Linux Must Have!!!" in IM nomination. Besides that fact, that it is in UNDER CONSTRUCTIUON state it's very perspective soft. By the way, it's cross-platform and multi-protocol!!! MUST HAVE!!! KEEP!!! -Varelka 16:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.191.99.79 (talk) — 93.191.99.79 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Can you cite any sources to back up your claims? Regarding its being prospective, see WP:ATA#CRYSTAL --Cybercobra (talk) 06:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep qutIM is in official xmpp clients list 94.50.32.235 (talk) 18:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC) — 94.50.32.235 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- That list is a directory. No special selection/editorial criteria beyond mere existence are applied. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - If someone merely exists at Forbes list of billionaires this definitely means that he/she is a billionaire. If an IM merely exists at XMPP clients list under category Cross-Platform (Linux/Mac/Windows) this definitely means, that it meets the XMPP "standards, usability, reliability, or performance" requirements and is therefore WP:N, or you (being a happy Skype user) think XMPP/Jabber itself is not a WP:RS. Regards, just another WP:SPA - Boyan.kiroff (talk) 11:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think you didn't read closely enough. Verbatim quote from the webpage (emphasis mine):
      Note: The following software was not developed by the XMPP Standards Foundation and has not been formally tested for standards compliance, usability, reliability, or performance.
      --Cybercobra (talk) 12:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - My fault! (offtopic) What is this offensive against almost all IMs, that's going on? Boyan.kiroff (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment added ((not a vote)), because some of the WP:SPAs are voting because they like it, and may be canvassed offsite. Remember to cite policy when !voting. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 02:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG, no in-depth coverage in reliable sources. The entries in XAKEP (journal) for instance are merely the contents of the free DVD that came with that journal issue. No coverage in the journal per se. The socks here are just grasping at straws... Pcap ping 15:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and protect from creation. Very shameless self-promotion by a somewhat aggressive group of developers. All "sources" that they provided are basically "reviews" in blogs. Pcap already elaborated on entry in ХАКЕР magazine, I can only support it. --GreyCat (talk) 17:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you really think, that megaobzor.com, qt-apps.org, nokia.com and [2] are blogs? So give me definition of "blog". By the way, do you really think that Nokia is unknown company or that it would spend human-power for porting not-notable and unknown IM? EuroElessar (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blog, directory, forum, non reliable website, respectively. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 02:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"non reliable website" - I hope that's a bad joke? Nokia's site is "not a reliable"?!

Nokia's site is unreliable? By the way, it's not a forum, because I've given you a link not ot a thread, but to library it's part, which is filled by Nokia. If megaobzor is not reliable, is there any reliable sources at the world?

- - Use wikipedia dude ;-) Blog Boyan.kiroff (talk) 19:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What self-promotion you talking about? This is notable open-source project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.215.79.95 (talk) 22:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But we need multiple, reliable, verifiable sources to prove notability. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 02:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - They're kidding, right? When "eAthena" article (which is an open source server software) redirects to article about commercial RPG with blatant advertising, that's seems to be okay. That's a double-standards. Hey, Wikipedia, please stop censorship. It's no matter how you call this, deletion of information is a censorship, actually. Not to mention some people are padding their interests by abusing the rules, At the end of day, it is we are, your users who're losing from such practices. Stop abusing rules to apply some kind of censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.237.187.30 (talk) 02:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't censored... TheWeakWilled (T * G) 02:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, reality is against your words. I'm sorry. EuroElessar (talk) 07:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is used like Psi, Gajim, Coccinella, Jabbin, Exodus, Gossip ... — Neustradamus (✉) 19:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We need multiple, reliable, verifiable sources to prove that notability. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 02:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Unfortunately they are also on their way to be deleted ... Boyan.kiroff (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The problem is Wikipedia want only Windows Live Messenger, AIM, ICQ and Yahoo! Messenger, it is very bad for the best open source protocol XMPP — Neustradamus (✉) 20:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you look around, Wikipedia has a great amount of open source projects listed here, that are notable. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 02:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Yep, let's censorship articles about these nasty opensource projects who interferes with someone's fat profits. But hey, Wikipedia told there is no censorship. What a double standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.237.187.30 (talk) 02:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Free software has tons of open source software. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 02:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So there is too much free software and that's a good reason to apply some censorship? What a good argue. Good luck with censorship, then. And let's the formalism and bureaucracy to replace the actual knowledge. But users are coming here for knowledge. Not to fight your overgrown bureaucracy and rules which are getting abused by someone to pad their views. If you delete some useful information, that's censorship. Well, me at least tried to vote to prevent it, as you suggested. I'm not sure if this works though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.237.187.30 (talk) 02:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KeepStokito (talk) 00:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC) — Stokito (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE TheWeakWilled (T * G) 02:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hi. About this article. I maybe don't know anything about the rules ), but, with respect, I can say only one: this is a really good software, especially for linux-systems and for ICQ-protocol. Usable, user-friendly.One of the best, I think. Like Kopete, Miranda or tkabbber Qiwichupa (talk) 01:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)— Qiwichupa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You like it. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 02:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep stop this damned censorship! It's so annoying to see tons of good and useful articles being deleted here and there. Stop this sabotage, let's humankind to have a knowledge. And it should come without this sucking censorship. How dare you are to decide what is important and what is not? Something which is not important to you could be a matter of life for someone. Someone, please stop this deletion madness! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.237.187.30 (talk) 01:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC) — 83.237.187.30 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment, Wikipedia isn't censored, just a vote, and you like it. I still have yet to see any policy cited in many of these keep !votes. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 01:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just to let you know, your actions were blogged in popular russian blog and they seems to look like abuse of certain templates and rules to apply censorship (lacks notability, etc). Have fun continuing doing so, but I think you would face a number of unhappy users soon. And at least me would take an effort to inform my friends using QutIM about this situation as well. And QutIM is not a first deletion I'm unhappy about. That's actually a censorship via juggling by the rules and templates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.237.187.30 (talk) 03:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC) — 83.237.187.30 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  - Comment, is the threat of a blog post supposed to make delete !voters quake in their boots and run away crying for mercy from the AFD? Until there are some references provided to back up notability, this article will either be deleted or continue to face AFD. Stop crying censorship; if some reputable third-party sources are found the article can stay. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and the project is not obliged in any way to keep content just to prevent accusations of "censorship". SMC (talk) 06:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Recreation of deleted material and clearly non-notable. Forum postings and blogs are not evidence of notability. Fails WP:N on all levels. I do not envy the admin who has to clear through all the ridiculously obvious meat puppetry going on above. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All this "meat puppetry" just happens because this program is quite popular and so quite many people feel insulted by such action. Me, for example not anyhow related with QutIM at all. And I see no reasons why user interested in "what is this qutim?" should be denied an answer. As user I find such experience unpleasant at very least. It feels like censorship for me. So you, hardcore admins and wiki-maniacs just got too far away from us, your users. Furthermore, after looking on actions of "Miami33139" user it's obvious he is some kind of saboteur. He deletes excessive amount of articles, isn't he? Good luck in supporting activity of people like this. But I'm afraid that at the end I would be unable to read in Wikipedia anything that does not exists in ancient encyclopaedia book I own. This would be a bad day for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.237.187.30 (talk) 04:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Last delete was 1.5 years ago, IM appeared also 1.5 years ago, so it's not criteria. There is no link to any forum, library.forum.nokia.com is just situated in the same domain, content is filled by Nokia themself. EuroElessar (talk) 06:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can see only speculation on Wikipedia rules in the purpose of censorship. What is "notable" actually? The ability to pay you for not deleting? No thanks, I don't need this kind of Wikipedia. Uruno-kun (talk) 05:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC) — Uruno-kun (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete WP:NOTE. And I'll check to see if someone's filed a sock investigation against the 11 single purpose accounts here. -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 05:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hello everybody. I just read on habrahabr.ru that this article was marked for deletion, and as I can see this is a third attempt to do so. I don't know much about Wikipedia and how it works, but I guess it is clear now that original reason "Non-notable software" is wrong, and it is also clear that whoever initiated it, is completely unqualified to have such privileges and make such decisions. (Personal attack redacted by Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)}) Thanks. Realaaa (talk) 06:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)— Realaa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at two other main space edits in 2007 before returning to this AfD (UTC).[reply]

Delete as completely non-notable, and as other delete !votes suggested, protect it from creation. The question has to be posed - just how many SPA's can one AFD handle? SMC (talk) 06:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable software, and given the history of recreation, break out the salt. -- Bfigura ^(talk) 06:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE) AfD semiprotected 5 days for the massive amounts of meatpuppetry. Also redacted a statement Realaaa made above; that can be construed as a death threat. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 06:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Visual writing[edit]

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

OR. "Visual writing" is a neologism at best; and even as a neologism, that term is not a term that is used to describe the topic of the article. The references don't use the term "visual writing". The article's haphazard definition of "visual writing" would also encompass childrens' picture books, for example. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as defintion. Plus the WP:OR, issue with the sources, &c. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 21:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SYNTH Polarpanda (talk) 21:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a neologism (though not a dictdef), as well as per the absence of sources. --Glenfarclas (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MuZemike 21:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rhee (band)[edit]

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

Non notable band. Notability is not established using references from reliable sources. Fails WP:MUSIC. The sole song that was included in a non-notable anthology does not make this band notable. Ragib (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 21:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find reliable sources for notability either. Not a notable song, not a notable band. --Glenfarclas (talk) 02:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They have a single in an album.... and they are performing in our country. Also they are working on their first album and music video. I also talked with another admin and he said its fine. So can you guys please explain why you want to delete this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.49.42.65 (talk) 12:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 20:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zack Luye[edit]

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

This page is orphaned (only linked to from user/talk pages). Also seems very solidly non-notable. Google news archive search shows one hit, the existing source: [3], which is about his podcast, not him. The podcast doesn't seem notable either, gnews 2 hits: [4]. Nothing in google scholar. He has a web presence (although less than me, I might add, and I don't think I'm anywhere near notability!) The only info on this person that I can find seems to be on social networking websites, his personal site, blogs, and more informal sites, and other sources which are not acceptable for establishing notability per WP:BIO. Cazort (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Cazort (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The independent coverage of this guy (a blog here and there) is just too thin to establish notability. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thirdie.com[edit]

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

This website does not yet meet WP:WEB, Alexa lists it as the being the three million most visited website and the other references are not enough to provide notability being a local paper and a school newspaper. Smartse (talk) 20:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think the Alexa rank is at all important, but I agree that it doesn't meet WP:WEB...it doesn't even seem to come close. I find only a single hit in google news: [5], and the overall web presence is minimal. Personally it looks like a cool idea...but nowhere near being notable yet. Cazort (talk) 20:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I almost tagged this for speedy deletion when I saw it come up, but decided against it because I thought at least a theoretical case could be made for its notability. Then I forgot about it, but I'm glad to see it come up on AfD, because I really couldn't find much of anything beyond blog references, tweets, and so on. Also, I remember this was mentioned in the AfD of Pete Merrill, the site's young creator, who was also deleted. Anyway, this website does not seem to meet notability standards. --Glenfarclas (talk) 21:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of independent reliable sources sufficient to establish notability. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a teenagers bedroom project. so what. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

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

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

The result was keep. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Panayotis Koupitoris[edit]

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

This article is about a 19th century Greek schoolteacher who wrote a few dissertations and wrote a couple of books but never published them. Not notable. Ptolion (talk) 20:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A basic search (Google and Google books) indicates that this guy has made a fairly substantial contribution to Albanian studies. And that's just in English. It may very well be that there are far more sources on this guy in Greek, as the citations to the article suggest. Also, the article does not say that none of his works were published, only those works mentioned in the article's final sentence. If someone more knowledgable of Albanian studies than I were to refute his notability, I'd change my mind; but otherwise, to my layman's eyes, he appears notable. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article cites print sources which point to notability. I also did a google book search and found that he is mentioned in The Albanian national awakening, 1878-1912 By Stavro Skendi and also in the Dictionary of Albanian literature By Robert Elsie. Again, to find such English-language print sources so easily, on a subject like this, given the time period and his backgrounds and the languages involved, points very solidly to notability. This seems a classic example of a topic that's hard to find information about online, but for which print sources abound. Cazort (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Marks & Spencer#M&S Food hall. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St Michael Food hall[edit]

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

This article is only about the old name for Marks & Spencer's food hall, and has no general notability. Footyfanatic3000 ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Marks & Spencer. This brand's independent notability is not established but it is still a plausible search term. KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Merge --Brunnian (talk) 22:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Marks & Spencer#M&S Food hall, the current name for the same thing. --Pink Bull 04:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boy Genius Report[edit]

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

non notable website WuhWuzDat 20:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This blog satisfies WP:WEB and WP:N given the significant reliable sources that cover the blog's reporting. Many of these sources are cited in the article itself. Further basic searching reveals a plethora of independent coverage of the blog, particularly in notable computing/tech/gizmo magazines. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KEEP This should be very obvious. Note that the nominator tagged this for speedy deletion as an A7 (no claim of significance), a tag which i removed. The cited references to ABC news, Technorati, the Huffington Post, CNBC, and other reliable sources make the notability of this blog (unlike most blogs) very clear IMO. I wonder why the nominator thinks it is "non notable". No other reason is provided in the nomination statement. DES ^(talk) 21:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of independent reliable sources sufficient to establish notability. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Adversary[edit]

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

Non-notable book. No claim of notability made in the article. Unable to find reliable sources on the net either Raziman T V (talk) 20:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As the author said in an edit summary, this book is "still unknown to the great public because of the very few copies published." Cannot find reliable sources (the author's Linkedin profile doesn't count); this doesn't come remotely close to satisfying any of the criteria of WP:BK, for instance being "the subject of multiple, non-trivial [independent] published works." --Glenfarclas (talk) 20:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet the requirements set out at WP:Notability (books), and it seems highly unlikely that it ever will. Also, the article reads like advertizing. Blueboar (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advert. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this book. Joe Chill (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of independent reliable sources sufficient to establish notability. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable author, advanced dork shows only self published material. I removed the spam, but there is something left. A small something. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-I've read the book. It is an outstanding contribution to the theme of the double, which is drammatically turned into an eternal confrontation with the self: an erudite fusion between Poe's "William Wilson" and "Highlander". The historical research is also impressive. It is listed in the Deutsche National Bibliothek under the voice "Belletristik", which in that country, means the top of quality for literary works. Mart1937 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.15.23.240 (talk) 15:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Stubify and rework. Reading through this long debate I am left with two clear mesages. Firstly that this is an encyclopedic subject and secondly, that this effort is so far from what is required that some of the editors working on it have thrown up their hands and decided it is best to start from scratch. There is an overwhelming majority in favour of deleting this version but a clear consensus that a proper article is also permissible. Ordinarily, I would stub the article and close this as no-consensus but given the intractable nature of the dispute I think we need a more refined solution. I have therefore created a subpage to work on the new article and put a place-holder on the main page and protected it. The subpage needs to be rewritten to remove all the synthesis and original research and be created directly from proper sources. Once there is a clear consensus on the sub-page talk-page from both sides of this dispute that the page is ready to go back into mainspace the article can be unprotected and the content merged across. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison between Roman and Han Empires[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

See extensive discussion on talk page: this reads as a merger between articles on the two empires, but is distinctly worse than either existing article. Its Roman history is inaccurate; the comparisons are not sourced to the reliable sources that discuss such things - and even if they did, they would be repeating opinions, not - as policy requires - facts about opinions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong and immediate delete I do not deny that there could be an article on this subject; but none of the sources for that article (Toynbee, Yule, McNeill...) have been consulted. Even an article done completely from scratch would have difficulties being about opinions, rather than stating a miscellaneous collection of opinions - but this article does not try. Better to start over. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC), as nom.[reply]

Delete The article suffers from many significant problems. The sources are unsatisfactory, with the vast majority focusing on the Han Empire and few actually on comparison between the two empires, leaving scope of synthesis. From a quick read, it's clear that many of the facts (at least on the Roman side) are confused and vague. For example, while Rome was still a Republic it didn't have an official empire, yet the article is confused and for example mentions the republican army. Nev1 (talk) 20:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This article is definitely on an encyclopedic topic, as evidenced by the multiple scholarly sources on the subject of comparison between roman and Han Empires. The main sources used do focus on the topic of comparing the two empires, and although some information is questionable, the correct solution for improving an article's quality is to improve it, not deletion. Scholarly sources already listed in the article have much information which could have been used to correct the problems (which unfortunately those suggesting deletion did not take), such as Schidel's book on Rome and China and Another essay on Roman and Chinese monetary systems,

The article has also addressed the concerns of its last AFD, and has been dramatically improved since them [article now and then

In addition, all of it is now currently sourced from scholarly sources explicitly comparing the two.Teeninvestor (talk) 16:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A longer argument on why it should be kept is shown below:

Is the article perfect? No; as of present, it does suffer from signifcant problems. As some of my first contributions to wikipedia, I do admit that I did make many mistakes when creating the article, and had left some of them unfixed as I went on to work to promote Economic history of China (pre-1911) to GA and hopefully FA. However, I just want to address a few criticims of the article, and hopefully show that they are nowhere as near as malicious as some editors have claimed.

WP:OR. This has a complaint raised against the article since the beginning. To have raised it in the days of December 2008, when the article had no sources comparing the two empires, was reasonable. However, a similar complaint has no justification. The article features many sources discussing the two empires, from brief summaries such as W.W. Norton to whole scholarly papers such as work done by Walther Schiedel and Princeton on monetary matters. Yes, sources that only describe one of the two subjects are used- which does not constitute WP:Synthesis or WP:OR. Synthesis and OR refers to the creation of new ideas and thoughts- no new ideas and conclusions are created from sentences describing detailed. For example, on an article comparing apples and oranges, if it is written "Apples are red (source on apples only) and later written "oranges are orange(source about orange only)", it is not synthesis or OR- new ideas and conclusions have been presented. The only effect is that 2 facts are presented to the reader. And besides, the main information in the article comes from sources that do compare the 2 empires; the other sources are used for supporting info.

WP:NPOV . Some critics have accused the article of being NPOV, going as far as to say it is a "my daddy is bigger than your daddy" issue. Not at all true- nowhere in the article can you find a statement such as "Han is MUCH STRONGER THAN ROME" or vice versa. Yes, in some sections there is more information on Han china than Rome(this problem also exists in reverse, for example see the engineering section), but this is due to the limited sources available for use for myself(my main work was on Economic history of China). In order to remedy this problem, I have repeatedly asked other users if they could contribute Rome-related information to the article, which they refused to do so, out of hostility to the article, a factor I could not control.

WP: Encyclopedic This article is obviously encyclopedic. Since its establishment, several new papers by respected scholars have been published on the subject, showing that this is definitely a notable topic, which was confirmed in the last AFD. Just because an article is of poor quality in the eyes of some editors is not grounds for deletion- if you don't like the article, improve it. Some critics have mentioned that they would delete it and rather write a new one- If you have good sources and the time to do so, do so! Simply delete all existing information and replace it with your own (as long as it is good, I will not object). Although the article's quality is not the best, I think it would be very hard to deny that it has improved greatly since the last AFD. Further work is needed, but deletion is not warranted.

My thoughts on the issue - Recently I have not been very active on wikipedia due to school, SAT and other factors, but with the advent of christmas I will have more time to devote to wikipedia. I have already submitted this article to ARS as a first step, and after I deal with another article I will try to improve this article with the other more reputable sources currently available. I feel it would be a great travesty to wikipedia to delete an article on an encyclopedic topic and which, while not perfect, has obviously been much improved since its creation.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Despite their numerous cries about "inaccuracy" and "OR", the editors involved in the AFD have yet to cite a single example of either.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Examples have been provided. Apart from the examples in my comment above, I started adding tags to the article, but after adding three to the first section (without getting to the end of the section) I thought it would be pointless to highlight every single problem as there were just too many and it would render the article unreadable, Nev1 (talk) 20:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue above has been addressed(most of what you tagged was what the source said, literally)- Also, as to your example above, the article is more intended as a comparison between the two civilizatiosn in that time period, rather than the empires in particular.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. When this previously came up on AfD I reluctantly supported keeping it, in large part because it was a new article with lots of work being done. At this point, it's been a year, and little, if any progress has been made toward improving the issues raised at that time, so I support deletion. cmadler (talk) 20:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cmadler- I find it very discerning that you did not notice the massive changes in the article since January 1st- [6]Teeninvestor (talk) 20:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I am discerning, thank you! (LOL, I don't think that's what you meant.) Yes there have been large changes, but the underlying problems in this article were not and have not really been addressed.

Delete. This article is surfing the boundary between WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:SYN - either it is an indiscriminate comparison of two otherwise unrelated historical entities or it is an effort at creating a relationship between these entities (either historical or academic) that currently does not exist. To explain: It is true that the Han dynasty has roughly the same relationship to Chinese culture that the Roman empire has to European culture. however, the Byzantine empire had the same relationship with middle eastern Islamic cultures, the Egyptian and Babylonian empires had similar effects on the ancient world, the Mayan and Aztec empires influenced New World cultures in much the same way, and the modern world suffers from the same influences by European colonialism and American economic expansionism - why are all these excluded from the article? to answer the (mostly rhetorical) question, they are excluded because including them would make the article truly and obviously an indiscriminate list of comparisons. so why make the comparison between just these two? because an editor (Teeninvestor) seems to want to make a point about the relative importance of the Han dynasty in cultural history. While I find myself agreeing that it is an interesting and important point to make, wikipedia (as a tertiary source) is clearly not the correct place to be making it. I suggest that relevant portions of this article be integrated into the Han Dynasty and Roman Empire articles, and that this article be removed. --Ludwigs2 21:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You are aware of the scholarly sources published on this subject, such as Schidel's book on Rome and China and Another essay on Roman and Chinese monetary systems, aren't you? Also, the article is comparing the two entities because this is a scholarly topic- if scholarly sources compared the states you mentioned above, you can also create an article on that topic.Teeninvestor (talk) 21:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - please try to maintain structure in the discussion, otherwise things will get confusing. I am aware of these sources. I don't believe they talk about or would support the comparisons made in this article, and I do not believe these comparions represent a strong consensus among scholars (even as a minority position. you're free to prove me wrong, of course, but please do that on the talk page, not here. --Ludwigs2 21:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Teeinvestor. I replied more fully here. In a nutshell, you did not refer to Scheidel in your 'article' and you do not seem to understand what Scheidel is actually doing in his work. What he does, is trying to fill in gaps in our knowledge of mainly ancient Rome by taking a look at developments in Han China. In doing this, he concentrates on monetary, population and to a lesser extent political issues. This is very meticulious work where only very cautiously certain working hypotheses of limited scope can be worked out. He is not in the least making a full scale virtual clash of Roman and Han Chinese armies and culture as you did. Your 'article' totally deviates from his work and has frankly nothing to do with it except on the most superficial level. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your destructive personal attacks are most discouraging. You refer to "Virtual clash of Roman and Han Chinese armies and culture". I ask you: Where is it? Where is it? You have not yet presented a single example of what you have said except your boisterous bias. Ignoring your personal attacks and attempts to distract the issue, I ask you: Do you not admit that there are scholarly sources on this topic, which is also a topic of scholarly interst?. You haven't answered this question, because there are scholarly sources on this notable topic, which you have failed to acknowledge, either because of ignorance or bias. Yes, in some areas, most notably the military sphere, sources not comparing the two empires have been used. However, in this case no direct comparison has been made, no new ideas and conclusions presented- therefore there is no WP:SYNT, which refers to new conclusions.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You want examples of bias and the lack of scholarly references you provide?

Both armies could deploy large numbers of troops into battle. For the battle of Chalons, the Romans fielded some 50,000 men[17]. During the Battle of Arausio, the Roman Republic fielded up to 70,000 soldiers[18]. In the battle of Mobei (119 BCE), China fielded 300,000 troops, along with about 500,000 porters, auxiliaries, servants, and other support elements. In the battle of Mayi, China also fielded about 300,000 troops.

Stack the deck... You take some random realistic figure of the Roman army and compare it with some unsourced fantasy Chinese number. Are you aware that ancient authors regularly overestimated troop sizes many times because they followed very different writing conventions than modern scholars? Do you know about logistics and the inherent impossibility of feeding and equipping 800,000 men by pre-modern agricultural societies?

China's army benefitted from the fact that the Chinese were the first to invent the horse harness, which allowed grain to be transported overland in massive quantities, unlike the Romans who relied on sea transport.

Wrong due to ignorance and bias or both. The Roman army moved mostly by foot which is why they built the unprecedented Roman road system. And they used just as efficient horse harnesses as the Han (A History of Collar Harnessing in Source-Pictures and ROMAN TRACTION SYSTEMS).

The Han army also had perhaps one of the most deadly weapon of the ancient age: the crossbow. This weapon, which did not spread to other areas of the world until later, gave the Han army a great strategic advantage.

Wrong due to ignorance and bias or both. In fact, the Roman knew and used the crossbow. See gastraphetes for the Greek forerunner and scroll down to "Other ancient crossbows" for the different Roman specimen (also see Cheiroballista). They even had torsion Roman torsion crossbow I and Roman torsion crossbow II which were more powerful than any of the tension crossbows the Chinese employed.

The issues with your 'articles' are countless...really. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are so knowledgable, Gun Powder Ma, about ancient armies that you do realize that Crossbow is listed under list of Chinese inventions? That a catapault is not a crossbow, and it's firing rate was only a fraction of a crossbow?(which would have made it useless in open field fighting)? If the romans did employ the crossbow, then how come Velites Served in the Roman army until the very end? If the Roman horse was so efficient at transport, how come Rome was dependent on Egyptian grain for travel(don't tell they couldn't grow food in Italy!)? The discrepancy in troop numbers can easily be explained by the massive improvement in agricultural technology in China at this time, including the seed drill and iron farm tools.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teeninvestor, Gun Powder Ma has made no personal attacks and has restricted his comments to the article; please do not obscure the issue at hand by crying that he is attacking you when that is not the case. Nev1 (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe referring to another editor as a "virtual wargamer" who fantasizes about "virtual wargame clash of Han and Roman Empires" is more than attacks. Only the most POV editors would think that is not an attack. These words are clearly implied by Gun Powder Ma. Teeninvestor (talk) 22:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of what he said, but interpreting it as a personal attack is ludicrous. Nev1 (talk) 22:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So are you saying that he would appreciate it if I started calling him a hippie based on the "free tibet" sign on his userpage?Teeninvestor (talk) 22:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many books and studies have been published on the article's subject. I've read through it, and while much of it seems like it could go into two different articles, there is some valid comparisons. Two great empires, around at the same time, thriving by different means. If any part of it is a problem, use the talk page, and discuss it properly. I see no valid reason to delete the entire article. Dream Focus 21:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: A flagrant violation of Wikipedia's basic principles of Synthesis, Original research and Neutral point of view. This effort strongly reminds of the amateurish - and often resentful - attempts at empire comparisons now so popular in wargame forums (and it seems no chance that Teeninvestor, the main contributor and defender, registered barely a week before he began his work on the 'article').

In reality, both empires never had any direct political relationship or even contact on which a valid, encyclopedic comparison could be based. It takes no Albert to see that the whole 'comparison' and its pseudo-scientific 'conclusions' are just a matter of stacking the deck: Take a high count of, say, population size for that empire and compare it with some low count from the other, and you will almost certainly arrive to the desired conclusion. Take a favourable scholarly opinion of the empire, and contrast it with a negative or slighlty outdated one of the other one, and you come to the the desired conclusion. What can our readers hope to learn from that? They rely on us that we present information in a neutral and informed way, but this is next to impossible with such a comparison detached from historical reality.

One year ago, when this article just survived so the first Articles for deletion nomaination, many users who then decided to vote for keep did so with the explicit hope and wish that the fundamental issues of the article will be addressed soon. But the main - and I would maintain insoluble - problem has remained just the same. Not only are the given 'facts' still terribly wrong (and largely unsourced), but there is hardly any actual comparison between the two political entities. And the little there is, is palpably distorted and biased.

As it stands, the 'article' is a sorry effort with a foregone conclusion towards the - alleged - Han China viewpoint. But if it had been the other way round, favouring some Roman viewpoint, it would have been not one bit better. If we go down that path of forcing to compare what only true and unbiased experts at best should compare, we will soon be confronted with more insoluble task like Comparison between the USA and USSR or Comparison between the British and French Empire. I don't want to become Wikipedia a playground for nationalistic sentiments under the disguise of talking about history, therefore the strongest of all delete from my mind and my heart. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STUBIFY AND START OVER... Yes, there are good sources out there... but as is, the article still has serious WP:SYNT issues. It has been explained time and time again how this article needs to be sourced by reliable sources that directly compare the various aspects of the two empires being discussed... and while there are a few sources now cited that seem to meet this criteria, the bulk of the article remains problematic. I think there is enough to merit an article... just. So... I would recommend keeping the article, but taking a meat cleaver to it... cut anything that even remotely smells of Synthesis, but keep the little bit that is properly sourced. Then rebuild with a strict adhearence to WP:OR. Blueboar (talk) 21:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - Article is a gross violation of WP:SYNTHESIS. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 21:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Comparing two things an author wants to compare is not an encyclopedic topic. What about Comparison between Roman Empire and modern Uruguay? More to the point, this article seems to be in large part an attempt to make the Roman Empire look bad. Consider that contains sentences like this: "Nothing underlines the backwardness of the west more than the fact for thousands of years millions of human beings plowed the earth in a manner which was so wasteful of effort, and so utterly exhausting, that this deficiency of sensible plowing may rank as mankind's greatest waste of time and energy. Only the Chinese freed themselves from the tyranny of bad plows." This is not only a violation of WP:SYNTH, it's a bad article. If someone wants to present a scholars theory of these differences, it should be under the scholar's article, or under "So-and-So's Theory of the difference between . . . ." --Glenfarclas (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to above HongQiGong has posted twice and the quote in question is actually a direct quote from a book by Robert Temple, compiled from the work of Joseph Needham.Teeninvestor (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted it - [7]. Thanks for pointing that out. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And it wasn't my fault my vote was posted twice! [8] :) Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stubify The subject has been treated in independent sources, so we should have an article on it. But the current article is hampered by beeing largely original research. Taemyr (talk) 22:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a standard comparison, and many of the sources make it. It's a standard comparison because it is such an obvious one because of the timing, and because of the almost complete cultural isolation between the two. It's not that the people writing the article have chosen one European and one Asian empire at random. I doubt anyone has compared the Napoleonic Empire of the Middle Ages with the Han, or the classical Roman empire with the Ming, or the Byzantine empire with Meiji Japan. I see someone gave an even more example a little above, and concluded that this was equal. Problems with the article are to be solved by editing. POV articles in Wikipedia need to be rewritten, but that does not mean they need to be deleted. If the editors at an article do not agree on this, there are multiple ways to call it to wider attention. I recommend the NPOV Noticeboard. DGG ( talk ) 22:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You say "it's a standard comparison because of the almost complete cultural isolation between the two". How paradox is that? By that token, almost any political entity, however deconnected, can be compared with any other before our globalized age... Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been stubified per Taemyr; all sections sourced purely to a source that describes just one empire has been removed. The remaining content is all cited with only citations that discuss both empires.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong disagree: Why is that done? The 'article' roams freely the Wikipedia space for one year, but once a AfD starts all potentially controversial contents is suddenly removed to make it appear better? How can people judge the article now? Tell me this is a joke. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A curious claim, since neither of the things mentioned has been done. The alleged stubbification is this version: eight sections, most of them cited to sources dealing with only one empire (Mclynn, Robertson, Grant for Rome; for China, Needham and the textbook from Inner Mongolia which assures us the Han were deists). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I undid any edit to the point of time this AfD started. All users should be allowed a fair opportunity to form their opinion on the article as it actually is. This is not exactly helpt by edits which remove 3/4th (!!) of the article contents. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well in any case, the stubbification has been reversed by User:Gun Powder Ma, a curious claim since much editing work was done during the 1st AFD.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Normally, I !vote delete on comparison articles, but sometimes they are needed for one people familiar with one topic to have a better understanding of the other, such as Comparison of Star Trek and Star Wars. In this instance, the Roman Empire and the Han Empire were, during the first century AD, the two most advanced civilizations on the planet, each of which would influence the culture of "West" and "East" respectively, and they had trade with each other through intermediaries. Of the two Empires, there's one of which Wikipedia's American-British crowd is very familiar with, and the other about which they have never been taught a damn thing in school. I can understand the objections about parts of the article that are too much of the Western point-of-view, although what I would prefer to see is the Chinese POV. I know how ancient history was taught to us in the United States (hint: 49% Greece, 49% Rome, 2% everywhere else), but I have no clue about what students in China have been taught about the world of what we call the first century AD. Most American/British/Australian Wikipedians may be able to name several Caesars, but not a single Han Emperor. Mandsford (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article may be severely flawed, but that does not mean the subject matter is. It certainly needs a good cleanup, but that does not mean it needs to be deleted, it just means it needs to be fixed. Would you throw away a car just because it had some problems? --The High Fin Sperm Whale (Talk · Contribs) 23:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this article is a car then the engine's rusted to pieces, the steering is stuck so the car only goes in circles, and it would be cheaper to buy a new car. Nev1 (talk) 23:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I checked wikipedia policy never said we should delete an article to improve it.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And are you suggesting we delete this article and recreate a fixed up version? Seems silly to me. I think the easiest and best thing to do is just give a good cleanup. --The High Fin Sperm Whale (Talk · Contribs) 00:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem with analogies, they fall apart if you look at them too hard (and my weak attempt at wit didn't appear to help). The article needs deleting in its current state needs deleting for the reasons stated above. However, if reliable sources properly covering the subject, rather than tendentious essays stretched to breaking point and contorted to weakly support the article, it can be recreated. Nev1 (talk) 00:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per first time, SYNTHESIS, etc etc, per the article comparing VN and Iraq that got binned YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 00:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~STRONG DELETE~~ Teeninvestor's article has yet to show a very good grasp of both countries histories. In history, most comparisons of this nature are made in light of trying to figure out historiography so should be considered in theory rather than as fact. The approach for the article is fact. For similar "ground-breaking" approaches see Toby E. Huff's The Rise of Early Modern Science:Islam, China and the West. The scholars of the field take such an argument as useful for further understanding what distinguished the science of all three civilizations during the 13th-15th centuries. This argument comparing the Han and Roman empires, appears to be of about the same importance. As pointed out on the talk page of the article, if historians give much credit to the comparison, their will be much more literature about it in the coming years, however I sincerely doubt if any one scholar has the authority and breadth of understanding to compare the whole of the Roman Empire and the Han Empire. This topic would be approached with either the intention of furthering one position of the other. The lack of accessible sources, or perhaps the lack of sources in English, make such an article very, very problematic. SADADS (talk) 00:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's an excellent point indeed and so far splendidly missed by as much the article itself and those who voted for keep. Such theoretical, aloof comparisons have never been an end in itself for historians, but always been meant to shed light on some other, real questions of historical importance. A point totally missed by the article whose whole approach is rather one of letting gladiators compete against one another. Obviously, this type of article is always bound to fall in the trap of a lame zero sum game and therefore encyclopedically worthless and even outright dangerous to Wikipedia ideals. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Many editors seem to want to "delete the article" and start over. This is a fallacy- if you wish to start over, delete the whole thing and replace it with your information and/or add your own. Never has wikipedia policy recommended deleting an article that is notable and on the subject to "start over"- that would be a massive distortion of our policy.Teeninvestor (talk) 00:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong KEEP For some reason, two books from Oxford University Press, specifically focused on this subject:
Scheidel, Walter (ed.) 2008 Rome and China: comparative perspectives on ancient world empires, page 68 (Oxford University Press) 9780195336900

Fritz-Heiner Mutschler and Achim Mittag (eds.), Conceiving the Empire: China and Rome Compared, Oxford University Press, 2008

Oxford University professors is not a good enough source for these volunteer editors? Are any of these editors claiming to be more authoritative on the "Rome and China: comparative perspectives on ancient world empires" than the many sources here?

WP:INTROTODELETE: "Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article. It is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved."

Ikip (talk) 01:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note myself, the bot User:Erwin85Bot,[9] User:Gun Powder Ma (for the previous AFD) and User:Teeninvestor (at least once)[10] have notified editors who have worked on the article before and/or been involved in the previous AFD. Ikip (talk) 01:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question is there any auto way to notify such editors. Because doing such manually isn't productive, and also brings canvas accusations time to time.

Comment I believe talk of WP:OR and WP:SYNT for this article is unjustified. The direct comparisons in this article are sourced; otherwise, the information has been listed seperately- which DOES NOT constitute synthesis. If i put two pieces of information close together, it does not constitute WP:SYNT(which is defined as the creation of new conclusions and ideas). For example, putting the seperately sourced statements: Apples are red and oranges are orange together does not create any new conclusions or ideas, and therefore can be used even if the citation only refers to apples/oranges, instead of both.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You most certainly can form a synthesis by placing two pieces of information in close proximity. And you do not need to state the conclusion outright... Leading the reader to an obviously implied conclusion is just as bad as one that is stated outright. We can not juxtapose two pieces of information unless a reliable source has juxtaposed those same pieces of information. Doing so most definitely is OR. Now, it seems that there are a few reliable sources that have directly compared specific aspects of Roman and Han society... and to the extent that we paraphrase and summarize what these sources say about those specific aspects, the article is fine... but, the article goes far beyond what these few sources say. It sets up a comparison between aspects that have not been compared before. That is the very definition of OR. In other words... the topic is valid, but the current article is seriously flawed... it is a keeper, but it needs major surgery. Blueboar (talk) 13:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article blatantly violates Wikipeida's policies of original research, synthesis, neutral point of view, encyclopedic, and indiscriminated, and is often inaccurate to boot. An article on this topic could be useful, as long as it is accurate and in line with Wikipedia's policies, but the current state of the article is so flawed that the best thing to do, in my opinion, is just to delete the article as a whole and start anew. Laurinavicius (talk) 04:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep by Improving per inclusionism. I didn't read all of the article, or deletion discussions. The nominator states many issues with the article, he might be true. Yet, it is editors job to fix such issues. And without being specifically tagging, article sections, OR claims or NPOV statements 1 by 1 in the article, I cannot accept deletion nomination of such a long and hardwork article to waste other editors and readers time. Instead wasting our time at AFD, why don't you delete voters try improving the article if you have knowledge in the issue. If you do not volunteer, the article may wait until some expert editors may be willing to improve it. It is always easier to improve an existing article than starting a new. If some claim otherwise, they may always start a new article in their WP:SANDBOX and may prove us how easy it is. When it is other editors time, people sparingly claim "delete and start a new one" while they generally don't "start any" article. Kasaalan (talk) 10:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~They generally don't engage in any article work, as they're too busy going from one AFD to another~~.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This looks very much like a personal attack - Kasaalan is simply ignoring our policies and guidelines and arguing against any deletions so far as I can see, which is his right, but you appear to be claiming that the delete voters here 'generally don't engage in any article work'. You might want to strike out the statement above if you can't actually back it up with evidence. Dougweller (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have strucken it out at Dougweller's request. The statement, actually, should read something more like: They don't generally engage in any article work on the article they are trying to delete, even when the source is right in front of them and they're talking about it!Teeninvestor (talk) 20:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One doesnt need to work to improve an article to weigh in on an AFD. AFD is NOT for articles that need improvement. if such an article does come up here, we can refer it to the rescue squadron while also arguing for keep. i WILL add refs to articles i think dont deserve deletion, and that to my eye can be easily improved, but if i dont think an article subject is CAPABLE of being rescued, why bother improving it? the only exception ive made to that is removing BLP violations immediately. And i have also changed my "vote" a few times, usually when someone presents a particularly cogent argument (but usually not due to new information added to article), or in one case where the subject was devilishly hard to research at first (due to a poorly chosen article name and way too few references or notability reasons given). Teeninvestor, your comment is still an unfair personal attack. again, why should i bother to try to improve an article once i have read it, checked the references, checked the arguments here at the afd, and determined to MY satisfaction that it deserves deletion? not a poorly written article, but an unencyclopedic article? i have in fact voted to keep extremely poorly written articles which appear to be capable of expansion, as long as the premise contains a core idea that can be defended as appropriate for WP and the article is not wildly inaccurate or overreaching.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request information[edit]

I would like to know what the WP guidelines say about the editing process while an AfD is underway? Because, once this AfD started, all of a sudden a frantical editing process started and a third of the article has been removed. This hyperactivity smacks a bit of foul play, at least it is patently absurd. How can contributors to this debate form an informed opinion if they don't get to see the article as it was published for so long? Obviously, the users have a right to judge the article based on the version from the time when the AfD was made, not some face-lifted version. If the community decision is to keep the article, we have still all the time in the world for thorough editing. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gun Powder Ma, are you out of your head? When does wikipedia Prohibit improvement of an article? Editing during AFD is not bad; in fact, it is encouraged. Or else, what is the article rescue squadron? You are so biased and malicious towards this article that you're trying to prevent anyone from working on it to improve it? What the heck do you think you're doing? Who the heck do you think you are? Jimbo? Teeninvestor (talk) 02:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Gun Powder Ma, please read the little notice box on placed at the top of the article when the AFD was started: "Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed." I have encountered many articles for the first time when I found them at AFD, and have edited them into acceptability such that the AFD nomination was withdrawn and they were kept. That is a benefit to the encyclopedia. It is utterly incorrect to insist that the article cannot be improved during the AFD, and that an up-or-down vote on its form at the beginning of the AFD is all that is allowed. We are judging to a large extent the notability of the topic and the availability of reliable sources to create an encyclopedic article which meets our guidelines and policies, rather than the motivation of the article creator. So let other editors remove POV or unreferenced portions. Undoing such improvements is not acceptable at all. Edison (talk) 16:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and rewrite per WP:BEFORE. This is definitely a legitimate encyclopedic topic, and has the potential to be (even acknowledged by the nominator) but not in its current state. That being said, all of the problems (e.g. WP:SYNTH, WP:NPOV) are capable of being fixed by simple editing. If that means that most of this article is cut down, so be it, but the topic itself is notable. Gun Powder Ma's repeated attempts to "preserve" the article are also disturbing. The optimal purpose of AfD is not deletion, but transforming the articles under discussion into a viable article. I see no reason why the creator, Teeninvestor, should be stopped from doing so. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the second AfD; he's had a year. While I agree that the ideal outcome would be salvaging the article, the reduced version here is as bad as the original. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we do want to approach this article as legitimate, it should be given redirection to just what the scholars say, not a slew of research which appears to support the position. If that means cutting it down to a summary of the position and the major points that the authors made and comparing the two, so be it. But the extensive support for the argument created in the current article through original research and interpretation IS NOT ENCYCLOPEDIC, as yet only two oxford scholars have dealt with this very broad comparative subject. (Again I can't imagine having the expertise for the research for such a study, you would have to know several dialects of chinese and Latin and Greek to sufficiently cover the scholarship in such topics.) SADADS (talk) 03:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no matter how good and change WP policy to forbid comparison articles An encyclopedia is to give facts, not to make comparisons. Please consider that if there are 100 items that could reasonably be compared it would take 10,000 articles to compare each one to each other one. And really no new information would be given in the 10,000 that was not in the 100.Northwestgnome (talk) 05:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Northwestgnome here has it about right. "Comparison of..." topics are valid essay topics, but not encyclopedia topics. The encyclopedia way is to present individual topics about individual entities. Not everything that reliable sources get written about out there is automatically a topic for an encyclopedia. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as per SADADS. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per the above two arguments, which really lay out my point of view on this. Seems to be unsuitable for an encyclopedia topic, and seems to be unbalanced in places in terms of sources and emphasis on either one empire or the other. Skinny87 (talk) 10:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as one of the most useful articles on Wikipedia. I've already saved this article to my hard drive, not because I plan on bringing it back if this AfD ends in deletion, but because I need it, for reference, as there's nothing else on the Internet that could serve as a substitute. (And as I mentioned in the first AfD, the reason I found this article in the first place was because I was searching the Internet for information about the differences between the Roman and Han empires.) -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 13:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I thought this was deleted the first time as already back then it did not make any sense at all - comparing the Han Empire with the Roman Empire; huh? what is next: comparing 16th century French and Chinese Cuisine, to prove that the later is better... I think User:Future Perfect at Sunrise is right by stating that wikipedia is here to present individual topics and not draw up arbitrary conclusions! Therefore do, what should have been done the first time around: Delete! --noclador (talk) 13:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very much agree, though I think the point Blueboar is making in above section, should be thought about. SADADS (talk) 13:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Could a renaming and restructuring resolve the problems here? Instead of entitling the article "Comparison between Roman and Han Empires"... what if we renamed it "Comparisons of Roman and Han Empires"? This would refocus the article away from talking about the two empires (which invites OR juxtaposition of how they were the same/different) to talking about sources and what they say. Blueboar (talk) 14:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very good idea, i think it would be a good compromise. It would definitely have to include a large cutting down of material. All sources which do not make this type of analysis would have to be excluded. Anyone else's thoughts?SADADS (talk) 14:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse this proposal.Teeninvestor (talk) 17:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: How could a restructuring hope to solve the insoluble problems with such juxtapositions? Let's consider one example: The maximum population size of Han China was by scholarly consensus ca. 55 Mio. But the maximum population size of the Roman Empire differed, depending on the method of calculation, between 55 Mio. and 100 Mio. Given the oscillation in the numbers, how can we hope to make a fair comparison? Depending on which author you prefer to follow, the Imperium was just as populated or twice as populated as the Han Empire. Doing a comparison under these circumstances is meaningless and always bound to be unbalanced. Better treat the subject in individual articles where it belongs. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a restructuring to aknowledge that such a scholarly position exists, not to prove that it is a valid point. SADADS (talk) 15:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can the vast mass of readers who are unaware of such Wiki guideline subtleties really tell the difference? Personally, I don't believe so. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many users are looking for information about the comparison. If properly referenced and discussed, Wikipedia can act as an appropriate tertiary source analysing the scholarship in the field. I don't know what you are worried about. SADADS (talk) 16:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I already gave you an example which you may want to discuss. And let's be clear that there is actually very few scholarship in this field (none of which was btw dealt with in the article). And even this is very specialized, preliminary and does not even touch a fifth of the subjects covered in the WP article. And it is rather in the form of an essay, not at all rigid analysis. But, on the other hand, there is a vast majority of classicist of both Ancient Rome and China who have never done such a 'comparison' and would never dream of making them, knowing their futility. Should we disregard entirely their silent votum because of one, two voices to the contrary? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Oh, GunPowderMa has his own pro-Roman axe to grind here - e.g., he spent a lot of effort a while back (and gave me a medium sized headache in the process) trying to push the theory that the Romans invented the taijitu. he is not unbiased on these issues. My main worry with comparison articles is that they invariably create implicit meanings. the minute you compare apples to oranges you imply that apples and oranges have something special between them that isn't shared by bananas, persimmons and pears. If scholars are doing that already, or if that's a well-established cultural theme, then that's not a problem. but wikipedia shouldn't be pushing a new comparison, even if it's a decent comparison to make. --Ludwigs2 17:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not exactly new if there have already been books and papers published on this subject... Even the nominator agreed that this topic is notable. It's just that Gun Powder Ma wishes to delete this article because it offends his POV pro-Roman agenda(they invented gun powder if you ask him). By the way, Ludwigs2, there is an entire category of comparisons articles; see Category:Comparisons and Comparison between Star Trek and Star Wars.Teeninvestor (talk) 17:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the correct title is Comparison of Star Trek and Star Wars. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 17:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look, TI, I'll confess that I personally find your (and GPM's) particular style of historical jingoism distasteful, and I am tired of grinding against the same knee-jerk responses with every single post. Making a point once is informative, making it twice is emphatic, making it five (or six, or seven) times is bullying. Stop it. I am not saying there is never a case for comparison articles, and I reject utterly the (absolutely silly) idea that because we allow one comparison article we should allow all of them. I am saying that I don't believe this article is worthy of inclusion in the particular form that it has taken. I might change my Delete vote to a Stubify and Rewrite vote if I see evidence that this is an established academic discussion or a matter of interest to the greater public, but looking at the material presented, it seems to be a niche interest of a couple of cautious scholars and a few die-hard fans such as yourself. how does that meet wp:V? --Ludwigs2 17:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This page needs improvement but it is a topic which gets academic treatment and is certainly notable. I don't think deleting a page simply because you don't like its current state is constructive tho maybe a good pruning would be justified.Dejvid (talk) 18:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article rambles on at incredible length, telling us some things about the Roman Empire and then some things about Han China. These topics are presumably already covered in the two respective articles, and it is not encyclopedic to just juxtapose the information from sources which talk about only one of the systems. That runs afoul of SYNTHESIS and WP:OR. Two apparently scholarly sources are listed in previous discussion and by Ikip above, which explicitly compare the two contemporaneous world powers. That is pretty skimpy for such a long article. To keep this article, which frankly does tend to say "My heritage is better than your heritage" based on sources from an era of legend, before modern notions of historical accuracy questioned the logistics of feeding an army of hundreds of thousands, and making dubious claims of science and technology not based on archeology. I would need to see far more independent and reliable sources with explicit comparisons of the economy, military, agriculture, science, etc. I doubt that every gadget someone wrote about was in common use, any more than Leonardo writing about submarines, tanks, and flying machines means they were in widespread use in Europe in his lifetime. I object to comparing Chinese accounts of the size of Chinese armies with Roman accounts of the size of Roman armies. We need scholars to have done the necessary discounting of legend and fantasy. I would be surprised if there had not been a great many such scholarly comparisons, just as I have seen sources contrasting science in the Moslem world with science in the western Europe during the Middle Ages. The basis of the article should be the general scholarly view expressed in works explicitly comparing the two. If a large enough body of such scholarly comparisons and contrasts exist, then there is the basis for an article, and it can be kept and improved rather than "deleted and then started again." Edison (talk) 17:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as others have said more eloquently, we are here to present individual topics, not to make comparisons between them, no matter how well-written or useful. Those defending this may wish to consult WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: So you want to delete the entire category of comparison articles(there are at least a dozen on wikipedia)? Perhaps check them out before you talk?Teeninvestor (talk) 20:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps avoid ignoratio elenchi and address the argument that was actually made? - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The comparison of these civilizations is a topic in its own right. Living forms are best understood by comparison. Thats why theres work on this subject not just by the sources mentioned even by the nom, but many others like Nikolai Danilevsky, Giovanni Battista Vico, W. M. Flinders Petrie, Carol Quiddly and the sublime Spengler. Theres already enough sources present to easily establish notability and that there are no fundamental issue here with Synth and OR. With all due respect to the nom, the article isnt up for FA status so theres no grounds to insist anyone spends several months researching what Arnie "Wall of Text" Toynbee had to say on the subject. A very enjoyable article! FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nikolai Danilevsky, Giovanni Battista Vico, W. M. Flinders Petrie, Carol Quiddly and the sublime Spengler None of whom are cited in the article, any more than Toynbee, although most of them would be improvements (Vico is a tad dated, and says very little on China; is Petrie truly reliable on anything?). As I said, an article on this subject could certainly be written, but it would be verbally disjoint from this one. I have no objection to Teeninvestor keeping this OR in his user space, but why should it be an article? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Pmandersen, for an editor that has been on wikipedia for so long, how could you not understand even a bit of our wikipedia policy? Since when have article quality been an argument for deletion(deletion is about notability, BLP, etc..)? If there's problems, fix them! It seems you have no understanding whatsoever of wikipedia's deletion policy.Teeninvestor (talk) 04:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - The purpose of our policy is not to be any editor's error-ridden vanity press. Unsalvagable articles have always been deleted.
      - If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Now that's policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        An article with numerous scholarly sources available and which is a notable topic is hardly "unsalvagable".Teeninvestor (talk) 15:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Specific citations, please of works where these or other scholars made comparisons of Rome and China relevant to the topic. Throwing names around is unconvincing. I could say "Albert Camus, Albert Einstein, & Albert Schweitzer" and it would similarly signify nothing, without a specific citation. Edison (talk) 04:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Giambattista Vico's work dates to the 18th century and is concerned with a meta-theory of the rise and fall of civilizations. So is Oswald Spengler's The Decline of the West. None of them do a specific comparison between Rome and Han in the remotest terms. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Im disappointed at the failure to AGF here – it should be obvious from the work of TeenInvestor that the scholarship of Article Rescue Squad members is second to none! Asking for verification is one thing, flat out contradicting claims made by the ARS is just rude - it amounts to suggesting were either incompetent or lying. Lets have some respect! Before posting to this discussion Id already improved the article with cites to Quiddly . As for Spengler, hes all about comparing civilizations - thats why hes one of the most prominently listed scholars over at Comparative history. To see him specifically compare the Han and Roman empires, look at this table which is from the now public domain DofW. Even if you cant read German it should be clear hes comparing the Han and Roman empires in adjacent columns near the bottom. DotW contains several other specific comparisons of the two empires, which you can easily verify by downloading an English version of the book from a number of places just by googling "Decline of the West pdf" . For example, in the second volume , search for the phrase "Chinese Trajan" to find a nice long passage comparing the two empires. I hope you wont find it POV just because it says the Huns were easily broke on the "Limes" of the Han but then went on to successfully cause the break up of the Roman empire! (all be it partly by the proxy of Germanic tribes) Sources dont have to be actually present in the article to establish its notable, as it says in WP:Notability "Remember that all Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article can be notable if such sources exist even if they have not been added at present". So I wont be further participating in this discussion or improving the article for now – Ive previously massively improved an article with very recent top line Oxford University Press and similar sources specifically on the subject only to see it deleted due to deletionist intransigence. But if this article is saved and Teeninvestor agrees, Ill add a section sourced mainly to Spengler comparing the spiritual outlook / macro development of the two empires which will nicely complement the excellent work already present. Im not saying arguments made by deletionsists prove they are dishonest as not all editions of DoW have the pull out table comparing the empires, and if theyve only read the abridged version there is much less specific comparison of the Han with Rome, however I dont think it could be clearer that at least some of the claims made by deletionsists here are unequivocally and demonstrably false. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary break[edit]

Delete or possibly reduce to a very brief stub -- This article is a confection. It does not "compare" them: in most respects, it merely shows how different they were. If kept, it needs to cite much better sources than Encarta; BBC; The reliance on Worlds apart is also too heavy. The article does cite some academci works comparing the two empires, so that I cannot argue that this is non-encyclopaedic, but the whole can be summarised as "They were quite different in many respects". Peterkingiron (talk) 14:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Note Encarta and BBC have long been removed for a source.Teeninvestor (talk) 16:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not so. As of this moment, citations to Encarta remain. cmadler (talk) 03:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment over why AFDs should be replaced AFDs are biggest failure of wikipedia currently. We vote whether we keep an article or not, right. To be able to vote, we should either read the article fully, or partly, or hardly at all, let alone evaluating references. If we don't read article or evaluate references, how we vote. And even if we read, can't we spend same amount of time with improving article, instead debating here by wasting our time. Also since there is an AFD and not an AFA (articles for archival where the deleted articles of wikipedia would be archived-stored until some registered editors will bother to improve it and readd them to wikipedia) we clearly waste our time. The whole AFD process should be replaced by a new AFA (Articles of Archival) process. Where can I make such a request, since all this non-copyright AFDs become more and more waste of a time. Kasaalan (talk) 15:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We aren't exactly voting, we should be putting forth arguments based upon our policies and guidelines, and the closer's job is to determine the strength of those arguments, not the number of people saying 'keep' or 'delete', although this does happen far too often. Dougweller (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment It is a vote based on guideline interpretation. Yet again most of the voters (or article reviewers as you say) don't even fully read the article, just as the admins who only read the discussion and don't fully read the articles before deletion. Instead reading AFD discussions, reading and improving the articles, is a much better way to solve issues, instead debating over whether it should be deleted or keep. Kasaalan (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've read the article. The way to improve it is to start over. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Then instead deleting page, create a new version in talk page, or in WP:SANDBOX so you can make an easy and better version. How about that. Kasaalan (talk) 22:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Kasaalan, maybe you can enlighten me - I don't see any encyclopedic value to this page. there is (so far as I can tell) nothing in the text here that a reader could not gather by looking at the Han Dynasty and Roman Empire pages separately and making their own comparisons. This page merely duplicates and juxtaposes information that ought to be on the separate articles. there doesn't seem to be a huge academic literature devoted specifically to comparing the empires. so why do we need this article at all? --Ludwigs2 22:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Conceiving the Empire: China and Rome Compared Ikip mentions this book - the remarkable thing about this is that it basically don't make comparisons, it has separate chapters dealing with various aspects of one or the other empire separately. This took me by surprise when I read it. As I recall, I did find a sentence or two that did direct comparisons, but that was all. Dougweller (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please put this comment of yours in bold, because that did strike me, too. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is funny to watch the deletionists make arguments such as "all the parts are sourced by sources dealing with only one of the two empires", when in fact ALL of the remaining paragraphs are sourced to sources which compare the two directly.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Footnotes 9 and 10 are to Sun Tzu. Do tell us: where does he discuss Rome? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The remaining paragraphs are sourced to sources which compare the two directly , but additional details can still be supplied by other sources. For example, in an article titled Comparison between Apples and oranges, it would be still be acceptable to use a source denoted only to apples to source "apples are red". But the primary sources are still those who compare the two directly . Another example would be that in an article discussing Modern Chinese economic history, it would not be violative of WP:SYNT to use a source discussing Chinese culture to source the statement "The cultural revolution began in 1966" (Something of interest to the article, undoubtedly). All it provides are additional details.Teeninvestor (talk) 16:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Let's see: the other sources on the same paragraph are a textbook summary (for one preposterous claim, that the Han conscripted 2% of a high estimate of their entire population; even our author adds an allegedly - he would do better to omit the unreliable and tertiary source) and " Li Bo, Zheng Yin, "5000 years of Chinese history", Inner Mongolian People's publishing corp , ISBN 7-204-04420-7, 2001". Tell me, what does this conveniently unavailable provincial Chinese textbook have to say about Rome? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's another intrinsic and insoluble problem with this comparison. If we accept only those works which specifically make a comparison, which is here the consensus among users pro and contra deletion alike, we are left with a situation in which we allow non-experts to speak about matters which are not their field of specialization. As with this unknown Chinese author from Inner Mongolia who enlightens us about the Roman Empire as if the thousands of committed scholars publishing month in, month out Roman studies were non-existent. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Actually that source doesn't even mention Rome; it is just used for adding details.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        That concedes that all but one of the notes to that paragraph are from texts that do not discuss both empires; the remaining reference isn't a comparison either. Why is it still standing? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Do tell me why you would make that statement when several citations from wwnorton.com are still there?Teeninvestor (talk) 03:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This article has no encyclopedic use Hawobo (talk) 17:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Hawobo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note This editor has made less than 30 edits to wikipedia and he shows up right here? Suspicious.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- ~~Delete current content, rebuild from sourced references explicitly comparing the two~~. changed to weak keep with further editing i myself cannot tell how much of this is OR and how much is straightforward referencing of sources. this really should be a short article on the historiography related to the two empires. in other words, it should read like "the two empires, due to their prominence, etc, have been compared numerous times by various historians. this is a summary of some of the comparisons given". however, if someone who doesnt have a POV to push (and i simply cannot accept that many of the contributers dont have strong pov's, sorry, but AGF is hard at times) can weigh in and show that this is indeed a fair summary of already published comparisons, then i guess its ok, but doubt this is possible. reads to me like a college essay, not an encyc. article. some of the references cited are not scholarly papers, but more like college course summaries intended to build critical thinking skills in this area. i would much prefer peer reveiwed papers be cited here. (and im not an academic, for what its worth) (see below for further comments after changes were made).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Mercurywoodrose hit the nail right on the head with that comment. cmadler (talk) 00:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Mercurywoodrose, this article does have many scholarly sources, if you would take a look at the sources section.Teeninvestor (talk) 03:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I see some changes have been made, emphasizing the scholarly references. i still think some of the statements need to be explicitly stated as having been written by the source writers, or removed, and that the essay form of this article will always be suspicious to many critical readers if we dont distance ourselves from the statements. I do acknowledge that Teeninvestor seems to have taken my suggestion seriously, which i appreciate. i am willing to AGF that this can be improved enough, but i again acknowledge that i dont have enough personal or professional knowledge of the subject here to judge it on its content, only the structure as i think it should be done. again, i think a focus on "this scholar made the following comparisons, and then this one made these, and there is this ongoing dispute, and there is this general agreement as documented here" is safest, and can direct curious people to the ACTUAL debates. and i wont be able to argue effectively against people here who show greater knowledge of the subject, so this may end up deleted or userfied.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - None of the deletes are even close to convincing. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Notify: Very shortly after his vote, Ottava Rima has been blocked for the duration of a year in a pending case. This vote here was his last action apart from talkpage edits. Given the vacuousness of his argument pro keep, I am proposing to disregard his vote. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment If Ottava Rima's vote is to be disregarded for that reason alone, then at least half the delete votes here which consist of "No articles on comparisons on wikipedia!" would have to be discarded also. That being said, I am neutral on this proposal.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Its about arguments not voting. And was he banned for any reason that would make his comment here not matter? If he was banned for using a sockpuppet, they would've automatically removed his recent post in any AFD. Dream Focus 21:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article really dont belongs into an encyclopedia. It just throws some facts about the Roman and the Han empire together and also seems to be slightly biased in favor of the Han Empire. However this article adds no new knowledge, repeating only facts from the main articles of the empires. StoneProphet (talk) 02:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete without prejudice~~ - Serious synthesis and other original research issues. I am not against the recreation of the article without original research, it has been pointed out that such sources exist. I don't think the current article is a good starting point for such an endeavor though. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but improve - The article in its current state is significantly improved from the version this AfD started with. OR and synthesis issues are being addressed and I have been shown enough sources on the subject to convince me a proper article can be made. I am switching to keep but if it still has original research in 6 months I will support deletion. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete synthesis and OR. We have articles on both empires, and don't need one which seeks to 'compare' them. Nick-D (talk) 02:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Outrageous OR. Topic area worthy of consideration, this article is not.--Rootless Juice (talk) 07:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Rootless_Juice (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note This editor has made less than 30 edits to wikipedia and he shows up right here? Suspicious.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sorry, this is the wrong venue for this interesting but novel content. Wikiversity or some other sister project would, I am sure, welcome it. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Would move to Wikiversity be an option? I don't see why the entire article should be razed to the ground. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 02:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That would be a variety of deletion; one reason for deletion is that an article has gone to a sister project. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Already has.Teeninvestor (talk) 03:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, great! This article can then be speedy deleted under A5 (transwikied articles). cmadler (talk) 14:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research, massive synthesis, the entire structure defies placement in an encyclopedia.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment per Cmadler, Blueboar, SADADS, and others, the article has been restructured to include only scholarly sources and has been restructured to scholarly comparisons only. In fact, every section remaining in the article can be attributed to these sources.Teeninvestor (talk) 16:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Most deletes are "I don't like it, and so it shouldn't be in the Wikipedia". Are there books about this article's subject? Is the information in the article not referenced to these credible sources? If some parts of it are not, then tag and discuss them, they able to be removed from the article. Dream Focus 21:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The "some parts" which are not sourced - or sourceable- to such sources (most of which are themselves highly controversial, and should be used with caution, noting that we are discussing noteworthy but disputed opinions) are all - or perhaps almost all - of the article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Uh, please take a look at the article again. Which part of it is not "sourced" to such sources?Teeninvestor (talk) 22:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Almost all of it; it would be easier to pick out the sentences which are sourced to reliable secondary sources which are about the comparison between Rome and China. I will do that if the closer chooses to preserve this travesty, since the keep opinions (aside, of course, from the author's disinterested opinion, so often inserted in this discussion) suggest trimming that far. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Can you give me a specific part, pmanderson? I just checked the citations and sources page and there was not a single citation or source that was not from the work of a reputable scholar. As to your comment on trimming, perhaps you have not followed the article as closely as others have. It has already been stubbified and all remaining content is from scholarly sources.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Ah, I see it's been revised yet again, recently. As it now stands, it should be moved to Walter Scheidel as a stub on his theories - and the redirect deleted, since his opinions are the overwhelmingly main source (and the other source is either unreliable or misrepresented: anybody who asserts that the idea of universal empire was new with the Romans knows nothing about Greek history). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Don't exactly think that this would go well under a biography. And as to the other source, he is talking about the "tradition" of universal empire. While China was at least nominally unified under the Shang and Zhou Dynasties (which Qin and Han aspired to be successors), Greece doesn't exactly have a "tradition" of unified empire. Also, Italy was not part of Alexander's empire. As to the below comment, four sources actually. Not only Formation and monetary, but also collapse, governance, geographic differences, etc, is directly compared. (More available if you look through the source thoroughly). Also, pmanderson, is that a revisal of your delete vote? Teeninvestor (talk) 22:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        No, certainly not. Any article which begins by telling the reader that there was a Roman Empire in the second century BCE is beyond salvation. Scrap it, and Userify the bibliography, so that some future editor can write a real article on the subject. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was Ludwigs2's fault, actually.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- So let me see if I have this clear. The article now has two sources (one book by Scheidle and an essay by Yuri Pines), and only the Monetary and Formation sections are actually comparative? --Ludwigs2 22:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - In fact, there are four sources discussing all of the topics currently present. Also, as to your comment about a "few cautious scholars and diehard fans", perhaps you are unaware that stanford has dedicated an entire project to this topic. See [11].Teeninvestor (talk) 23:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break[edit]

Comment:The recent changes are window-dressing and demonstrate that the focus of the article is still as hazy and the research still as uninformed as it was when the AfD started. Just three points:
- Who for one is "Yuri Pines"? Never heard about him. This scholar seems to have no merits in Roman studies. His essay might prove useful for an article outlining general ideas on the relationship between empire and unity, but not more. What we are looking here for is true ancient economists, who have an authoritative say on matters. Classicists of the caliber like Keith Hopkins, Moses Finley or Lionel Casson, to name but a very few. But, again, these scholars never even dreamt of making a far-fetched comparison with Han China.
- "Both of the empires were unprecedented in size, duration, and unity." Unsourced, as practically the whole first paragraph, and hyperbolic as the thrust of the whole article. And, even if sourced, still false: The Persian Empire was demonstrably larger in size than both empires (8 mio. km2). In terms of duration, there is a very good case to make that Assyrian Empire (Neo-Assyria 300 years) existed longer, once the Middle Assyrian period (14-10th c. BC) is taken into consideration, too. An even better case can be made for the Sassanid Empire (224-651): 437 years as opposed to Han dynasty's 410 years (206 BC-9 AD, 25-220 AD).
- "Rome, on the other hand, never faced an enemy that was an existential threat (save for the Punic wars)". Actually, there were not many empires in history which faced more such threats to its existence, and the reason for that can be stated fairly objective: Unlike most other world empires, Rome's history began from the very modest beginnings of a city-state, and it had to fight its way up from there. It was only through countless military confrontations with other neighbouring military powers that it rose slowly through the ranks to first Italian hegemony, then Western, and finally all-Mediterranean hegemony. Three encounters which, apart from Hannibal constituted existential threats to Rome's existence were, for example, the Samnite Wars, the Celtic Sack of Rome (387 BC) or the War against the Germanic Cimbrians. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GPM, I'm sure there are many scholars that you've never heard of. That's why they don't have articles on wikipedia. Actually, for the first paragraph, it is all cited except for the 1st sentence, which is now changed. Also, as to your comments about Rome facing or not facing an existential threat, it's not a matter of what I say or you say. It's what the source said! Take it up with Scheidel. His point was that Rome did not face a highly competitive environment with highly organized enemiesin which whole states can be destroyed easily. The discipline of the Germanic tribes and the other city-states, for example, could not match the organization of the Roman army. A chinese warring state, however, had to face highly organized and centralized armies from its opponents.

But, Gun powder Ma, weren't you complaining about the abundance of WP:OR and WP:SYNT in the article? Can I please see some examples? Teeninvestor (talk) 02:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scheidel did not make such a point. You seem to be again in your wargaming frame of mind of trying to determine by force who was the more competitive empire. With such an work approach, any future article will soon amount to the same lame zero sum game it has now been for a year. There are already numerous 'comparisons' between te two empires in history forums, especially Chinese ones who seem to feel for whatever reason they have to prove a point. The one thread I intensively followed runs for three years now, has been closed a dozen times with numerous posters being permanently blocked. Consensus: none. Vitriole: very high. I really don't know why we should import this combative 'better than you' posting behaviour into an encyclopedia. The whole Internet is for conjecture, but Wiki should remain for facts. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I ask firstly, that you stop your frankly uncontributive and destructive personal attacks and strike them out. If your personal attacks continue, I will seek administrator action against you. Secondly, Contrary to your lies, Scheidel did in fact make this very point. If you would look on page 36 of the preview of the book (not available for some reason today), there is in fact the very verbatim quote. In fact, I reproduce this from another paper he wrote:

Beginning in 295 BCE, and certainly after 202 BCE, Rome did not normally face state-level competitors with matching mobilization potentials. This, and the consequent absence of prolonged inconclusive warfare against other states, obviated the need for farther-reaching domestic reforms promoting centralization and bureaucratization. In other words, the benefits of asymmetric warfare (against states that relied more on mercenaries in the eastern and southern Mediterranean and against less complex chiefdoms and tribes in the northern and western periphery) enabled Rome to succeed with less domestic re-structuring than was required in the intensely competitive environment of Warring States China.10

You have been directly contradicted.Teeninvestor (talk) 16:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is salvagable. Google books has 37 results for "comparison" "Roman" "Han Empires" [12] and when I change it to "Han Dynasty" I get 477 results, although the previous search seems to show better results right at the start. I added in a bit from National Geographic to the article. Does anyone doubt there are reliable sources for this topic? Dream Focus 03:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dream Focus: I do kind of doubt it, though I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. Actually, I'm still trying to figure out what this article does. Clearly the RE and the HD are comparable entities. But equally clearly (excuse the analogy) muppets and koala bears are comparable entities. Has anyone every written something that compares muppets to koala bears? Probably (google gives 19,000 results for that search string)... Does that make it a fit topic for a wikipedia article? Doubtful. I still think this falls under the "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" rubric. Unless I get some indication that someone has comparatively analyzed the RE and HD for some actual reason, I can't see this article's value. --Ludwigs2 06:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ludwigs2, for several reasons. Firstly, the two empires were around the same time, so comparing them is not anarchonistic. Secondly, the two empires shared many similarities (both were born out of a pre-existing civilization or polity that had been divided up, then unified it, and then collapsed into two halves, one conquered by the barbarian tribes and one maintaining traditional civilization). These two characteristics make the comparison a natural comparison, unlike say, the Ming Empire and France of Louis XIV, which had very little in common. For an anlysis of Roman and Han Empires, please see the article's five or six sources. As I said, Stanford dedicated an entire project to this topic. Teeninvestor (talk) 14:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Entirely disagree.
      1. The two empires had no direct contact and there was never any meaningful direct interaction taking place. This is a plain fact accepted by all scholarship.
      2. In China, the state followed the preexisting civilisation. But in Rome, the opposite development took place. Rome created a civilization by building up an empire. No offense intended, Teeinvestor, but I believe it has been now evident enough that your knowledge about Roman history is very slim indeed and further hampered by your preconception to force parallels where there aren't any. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - In fact, your statement is directly contradicted by Scheidel:

Both the Roman and Qin-Han empires were built on templates provided by antecedent states and expanded into a widening ecumene: in the West, from the river cultures of the Middle East into the Mediterranean and on to continental Europe, in the East from the Wei and middle Yellow River valleys into the Central Plain and then on to the south. In the East, the basic context had been created by the Shang-Western Zhou polities (c.1600-771 BCE) and their dominant elite culture and the spread of the Western Zhou garrison cities across the Central Plain region. In the Mediterranean, this role had been performed by the spread of Greek settlements across the Mediterranean littoral (from the eighth century BCE) and the cultural Hellenization of autonomous local elites.

And also, please stop your personal attacks on me such as "wargamer" and your attempt to portray me as illiterate of Roman history. Some of your own ideas about both China and Rome are quite ludicrous (I'm sure Romans didn't invent Yin and Yang, for example. And the Han Empire didn't "collapse completely"; ever heard of the "dynastic cycle"?)Teeninvestor (talk) 16:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Gun Powder Ma, the Silk Road article and what I've read elsewhere says that in fact Rome and China did trade together. They were certainly aware of each other. The map at [13] shows the Romans had a route down the Nile River, on to the coast of China. I'm not certain when they started trading directly, and when it was through cunning middlemen, but they had contact. Goods, ideas, and technology did spread between the empires. Dream Focus 18:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There was never any direct trade. In between were the extended Parthian Empire and the Kushan Empire, which controlled all land trade via the silk road. At sea, Roman traders regularly sailed to India by the monsoon winds, but the evidence for direct Roman contacts to SE Asia or beyond is minimal. From China, the eaarlie recorded traveller to India dates to as late as the 5th century AD. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Salvaging and restructuring[edit]

Workable Keep I change my vote from above, I feel that a careful negotiation through the scholarship would greately improve the article (see some of the more recent edits including my own). Should be titled Han and Roman comparison to help with the refocus. However, that is not neccessary. I volunteer to help make the article more historical in it's approach.SADADS (talk) 13:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Correct me if I am wrong, but did you not vote "keep" from the beginning?~~ Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong, Sadads started with a "Strong delete" and has since struck that. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sadads, have you located significant sources that directly make this comparison? It is important that we don't attempt to synthesis different sources in the novel hypothesis. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added a couple templates to point at major deficiencies and removed a large part of both internal and external links for a multitude of different reasons (please see edit summaries). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chillum, see the following papers and books for sources that directly make this comparison. * Edwards, Ronald A. (February 2009). "Federalism and the Balance of Power: China's Han and Tang Dynasties and the Roman Empire". Pacific Economic Review 14 (1): 1-21. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1395142. Retrieved 2009-12-20.

Mittag, Achim and Mutschler, Fritz-Heiner(eds.), Conceiving the Empire: China and Rome Compared, Oxford University Press, 2008. ISBN 0199214646 Google book preview
Scheidel, Walter, Princeton University, Monetary systems of the Roman and Han Empires, <http://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/scheidel/020803.pdf> (Accessed December 27, 2008)
Scheidel, Walter (ed.) 2008 Rome and China: comparative perspectives on ancient world empires (Oxford University Press) 9780195336900 Google book preview
Scheidel, Walter, From the 'Great Convergence' to the 'First Great Divergence': Roman and Qin-Han State Formation and its Aftermath(10/2007). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1096433

Teeninvestor (talk) 16:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The above list exaggerates the actual amount of scholarly references by featuring double entries. Two of the sources were actually working paper of Scheidel which he later included in his 2008 book.

Scheidel, Monetary systems of the Roman and Han Empires is already included in 2008 Rome and China: comparative perspectives on ancient world empires as chapter 7.
Scheidel, From the 'Great Convergence' to the 'First Great Divergence': Roman and Qin-Han State Formation and its Aftermath, is essentially chapter 1 of the book. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adshead, Samuel Adrian Miles (2000). China in world history (3 ed.). Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 9780312225650. http://books.google.com/books?id=E8mpbItQVc8C. Retrieved 2009-12-22.

First of all, don't touch my comment. I don't modify your comments, you don't modify mine. Secondly, the papers are still useful because we do not have access to all of the book; therefore keeping these two chapters in hand can allow us to access the information. The papers are also generally more detailed than the book (see for example, the monetary paper). Also, can you show me the 95% of the article that you said to be Original research and synthesis? I'm still looking for it.Teeninvestor (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you do here is creating a false impression of a larger list of references which actually does not exist. Just as you have immediately undone my addition of templates or have moved the large amount of criticism conveniently to archive. These actions show that you are quite willing to stretch limits of good editorial behaviour just in order to get your article saved. I cross out the double entries, because we don't need here a duplication of sources. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC

There is also the adshead source, as well as other papers(such as the federalism one). And also, crossing out other editors' comments is extremely bad decorum, and ~~reminds me conveniently of your friend, the blocked User:Tenmei, who routinely crossed out his opponents' comments~~. I immediately undid your addition of signs because they were inaccurate and I had added new sources, and I shelved away the talk page to archives because if I didn't, it would get unbearably long ; standard wikipedia behavior. Please don't try to attack your fellow editors for archiving month-old talk page discussions; it is you who's making personal attacks and trying to stop editors from editing, behaviour that is clearly contradicting to wikipedia's spirit. Teeninvestor (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have reconsidered my position based on these sources. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps see the current state of the article? Whatever problems may be in it, I don't see anything related to original research or synthesis?Teeninvestor (talk) 16:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read Conceiving the Empire: China and Rome Compared? It has separate chapters on each empire, and although there may have been a couple of sentences where comparisons are made, basically despite the title it doesn't make comparisons, it just writes about the two empires separately and leaves it to the reader to draw comparisons. I already said that above. Dougweller (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read part of it. Some of it makes comparisons, most of it doesn't. The part that does can be used though. Even if the information in it doesn't compare the two directly, it can still be used as a source adding details (using a source whose subject is to compare the two empires to add details is not exactly OR).Teeninvestor (talk) 17:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again, using sources that discuss the empires independently to make a comparison. It doesn't matter what the book's title is, it can only be used where it makes direct comparisons. This insistence on using sources that don't make direct comparisons is a basic problem of this article. Dougweller (talk) 19:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question should be whether this comparison is considered a valid approach in world history, not that it exists. Obviously it does, even if just as a overarching premise for a larger text. Really, how much analysis do approaches like Comparative government really do? Only as the field has evolved has it really gained a significantly analytical approach. Compartive history is new and changing as Europeans realize that their history isn't the only one and otherones provide insight onto their own. Yes the sources for an article is limited; Yes it has some logical flaws based on Western histories basic assumptions and understanding of Roman history; Does it exist, certainly.

However, we should explore internal criticism from other historians, instead of blabbering away on a back and seldom traveled corner of the internet. Look at Book Reviews, look at other texts if you want to say the approac is not notable. Support the accusations with scholarly opinion. I am pretty sure, very few of us are proffesional historians. (I admit I am one, but still a student, and specializing on a period much later.) SADADS (talk) 19:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best source that says that this is both feasable and is an accepted approach amongst historians is THE STANFORD ANCIENT CHINESE AND MEDITERRANEAN EMPIRES COMPARATIVE HISTORY PROJECT even if not all historians agree with the conclusions. The link represents the presence of a number of studies which compare these empires for a variety of reasons. Admittedly this is compiled by Scheidel, who has been the major historian used in the article so far. SADADS (talk) 19:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The link does first and foremost provide references which solely concentrate on either one of the two empire. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Sadads's link. — goethean ॐ 22:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It's a legitimate scholarly comparison, made in admittedly few sources, but probably scrapes the GNG. The original research and synthesis is gone, and the article is now rigorously sourced. Although this isn't the most active of academic areas, I don't think the arguments for deletion apply anymore. Fences&Windows 23:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - but here is what I would do. First, the current article is divided into separare sections based on works by different scholars. I'd just spin each of these off into their own articles, articles on the books. And hopefully draft other editors to develop each article. Second, in light of the existence of these books, I'd draft a very short summary of the different ways different scholars in the 19th and 20th centuries compared the two empires, with links to the articles on each separate book, and make this a section in the articles on the Roman and Han empires. Then, readers of both articles will know that pthers have drawn comparisons, and will have the links that go to the different articles where they can learn about each book in detail. Finally, it looks like several of those books have value not for what they say about the Roman or Han empires but for what they say about "empires" or a general theory of empire. I'd make sure that the conclusions or debates among scholars, as to what such a comparison between empires reveals about "empire," is in the article on empire, perhaps even its own section. I am not pursuaded by pleas to improve the current article given that this is 2nd nom. And I think that the reason the article exists but so contentiously is that the principal sources do different things or are meant to contribute to different debates. I think giving each important book its own article and then making appropriate additions to the articles on Roman Empire, Han Empire, and Empire, with lots of links, is the best way to incorporate this knowledge into Wikipedia. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt any of these books would meet WP:NOT and the attempts to move the content will result in it being lost completely. Also, do you not agree that this topic is notable and has scholarly sources? Just cause the article has been nominated twice says nothing; deletionists have nominated some articles for deletion, four, five, six times, yet it does not disprove their notability and usefulness of the article. Teeninvestor (talk) 18:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are3 saying that these books do not meet the standards for an article, I have to wonder whether they are reliable enough for the article in question. Your first sentence is another reason to delete the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See comments below. And plus, I said I "doubted" an article could be created on the books, but I wouldn't be surprised if an actual article was made on the books and kept.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My intention was to flush out the scholarship, by being very clear who says what and then integrating it into a topical approach article. Because the article appears to be becoming very collabrative and needs to respond to the AFD nomination, it is very hard to show all the concerned users what would be going on in a draft (especially one I can't commit much time to until the coming weekends.) Yes the article is kindof sloppy right now, but I personally plan to reorginize it, however poorly I have communicated that so far. SADADS (talk) 22:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second deletion nomination. It is too late to keep promising some plan. If the article were encyclopedic, it would not take so much effort to come up with an effective way to organize it. And there are still NOR problems. If the only sources that explicitly compare or contrast the two empires are not notable (per Teeninvestor's comment above) then what basis is there for an article? Wikipedia editors cannot use Wikipedia to forward novel theories, interpretations, etc. If you think that comparing and contrasting these two empires will lead to some major insight, write an article and submit it to a journals like Comparative Studies in Society and History and publish original research there, or a journal like it. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slrubenstein, do you understand wikipedia guidelines on notability and original research? The article's sources have to be related to the subject", reliable (aka academic sources), but there is no requirement for the source to have an article itself. If we had an article on every source that was used in an article, do you know how many articles would have to be created? And if we use more sources in the creation of these articles, do we have to create even more? And, also, you seem to have no understanding of WP:OR whatsoever. WP:OR is original research; if the facts has been documented and sourced to reliable sources that explicitly talk about the article's subject, then there is definitely no OR. These sources are in abundance on this article, which you would known if you looked at the article's sources section. But, overall, your main problem is that you proposed a solution to a problem that doesn't exist; if it is demonstrated the article has no more WP:SYNT and WP:OR problems and is notable, why would you delete it and move it to another section just because some guy had it in his mind to nominated it for deletion? Would you delete the article Earth if someone nominated it twice?Teeninvestor (talk) 01:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kin sumbody splane alll this too me. Chillim-lamebrain (talk) 04:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note, this user is now blocked as an attack account. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article written by a single editor - by some coincidence, the same editor who replies assiduously to most of the delete comments here. The version nominated is here; it had severe problems, but somewhat different ones than it now has. It now has three:

it's an indiscriminate collection of information from some scholars whom the author has found to use Rome and China in the same sentence.
It's written by someone whose understanding of Chinese history is limited, and whose understanding of Roman history can be illustrated by the first sentence: The Han Dynasty and the Roman Empire were the principal powers in their respective regions in the first and second century BCE, that is, a century before Augustus founded the Roman Empire.
It has a thesis: that the two empires are comparable, and the Han is better.

I would be content (now) to see this moved to user space until SADAD finishes working on it, at which point we will see; but it should not be in article space as it stands. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Septentrionalis: in fairness, that date foobar was my fault. I cranked out a quick revised introduction here to shut down what looked like the beginnings of an edit war, and I mooshed things together that shouldn't have gotten mushed. Why my mistake never got addressed in the subsequent flurry of revisions I can't say (particularly since the introduction was revised a couple of times in the process), but it was my original mistake. apologies. --Ludwigs2 07:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then I will substitute Rome, on the other hand, never faced an enemy that posed an existential threat after 275 BCE (save for the Punic wars). Setting aside the phrasing, which resembles Tom Lehrer's "We taught them a lesson in 1918, and they've hardly ever bothered us since then", it still omits the Cimbri. (Even if it is Scheidel's opinion, we have an obligation to say so; especially when it contravenes both the judgment of other modern scholars and of the Romans themselves.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pmanderson, the only thing we know for sure is that your knowledge of Chinese history and this article is virtually nil (I doubt you have even looked at it), and your knowledge of Rome is probably not more advanced than your knowledge of your above subjects, and thus you are forced to resort to personal attacks. I have read detailed Roman histories, thank you very much, so I consider myself adequately knowledged upon this subject.Teeninvestor (talk) 14:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should not have mortified this adolescent's vanity, and I do regret having done so. I would prefer to get back to editing Imperial cult (ancient Rome), were I not on vacation and away from my sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a result of Pmanderson's repeated personal attacks, I have notified two admins[14] [15] as well as filing a wikiquette alert[16]. Hopefully this will deal with the disruptive behaviour of this editor. Teeninvestor (talk) 23:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is very informative, and although we usually discourage comparison pages, I believe that this page is useful because it compares two world superpowers that existed at roughly the same time. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that you have more arguments than: "this page is useful because it compares two world superpowers that existed at roughly the same time". Flamarande (talk) 15:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete The subject of this article is IMHO essentially worthless. In order to be able to compare something the two subjects need to have some similarities at least.

In this article we have two empires seperated by thousands of miles with simply too little in common. On one side we have the Roman Empire with its republican past, bloody succession which often ended in civil war, slavery, which was during most of its history polytheistic and then underwent a virtual religious revolution towards monotheism. On the other we don't have any republican background, we don't have slavery at all (we have peasants and serfs but no slaves which could be sold and bought as cattle). We have Confuciusm (which was founded a couple of centuries before the Han Empire) and we don't have a major religious development at all (the Christanization of the Roman Empire should never be underestimated; it was a religious, political, moral, and cultural development of the highest importance - there is nothing comparable in the Han Empire at all). Just read the respective articles carefully, and you will notice that we are speaking about two completely diffrent cultures/states. A diffrent beginning/past, economy, political landscape, military situation and development, and a diffrent end. What exactly are we going to compare? The major and unsurpassable diffrences between the two entities?

I also wish to point out that if we can write an article comparing the Roman empire with the Han Empire, then we also could write articles making comparisions with the Parthian Empire, Sassanid Empire, Mayan Empire, etc. Flamarande (talk) 15:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 19:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Max Lyon[edit]

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

Non-notable amateur athlete, does not meet WP:ATHLETE, insufficient coverage in reliable sources. Esprqii (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - league is semi-pro at best (they are associated with a semi-pro and an amateur league and both of those may not even be notable associations), and there is really nothing in the way of sources after a search. As for the sources currently in the article, the GT is so trivial of coverage, the Oregonian ones I could not even find on that paper's website (the non-footnoted one to OregonLive does not mention Lyon at all), and the ones to his league are obviously not independent. Utterly non-notable under WP:BIO or WP:NOTE. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Completely un-notable per above. Looks as if someone knows him and wants him on Wikipedia. A ML-Talk-Cont-Count
Delete per the above. Pretty clear case- if Lyon becomes notable in the future, great. Not notable now, though. tedder (talk) 20:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable player in a non-notable baseball "league". — X96lee15 (talk) 02:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some guy in a senior "baseball" league is not even close to being notable.--Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 03:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't come close to meeting any of Wikipedia's notability criteria. We don't have articles for everyone who's name has ever appeared in the newspaper. BRMo (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Asset voting[edit]

The result was redirect to Proxy voting#Asset voting. The actual discussion has been hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page..

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glokal[edit]

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

non notable neologism WuhWuzDat 17:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of huge theses. Translation here. Syrthiss (talk) 17:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Based on the translation above, it appears to be the text of a script. If not original research, then there's an issue of reprinting it here and whether it infringes copyrights. With the partial translation, that'll be hard to prove. However, unless the term is backed up with independent (English, preferably) reliable sources, it needs to go. —C.Fred (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have seen the term "glocalism" used by some globalization commentators like Thomas Friedman as an esoteric political phenomenon, but that term is not prevalent enough to establish notability. This article under discussion might be a foreign version of the same thing, maybe not. Either way, can't establish notability in English WP without English sources. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this is something that the malaysian and indonesian projects are inflicted with regularly - and the context of that issue - malay or indonesian language material dumped into WP en - is something that should be considered, rather than allowing credence at face value. Also there seems a lack of understanding from the comments above - I think the user name (from the rusty memory of the current editor) is totally unsuitable and potentially blockable :) Satu Suro 04:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as something that shows (1) no understanding of what wikipedia is or is not (dumping essays?) (2) duplicating material already on en wikipedia (see below) (3) mixing of language usage in text and potentially contentious POV items in text Satu Suro 04:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —Satu Suro 04:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. —Satu Suro 04:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. English Wikipedia has an article on Glocalisation, Glocal Forum, and Glocals.com. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 04:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan Championship Wrestling Association(MCWA)[edit]

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

non notable wrestling organization, most significant activities seem to be wrestling events hosted in bars WuhWuzDat 17:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable per WP:NSPORT and WP:CLUB, unreferenced, borderline WP:SPAM and clear WP:COI by creator, whose account is now blocked for promotion. MuffledThud (talk)
Delete, non-notable.--Steam Iron 04:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under G11 !! Justa Punk !! 08:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable company, Afro (Not a Talk Page) ^{- Afkatk} 21:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alto-Sound Fiasco[edit]

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

Delete per WP:BAND. This band does not seem to meet the criteria, as they have no notable 3rd party sources, never charted a song, or originated their own style of music. ɳoɍɑfʈ^Talk! 16:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Band meets none of the 12 criteria in WP:BAND. Article reads more like a myspace bio than an encyclopaedia article. Fenix down (talk) 18:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above. Yeah, when the most the article can say about this band is that they "released one full length LP the [sic] went unreleased, and went on 3 small tours," it's time to go. --Glenfarclas (talk) 23:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 00:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TIHUS - The International Hindi-Urdu Script[edit]

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

Queried speedy delete. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - This article was previously speedily deleted (same article name without the hyphen between Hindi-Urdu). Clearly not notable. SnottyWong talk 21:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this script. Joe Chill (talk) 01:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. no reliable sources = no article. Blogs don't count Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MS Paint Adventures[edit]

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

Non-notable web-based comic lacking GHits of substance and with zero GNEWS. Appears to lack notability. ttonyb (talk) 16:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)).

Strong keep - I'll copy what I said on the talk page regarding the PROD: "First, Google News results are completely irrelevant to webcomics. I'd imagine very few well established webcomics have any Google News hits. Second, if you're going by Google hits as a mark of notability, I'm not exactly sure what you're doing. I'm not sure how you're defining "substance". Further, if we go by sheer volume, it has even more hits than other webcomics with articles on them, such as Wondermark or Dinosaur Comics. Also, I'm pretty sure Google hits have never been a guideline for notability. If you really want to delete this article, you're going to need a better excuse." Furthermore, citing WP:WEB, the first criterion states that notability may be established by two or more independent publications, which, as mentioned in the article, it already has. Although they are just blogs, both blogs already are mentioned on Wikipedia. Additionally, webcomics whose articles on Wikipedia are already well established link directly to MS Paint Adventures, such as Dinosaur Comics, Dr. McNinja, Perry Bible Fellowship, and possibly others that I'm not even aware of. This seems enough to me to establish notability to me. --Λύκος 17:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – If GHits and or GNEWS are not relevant to webcomics, then I suggest you provide sources that meet the criteria in reliable sources and verifiability. Generally speaking, blogs are not considered as valid support because they, with certain exceptions such as news based blogs, lack editorial oversight. BTW - being mentioned in Wikipedia does not provide the based for using them as reliable sources nor does being linked to by someone mentioned in Wikipedia. No one wants to delete the article, the reason for the PROD and then the AfD is to determine if the article meets Wikipedia notability criteria and, if not, provide a chance for the article to be updated in order to meet those requirements. ttonyb (talk) 01:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Isn't that generally what the concern templates are for? Not throwing a deletion nomination at the article immediately? I get the feeling that if this were to happen to many of the webcomic articles that are on Wikipedia and have been for some time, they would have been deleted immediately. If this article is to be deleted, I feel that there's a slew of other articles that should be deleted. Also, I said that Google News hits were irrelevant--I mentioned that Google hits were not a good benchmark, not completely irrelevant. --Λύκος 02:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The very easy and obvious way to avoid deletion is to provide support to meet the notability requirements. AfDs are usually active for 7 days, so there should be time to come up with valid references. ttonyb (talk) 02:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm sorry, but using Google News as a notability criteria? I'm with Oni Lukos here. There is no reason why a system unlikely to cover items that are not "newsworthy" (i.e. non-political webcomics, etc) should be used to determine "notability". And according to WP:WEB, Google News is not specifically indicated as a notability criteria. The article may still be non-notable for other reasons, assuming the above mentioned blog sources do not qualify as reliable sources, but I personally am getting a strong anti-MS Paint Adventures vibe from this AfD nomination. --64.5.15.112 (talk) 22:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)— 64.5.15.112 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment – Rather than unjustly accusing someone of bias against the article, why don't you provide support to meet the notability requirements. ttonyb (talk) 01:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, since there are no Google News sources, would anybody care to provide some other secondary sources for this topic? Abductive (reasoning) 23:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Oni Lukos, it seems very strange you would requested 2 deletions of this article, and that being your only edits to this page at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.40.183.42 (talk) 07:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC) — 69.40.183.42 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete: The above editors have not shown that there is significant coverage. Joe Chill (talk) 03:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - There are over five thousand members on the MSPA forums. On the Something Awful forums there is a thread about MSPA that has attracted over 100 people to it and gains over 7 new posts every day on average. There are t-shirts, posters, and three volumes for the Homestuck soundtrack. As I type this right now, there is a Project Wonderful banner ad on the site that is worth $23.20. Since this price is based on a bid-based system, I would hardly think that a "non-notable" entity would be attracting that kind of attention. There are even webcomics with extensive articles on here that don't get even halfway to that amount on their own Project Wonderful ads. Anyone who believes that MSPA is not "notable" has possibly been living in some kind of cave for the last year or two. --FuegoFish (talk) 19:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – "Real-world" notability does not equal Wikipedia notability nor is site traffic is not a criteria of notability. Please see notability and help me understand how any of your reasons might meet this criteria. Thanks... ttonyb (talk) 20:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well, I'm surprised how you managed to take away "site traffic" from what I said. I mentioned thousand of people who like MSPA enough to get a forum account there. I mentioned popularity in unrelated internet communities. I mentioned merchandise and other forms of commercial interest. I don't think I ever mentioned the site's traffic. I don't even know what MSPA's site traffic is. Millions? Billions? How could I possibly check? Also I think you'll find it doesn't matter whether I've made one thousand edits or just one, so don't presume that it makes any kind of difference. --FuegoFish (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I again suggest you read WP:WEB for help in understanding that "Real-world" notability does not equal Wikipedia notability and that site traffic is not a criteria of notability. BTW - site traffic can refer to total traffic or individual visits. Rather than focus on this, how about looking at notability and helping me understand how any of your reasons might meet this criteria. Thanks... ttonyb (talk) 20:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Still not seeing where I mentioned traffic at any point that was not, in fact, replying to your original assertion that I was talking about site traffic. You might be slightly obsessed with this subject! Just saying! Moving on, here's a brief list of things that seem (to me) to be notable about MSPA. Patrick Rothfuss (who has his own wikipedia article, no less) did a short review of MSPA where he called it "interactive storytelling at its finest" (which it is). Manifesto Games examined MSPA's game/not-a-game nature on their Play This Thing site. The blog Comic Book Closet interviewed Hussie, which counts (by my understanding) as a non-trivial published website source. Also, shouldn't the fact that MSPA cannot be published be a unique enough qualifier for wikipedia notability? Last I checked you can't print animated gifs and flash files, which probably makes MSPA the only webcomic out of the whole lot.

Also, I'd like to just ask you how Cubetoons is notable enough to not be considered for deletion. Or El Goonish Shive, that seems to be mostly listing itself and its own store as references. I Was Kidnapped By Lesbian Pirates From Outer Space has little in the way of notability either. Likewise Post-Nuke, Demonology 101, A Doemain of Our Own, Elven Lacryment, and Faux Pas (webcomic). They're all webcomics like MSPA, going by the loose definition of "webcomic" people use. But while some of these articles have a note at the top asking people to "please help to establish notability", none of them were nominated for deletion the exact same day they were put on wikipedia. Which might suggest some kind of bias! Unless your next move is to nominate everything I just linked for deletion, in which case I fully retract everything I may have accidentally insinuated. --FuegoFish (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – All the examples you gave appear to be blogs lacking editorial oversight. Blogs lacking editorial oversight are generally not acceptable as a reliable source. As mentioned above, having a Wikipedia article does make one a reliable source. With regards to other article that you believe should be deleted, I have not reviewed them and you are more than welcome to nominate them for deletion. BTW - their existence does not justify this article's existence. See WP:WAX.

Your comments about bias are odd, first of all, I believe most articles that are deleted are done on the day they are created; second, if I was biased against Webcomics, then it would make sense I would have nominated other Webcomic articles for deletion. Your unsubstantiated comments are not appreciated or are they relevant to the notability of the article in question. I suggest rather than making such statements you review WP:RS and focus on providing adequate sources to validate the article's notability. My best to you... ttonyb (talk) 23:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The blog Play This Thing appears to not be self-published and may not lack editorial oversight, as the user FuegoFish seems more knowledgable in the area it seems fair to let him make that conclusion. The blog by Patrick Rothfuss is self-published by somebody who is considered an expert in the field (fantasy writing) and has previously been recognised and published by reliable third-parties, and hence meets the criteria for a reliable source. See Patrick Rothfuss --94.192.92.233 (talk) 23:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – If all of the sources linked are "blogs lacking editorial oversight," I wonder who these people are. Trout? Trollops? I'd never heard of "editor in chief" as a pseudonym for "big time-wasting do-nothing" but I suppose I am open to development in the English language.

From the very article you linked (WAX): "an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this," and it states how there is a "misconception that this section is blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates." Would you look at that? I can selectively read into comments on the opposite opinion to support my opinion as well. Snarkiness aside, it seems that the "Pokémon test" seems to refer to comparisons between characters of fictional entertainment series and X, which, by nature, would be difficult to have objective measures of notability, as no one, say, writes entire articles on a fictional character in an edited source. In this case, on the other hand, we have tangible metrics by which to compare this webcomic with other webcomics - we have a full article with editors (Play This Thing), and a full article by an authority on fantasy writing (Rothfuss), which is more than can be said about El Goonish Shive, I Was Kidnapped By Lesbian Pirates From Outer Space, etc. as mentioned by FuegoFish. So what makes this objective, tangible advantage on MSPA's part invalid? And don't tell me those articles haven't been deleted because of a lack of experts in that field - if that were the case, what would justify your judgement of this article, but not the others? Randomness? Bias? And I'm sorry if this is not what you might argue, but simply linking to an entire article (WAX) tends to open up some ambiguity as to your argument, as you might imagine.

Also, perhaps this has to do with lack of experience in this field, or I'm mistaken in some other fashion, as I am not an experienced wiki-editor/amateur philosopher/debate person/whatever, but it seems to me that FuegoFish never insinuated that you were "biased against Webcomics [sic]," but biased against MSPA in favor of other webcomics. I mean, he is pointing out your lack of initiative in deleting obscure webcomics nobody has ever heard of, while simultaneously pointing out your enthusiastic initiative in deleting this particular webcomic. Seems to me to be a clear case of "bias vs. MSPA favoring other webcomics," not "bias vs. webcomics favoring everything else ever" Wouldn't your statement, then, be that logical fallacy they call a "strawman argument," i. e. putting words in another's mouth? Is that what I'm using against you right now? I'm sorry, I must apologize once more, as I have not yet taken an epistemology class and so these things confuse me sometimes.

Anyway, since people rarely change their opinions anyway, can I bring up a question about the AfD statistics link at the top? Why is it that it only lists the 2 deletion votes, ignoring the 3 keep votes? Is that a syntax parsing thing? Thanks in advance. -Adghar (talk) 07:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This seems to meet notability as per WP::web and Oni Lucas' response. Oesor (talk) 00:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)— Oesor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

* Comment Uh yeah, Tony, it's a great idea to stick your head in the ground by tagging everyone who disagrees with you as a sock puppet. Why not focus on the topic instead making ad-hominem attacks saying "These people don't matter!"? Since you're wrong about me, I'm just gonna go ahead and remove all these SPA tags you've littered all over in what I assume is an attempt to discredit people. Oesor (talk) 20:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)— Oesor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Strong keep I don't see how MSPA isn't notable, the flashes and especially the music are both very unique. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.40.183.42 (talk) 07:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC) — 69.40.183.42 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Emperor (talk) 15:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - Lots of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS arguments above. I am not surprised that other crap exists as we are not required to delete crap articles in descending order from most crappy to least crappy, so as to ensure that no article exists that is crappier than the one currently being discussed. As the article says, this comic's best claim of notability is that it has "a mention on 1UP.com's Retronauts blog and indie gaming blog Play This Thing!" Mentions on blogs are far from the same thing as Wikipedia:Notability's "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Sharksaredangerous (talk) 17:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does anybody even check sources anymore? I personally don't use the term "mention" to describe full articles. I mean, what kind of "significant coverage in reliable sources" are we looking for here? An article in a print encyclopedia? An article in a national newspaper (asking us to break unprecedented ground, now, are we? Okay, maybe not, but I personally can't remember any point in time when I read an article about a webcomic in a national newspaper.)? Did you notice how I pointed out that in that same article you linked, and ttonyb linked, it talks about how you shouldn't use that as a blanket ban, about how you shouldn't just dismissively discredit any argument of that type? Twice? (see my comment above for relevant quotations)

I mean, if we face reality, there really is no such thing as a webcomic scientist right now. And if the article in question is already of objectively higher notoriety than countless examples listed, I would think it is up to the deletion party to justify what makes this one so especially bad that it needs to be deleted in spite of its higher notoriety. I mean, what? The arbitrary choice of ttonyb choosing to delete this article and not other webcomic articles is sufficient reasoning?

Here's an analogy to help illustrate why trying to apply WAX as a blanket ban fails in this case. The fact that there are two full articles written on MS Paint Adventures, one of them run by a staff of editors and one by a professional fantasy writer objectively differentiates it from other articles of this type. Say someone tries to write an article about Home_made_band_x. It's nominated for deletion. The original writer and maybe some fans write "but there's an article on Obscure_pokemon_y! Surely, Home_made_band_x is more well-known." Here, there are established metrics for bands which Home_made_band_x likely does not meet in its category - the Black Eyed Peas topped charts and whatnot, for example. It also does not take into account Obscure_pokemon_y's surface notoriety as a facet of Pokemon itself. However, in this case, MS Paint Adventures matches up to the metrics already established in webcomics, and the comparison is not trying to cross genres.

And isn't it funny how delete-proponents on this page seem to be discrediting blogs (even ones run by staffs full of editors) in much the same way secondary school teachers discredit wikipedia itself? Ignore this as part of my argument if you wish; I'm aware that if this is used as part of the argument it's probably a non sequitir ad hominem or something like that. I just thought it was interesting from my point of view.

Also since ttonyb hasn't replied yet I am still wondering why the AfD statistics page is showing 2 votes for deletion and none of the votes for keeping, so maybe you can explain instead. I generally don't edit very often on wikipedia, so I genuinely am not aware of how the AfD statistics page functions. -Adghar (talk) 07:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just going to point out that there are two kinds of print articles about webcomics, in general terms. Firstly there's the local newspaper doing a story on a local man (or, indeed, woman) who has made a webcomic that is at least mildly successful. The second, and much rarer type, is an article about Penny Arcade. Since Penny Arcade is the only million-dollar franchise in the world of webcomics (Zuda and so on don't really count, since they're a facet of a print media company) and runs a charity for children in addition to their famous convention, they generate more "news" of the type that the print media focuses on.

Webcomics are pretty non-newsy things, if you stop and think about it. In fact, so are print comics. Nobody writes an article about Dilbert, or Superman. Because nothing of interest (in terms of news media) happens. Superman keeps leaping tall buildings in a single bound, Dilbert keeps working the same depressing job. Even when something utterly monumental happens in the world of the comic, like DC's recent decision to (temporarily) kill Batman, not many people take notice. So factor in that webcomics have very small audiences in general, and that none of them have a 70-year-old institution like Batman going for them, and you'll find that there is literally no reason to write about webcomics.

The same goes for essays and other forms of print article. If you ignore the webcomics done by amateurs (who have done nothing and will never achieve anything of any artistic importance) you are left with perhaps fifty to sixty webcomics of such amazing quality of art and writing that you could write an essay about them that wasn't on how bad they were. However, these webcomics make up some of the less popular webcomics, because the typical reason for visiting a webcomic is not to be challenged or enthralled by the incredible story or the beautiful art. Instead it is just something to read during the morning for a few minutes before you leave for work, or school. The most popular webcomics are basically akin to daytime television, except possibly of less interest.

So in essence, with webcomics what we have is a particular medium which, by its very nature, is wholly non-notable by Wikipedia's current standards of notability. It does not engender discussion in print, those involved with it are typically non-notable people who have nothing else to their names, it is disparaged by many as a cheap and inconsequential medium, and it does not bring itself to be noticed on any level besides "it is a comic on the internet and it exists." --FuegoFish (talk) 14:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It is incorrect to describe these sources (like a 3 paragraph blog post) as "full articles." They do not provide significant coverage. Yes, Penny Arcade is a good example of a webcomic that meets Wikipedia:Notability's criteria of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," but it is far from unique. The many others include such diverse comics as xkcd, Megatokyo, Achewood, Questionable Content, Eric Monster Millikin, Get Your War On, Leisure Town, Van Von Hunter, The Perry Bible Fellowship, etc. etc. with sources like CNN, Time Magazine, The Boston Globe, The New York Times, USA Today, etc. I'm not saying this comic has to be as successful as the above stars in the field, I'm just saying it needs more than short blog posts to have an article here. Also, don't worry about this comic being singled out because it hasn't been; articles on all sorts of topics including on other webcomics get considered for deletion here all the time. Instead let's try to find some sources that meet our standards and are good enough to write encyclopedia articles with. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, extremely popular webcomic with an unique storytelling concept. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 10:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – What I find interesting is with all the fever exhibited here to keep the article, no one has simply gone back to the article to provide independent, third-party, verifiable sources per the requirements of WP:WEB and notability. There seems to be a lot of disagreement that these guidelines are not applicable for this article. Well, that may or may not be true, but this is not the forum to debate the validity of those guidelines. Those that disagree with the guidelines are more than welcome to debate these issues at the appropriate articles talk pages and hopefully if there is community consensus get the guidelines changed.

Getting back to he issue at hand and ignoring all the ridiculous comments about bias, sockpuppetry vs. SPA, the existence of other webcomic articles, and the funny comment about the lack "webcomic scientists", the issue remains that the article still appears to fail WP:WEB. I understand the one or two of the blogs have been proposed as valid to support the article (although I am not convinced), but going back to what I said at the very early stages of the discussion, the very easy and obvious way to avoid deletion is to provide support to meet the notability requirements. AfDs are usually active for 7 days, so there should be time to come up with valid references.

As far as the question of why the "strong keeps" do not enter into the stats, I have no idea, but I suspect the script was written to "see" only "keep" and "delete". Nonetheless, it does not matter, because the review is not based on "votes", the reviewing Admin will look at the comments and base their decision on the substance of the comments, not the number of "votes". My best to all involved in the discussion. ttonyb (talk) 18:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although I see that it fails this and it fails that, have common sense as well. Yes, there are Wikipedia rules, but those rules are there So that the articles are good and useful. If a rule says that something should not exist, but it does deserve to exist, and by going by common sense, it is notable, then let it exist! However, somebody does still need to go back and perhaps edit some things and stick in a couple extra sources so that it shows that it is noteworthy. So now, how about we go with Ttonyb, and we actually work on the article instead of arguing on here. -HaiyaTheWin IS The Win! 18:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Nicely put, thanks. ttonyb (talk) 18:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Some anonymous users have been leaving their two cents on the issue on the Talk:MS Paint Adventures talk page --Λύκος 06:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brian M. Hauglid[edit]

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

This article on an associate professor was written by User:Bmhauglid. Hauglid publishes in the rarefied realm of "support of the Book of Abraham". I feel he does not pass WP:PROF. He has edited two books, which in the article he claims to be first editor on, but whose covers show him to be the second editor. I feel his article should be deleted from Wikipedia just for this deceitful behavior, but fortunately his academic record is insufficient. Abductive (reasoning) 15:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree. The article is also serving as his CV. Unsupported self-promotion all around. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep. While it is true that it appears that Hauglid has edited this article, he did not create it, I did. Hauglid is an important specialist on Egyptian and other ancient history issues. He has written widely on these subjects. Keeping this article is totally worthwhile.John Pack Lambert 05:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not think the listing of his books is deceitful. For one ting, as I have said before Hauglid DID NOT start this article, I did. Secondly, I have at times listed people as editor of a work and not managed to realize that other people were involved. Such accusations of "deciet" have no basis in fact. You are supposed to assume good faith, and that has clearly not be done in anyway.John Pack Lambert 05:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Who put in the incorrect authorship? Abductive (reasoning) 09:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have come across a mention of Hauglid in a book published by Brill, and have added this reference to the footnotes of the article. Brill is THE leading publisher worldwide in the field of scholarly works on early Christianity. While one reference may not make Hauglid notable, he has done studies of Abraham that have gained note from people who quite probably have never even heard of the Book of Abraham.John Pack Lambert 06:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to edit the authorship, but I have two questions before doing so. In some ways, since we are listing Hauglid's contributions, is it that important that we list him as a secondary author?John Pack Lambert 15:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I have relisted the two books. So can we now end this discussion and agree that the article should be preserved.John Pack Lambert 15:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete. His work does not demonstrate impact. WorldCat shows the "Traditions" and the "Astronomy" books are each held by only about 30 libraries world-wide. (For comparison, the vanity-published book discussed in AfD: Lisa Wolfe is held in more that twice that many.) The published articles that are listed seem to mostly fall outside the mainstream academic journal infrastructure. WoS lists only the "Al-Ghazali: A Muslim Seeker of Truth" 2001 paper in BYU Studies, showing 0 citations for an h-index of 0 (query was "Author=(Hauglid B*)"). Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. As per above. GS gives only 1 cite. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 18:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The London Eye in popular culture[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject of the article is non-notable, there do no seem to be any sensible sources covering the role of the London eye in popular culture. This is simply a trivial and indiscriminate list of instances where it has been featured. Brilliantine (talk) 14:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The London Eye itself is very notable. The article is certainly original research, as the nominator correctly pointed out, however it falls well within WP established practice. Lists of "in popular culture" instances are all over the place here, and most of them are about things less well-known than the Eye.Northwestgnome (talk) 14:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware that the London Eye is notable. 'The London Eye in popular culture' is not, however, a notable subject. There need to be sources that cover the subject of the article in depth. If you can find a couple of these of these, I'll be hapy to reconsider. By the way, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid rationale for keeping. Brilliantine (talk) 15:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A list of the uses of a very notable object in notable films and other works in appropriate. In it not indiscriminate, since it is limited to the notable works in which it appears not all possible works. A well accepted type of article, Whether it should be limited to those instances where it plays a significant role in the story is an editorial decision, not a matter for AfD. In some of the works, it clearly does. DGG ( talk ) 17:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the secondary sources covering the article subject? Why is such a list appropriate for an encyclopedia? Brilliantine (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep There is actually a fully notable article on the London Eye but the creators of the article presently under discussion forgot to do a blue link. I will do that now. Otherwise, I am of the opinion that these "...in popular culture" articles should be merged into the parent topic for efficiency, but in this case it looks like this is a list with some utility, though it needs to be cleaned up and references should be added. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The cultural references to the London Eye is not a notable subject, nor is this the way we should be presenting trivia. Them From Space 18:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Gigs (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close/Procedural keep - this content was spun off from London Eye on Jan 1, 2008 and as far as I can tell, not reverted since. By comparison, other mass removals in 2008 were reverted. diff. As such, this should not be an AFD but it should be a MERGE discussion. If the editors of the two articles want to merge the content, or if the consensus of merger talks is that the content is no longer needed, then an AFD is appropriate. A proper AFD would start off with Delete per London Eye#merge in The London Eye in popular culture and be immediately supported by most of the participants of that discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not follow the logic of this argument. Just because it could be done that way does not mean it has to be done that way. Merge is a possible outcome for an AFD discussion. The main thrust of my argument is that the article subject - the influence of the London Eye in popular culture - is non-notable. That is the reason for the AFD. If consensus is to merge, so be it. If consensus is to delete with no merging, so be it. If consensus is to do something else, so be it. Brilliantine (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of my statement was to say that even if there was good reason to delete this article as a stand-alone article, it should be procedurally merged prior to deletion because its content was split off from of another article, and the editors of that article clearly did not want the content removed from the wiki. An acceptable way to do a "procedural merge" would be to block-copy the text to the destination article as a new section then revert the edit, and copy the edit history to a sub-page of the target article, and put a note on the target article's talk page saying what just happened and why and inviting editors of that argument to either put the preserved-in-the-edit-history content back into that article or not as they saw fit. Then delete the article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Either that or a standard merge/redirect would be viewed by me as acceptable alternatives to outright deletion of all of the content. However, since it is mostly unsourced, I don't think a lot of it would stick around very long in the main article. In any case, this AFD is surely the best venue to decide which option consensus favours, since merge is a possible AFD outcome. Brilliantine (talk) 18:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:Lists (the article is discriminate, encyclopedic, maintainable, navigational, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable) as the subject of the article is notable as a result of sensible sources covering the role of the London eye in popular culture. This article is a non-trivial and discriminate list of instances where it has been featured. The cultural references to the London Eye is a notable subject and it is discussed in the way we should be presenting information important to those who have contributed to this article. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What sources covering the role of the London Eye in popular culture? There are certainly none in the article, and I can't find any. Why, in that case, would you consider such a list notable? I'm afraid I have to admit I don't understand the point you are trying to make with your last sentence, either. Brilliantine (talk) 18:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From a WP:V perspective, each line item is itself a source. Take "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007) Featured during a Wizard Chase scene." The movie is the source. Specifically, the chase scene. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But to demonstrate the notability of the article subject - the London Eye in popular culture - secondary sources covering the London Eye's place in popular culture must support the article. With regard to specific list items, the significance of the references should really be demonstrated. Otherwise, the list has no objective inclusion criteria and becomes pretty indiscriminate. Lastly, to build a stand-alone article such as this out of self-verifying primary sources is original research. Brilliantine (talk) 19:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, this didn't start life as a stand-alone article. It was spun off a couple of years ago, probably to keep the main article from being dominated by the items in this list. In light of this, argument that "this topic does not meet the requirements for a stand alone article" is pretty much by definition an argument for an involuntary merge/de-split, not an argument for deletion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is a possible outcome to an AFD. Consensus from AFD can be for an involuntary merge. However it might also be considered that the material is not appropriate for Wikipedia at all. This is why it's here, and it's as good a venue as any. Brilliantine (talk) 20:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This demonstrates how notable something is, it featured in many notable media. Dream Focus 02:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any media that focuses on the role of the London Eye in popular culture. I see plenty of media that features the London Eye. So, that article is notable, but this one is not. Brilliantine (talk) 18:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a better name for the article would be Mentions of the London Eye in notable media. Popular culture means notable media. Dream Focus 20:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then the sources would need to explore the concept of the London Eye being mentioned in notable media, rather than simply list mentions. I can see no hope of it doing that. Brilliantine (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its a list article, so its just a list, nothing more. They normally break away this information from the main article. Dream Focus 10:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or in the alternative merge with The London Eye Ikip 17:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. General support for keeping this article, but editors can discuss a merge to Parkour on the talk pages. Fences&Windows 01:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parkour in popular culture[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not worthy of a separate article. Many of the examples are duplicated from the existing parkour article. The article makes no attempt to discuss whether parkour has a notable place in popular culture and merely gives examples. Merge any useful content to main parkour article and delete rest. Brilliantine (talk) 14:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A list of the uses of a notable subject in notable films and other works in appropriate. In it not indiscriminate, since it is limited to the notable works in which it appears not all possible works. A well accepted type of article, Whether it should be limited to those instances where it plays a significant role in the story is an editorial decision, not a matter for AfD. In some of the works, it clearly does. An almost snow keep three months ago. DGG ( talk ) 17:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Partial Merge and Delete I agree with the nominator completely. Merge useful text to Parkour and delete the rest. DGG above has made some good points on notability of topics within this list article, but I see an issue with the usefulness of the list itself. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge per WP:MAD and WP:IPC. Even if we somehow decide that most of this list is not useful, this page title should redirect to Parkour#Popular culture - deletion is not helpful. (Full disclosure: I am a traceur.) --Explodicle (T/C) 18:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the licensing issues posed, so can accept the idea of a redirect. However, I don't think the essay WP:IPC offers anything that allows the article to exist without passing the ~~policy~~ guideline WP:GNG. Brilliantine (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG is not a policy. Anyways, there's plenty of sources in the article that address the topic directly in detail. For example, this USA Today article and this Times Online article focus on parkour's effect on (and influence from) popular culture. I can understand a few cleanup tags, but it's certainly a viable topic. --Explodicle (T/C) 20:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, corrected. With regard to the articles you cite, they do not offer sufficient in-depth coverage of the influence of parkour on popular culture, and the little relevant material that is in those articles would be much better explored as part of a succinct piece of prose in the main parkour article, as suggested below. Note the articles are general articles on the popularity of parkour. Brilliantine (talk) 21:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as Doomsdayer says, there is no need for a listing of trivia like this. A small section, in prose, may be warranted in the main article but an anal-retentive listing of every factoid and tidbit of information on Parkour being mentioned in popular culture is out of our scope and degrades our quality. I challenge the idea that this is a well-accepted type of article, per several of our guidelines and policies including WP:TRIVIA and WP:NOT. Most all "in popular culture" type articles run afoul of these guidelines by their very nature. Them From Space 18:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parkour in popular culture (2nd nomination) as its not a good thing to renominate an article a third time when the last discussion closed as "keep" and as it is a well-organized and well-referenced article. This non-trivial information is consistent with "WP:IS". Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is on the list of arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Consensus can change... Brilliantine (talk) 00:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...but not usually in 75 days.--Milowent (talk) 01:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as nom provides no reason why prior AfD was not closed correctly, or why consensus has changed in last 75 days.--Milowent (talk) 01:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surviving an AFD - which in this case had hardly anyone contributing to it - does not give an article a free pass to exist for some undefined amount of time. I have certainly seen consensus change more rapidly than 75 days. In any case, I feel I have proposed sound reasons for deletion based on policies and guidelines, something which I don't believe the nominator of the previous AFD did adequately. Brilliantine (talk) 18:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The last AFD for this was at the end of September. We shouldn't all have to come back here every few months and make the same arguments. Showing how often a legitimate thing is shown in popular culture is just fine. Dream Focus 02:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Showing how often a legitimate thing is shown in popular culture is just fine" - not agreed. To build an article purely out of examples of this is original research. An article subject should be notable and this should be proved by significant coverage in secondary sources. Brilliantine (talk) 18:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge cited portions and delete the rest. — Bdb484 (talk) 04:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Merge and delete. --Explodicle (T/C) 14:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken riggies[edit]

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

This article has remained unverified since 2007. News content referenced in discussion page is all local papers. Previously was candidate for speedy deletion.

Fails WP:N — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyleaa (talk • contribs) 2009/12/16 01:48:39

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a minor local specialty, but then so is Horseshoe sandwich and probably a hundred other things. Described in a cookbook here and mentioned in Fodor's New York State here. There's also a Rachael Ray recipe here. From what I've seen, this is considered a legit local dish. --Glenfarclas (talk) 23:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia is full of such food articles, which from my reading of WP:N are not notable. I think editors should respond very specifically as to how Chicken riggies does or does not meet WP:N. --Ronz (talk) 01:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Right, sorry if I wasn't careful enough. WP:GNG states that a subject is presumptively notable if it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I've given three, and here's another, Home Plate: The Culinary Road Trip of Cooperstown by Brenda Berstler, stating that "Utica is as well-known for this chicken-rigatoni dish, as Buffalo, New York is known for their wings." These are reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I think coverage is "significant" when a book describes a dish and provides a recipe. So, I think this subject is presumptively notable, and none of the rebutting circumstances in WP:NOT applies. Therefore the subject is notable. It's not Beef Wellington or Peach Melba, granted, but it's a notable dish. --Glenfarclas (talk) 09:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I think coverage is 'significant' when a book describes a dish and provides a recipe." Thanks for that explanation. I wonder if others agree, or if this has been discussed at WP:Food and Drink somewhere. --Ronz (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While this is clearly a regional specialty, thus explaining why references are in local press, it is more than simply a local recipe, as it is notable enough to have an annual contest for the best creator of the dish. The event, called Riggiefest, is in its fifth year, and garners coverage from local newspapers and TV. This is not your typical bar challenge, as it raised well into six figures for charity. The article was originally poorly written, with a plea to track down information embedded in the article itself. While I'm not about to claim GA status, I've cleaned up the ugly parts, and added five references.--SPhilbrick T 21:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the two "keep" voters above. Airplaneman ^talk 02:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Toronto Blue Jays minor league players. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 22:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Travis D'Arnaud[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Travis D'Arnaud

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

Re-created page that was deleted before. Also, no provided sources that specifically assert the notability of this player. There are many reliable sources that currently mention him, but they are all referencing a trade of big-name players in which this minor leaguer that doesn't pass the notability guideline was involved. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added some informaton. And the article is ot all about him being traded. it is mentioned. i'll say keep BlueJaysFan32 (talk) 22:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The additional source provided is not enough to establish notability, as it's not significant independent coverage in a reliable source. The other source, which I removed, was a blog, which is unreliable. As a note, the above editor is the creator of this article. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The rules for notability with an athlete is that he plays at least 1 professional game. Has he done this? Kingjeff (talk) 18:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what WP:ATHLETE says. "People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport" are considered notable. The Baseball WikiProject generally considers the top leagues (Major League Baseball, Nippon Professional Baseball, and the like) to be "fully professional". While minor league baseball players are "professional" (meaning that they are paid), they are not considered to be fully professional. D'Arnaud has not played above Single-A. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it means the same thing. Playing at least 1 professional game means he has competed at the fully professional level of a sport. And I would say Minor leagues would count since it meets the definition of my above statement. Kingjeff (talk) 03:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That statement is in contravention of previously established consensus. The vast majority of minor leaguers are not considered notable because the minor leaguers are not fully professional and have not received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. This is the reason that the lists of minor league baseball players exist (see Philadelphia Phillies minor league players and the other like articles). See User talk:Gjr rodriguez for a large list of similar players who also did not meet WP:N or WP:ATH under the guideline of "fully professional". KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But they are considered fully professional players. Kingjeff (talk) 00:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BASE/N, they are not. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BASE/N does not and can not overrule WP:ATHLETE. Fully professional is any league where a player is paid to play and does not have to pay to play like they would in semi-pro. That beings said I have no problem with minor baseball players being deleted cause there are jsut so many who never go anywhere unlike other sports. -DJSasso (talk) 01:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Djsasso, I never said that BASE/N overrules ATHLETE. Please do not put words in my mouth. BASE/N is the Baseball WikiProject's interpretation of "fully professional" for the purpose of a sport where the minor league system is far-reaching. Simply being a minor league player, coach, or umpire does not confer notability. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except that you inferred it in how you stated that. So I am not putting words in your mouth. You just need to be more careful with how you say things if you don't want them interpreted other than how you intend them. You also above pointed to a list of players whom you say did not meet WP:ATH which was not true, what they did not meet was WP:BASE/N. So it seems you are confusing the two. WP:BASE/N is only an essay that one or more people may believe. -DJSasso (talk) 01:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware, WP:ATHLETE doesn't replace the need for WP:N to be met. The simple case here is that WP:N is not met. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that is the whole reason for WP:ATH. It's considered an exception to wp:n for players that are harder to get sources for because of the lack of records a long time ago. Don't get me wrong articles should still have more sources and I don't have a problem deleting this article because wp:athlete is too inclusive. But the whole purpose of athlete is to include these sorts of players which is why its such a highly debated guideline. -DJSasso (talk) 02:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, although I completely disagree with you, that's why we have debate and discussion. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you inferred that WP:BASE/N overrules WP:ATHLETE; why else would you have countered Kingjeff's citation of WP:ATHLETE with "Per WP:BASE/N, they are not?" Claiming otherwise is disingenuous. Now like many other editors, I really wish athletic notability standards were devolved from the inadequate and overly-loose standard of WP:ATHLETE. The fact of the matter is that they have not. However much we wish it to be the case, the various criteria - including the set I drafted myself for the hockey Wikiproject - are unofficial essays with no power to trump WP:ATHLETE; furthermore, your stance that meeting the criteria of WP:ATHLETE doesn't count somehow is wholly erroneous - WP:BIO is a notability guideline with no less force than WP:N, "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow." There are certainly venues where you can attempt to change consensus (and I'll be right there on your side) but the fact of the matter is that out of the numerous attempts to change consensus concerning WP:ATHLETE, not one has yet succeeded. Make mine Keep. RGTraynor 02:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, watch the civility; there's no need to label other's arguments as "disingenuous." Having observed dozens of AFD discussions on articles about minor league baseball players, it's clear to me that there is no consensus on how WP:ATHLETE applies to minor leaguers; I've seen it used as an argument for deletion just about as often as an argument for keeping. Even though minor league players are paid a small amount, the minor leagues also acknowledge that their main purpose is to serve as a training and development program for Major League Baseball. Many editors do not think that this type of experience is sufficient to qualify as "fully professional." Given the lack of consensus on how to interpret WP:ATHLETE, the WP:BASE/N guideline (which reflects the consensus of the Baseball WikiProject) relies more heavily on WP:GNG to establish notability, BRMo (talk) 05:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just playing devils advocate here but, there seems to be a consensus across pretty much all sports (except baseball) that is "fully professional" means not "semi-pro" and the semi-pro article defines semi-pro as not playing as a full time job. I would be hard pressed not to call the minor leagues not a full time job. Even if they are considered training. But yes in such situations we should fall more on WP:GNG. But yes, many of these afds do end up delete cause the baseball project floods out and cries delete, when realistically (even if I dislike it and want the deleted) they should be kept because they do meet the letter of WP:ATHLETE. -DJSasso (talk) 05:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd disagree with the idea that members of the baseball wikiproject are the ones pushing deletion. In many cases, they tend to support merging these type of short articles on minor league players (see below). BRMo (talk) 05:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you are definitely correct, I just consider the merge to be the same a delete in that a separate article no longer exists so I used delete when I should have said merge. -DJSasso (talk) 15:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is no violation of civility to attack one's argument. That being said, I agree that members of the baseball Wikiproject have pushed hard the notion that minor leaguers should not count as "fully professional." I just don't agree that their POV is universally held, especially when there are sports - such as soccer, basketball and hockey - where minor league systems are longstanding and have players who've spent long careers playing in second tier leagues. I've said it before and will say it again: advocate devolving WP:ATHLETE to the projects, and I'll be right there. Until then, WP:ATHLETE is unambiguous, trumps any project notability essay, and AfDs aren't the venue to fight that. RGTraynor 09:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Webster's definition of "disingenous" is "lacking in candor; giving a false appearance of simple frankness." Dictionary.com's is "lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenous; insincere." Your use of this word is not just an attack on an argument; it is an attack on the motives or honesty of the person to whom it is directed. BRMo (talk) 13:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Toronto Blue Jays minor league players. Spanneraol (talk) 14:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Toronto Blue Jays minor league players (see WP:BASE/N for notability criteria for minor league baseball players). BRMo (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Toronto Blue Jays minor league players.--Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 15:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He has competed at a professional level and has "competed at the fully professional level of a sport" Kingjeff (talk) 00:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Toronto Blue Jays minor league players. If he never plays a major league game, he doesn't meet notability. It's WP:CRYSTAL to assume he ever will. --Muboshgu (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: According to the standard, he does. Kingjeff (talk) 04:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't agree with your interpretation of the standard. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Upon what basis do you disagree? Are you claiming that minor league baseball players are unpaid? RGTraynor 20:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Upon the basis that he's not in the most advanced level of professional baseball. --Muboshgu (talk) 18:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Which is not what WP:ATHLETE requires. It just requires that it be a league that is professional and does not contain amateurs. -DJSasso (talk) 19:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        It requires a league to be "fully professional", not just professional. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Right and fully professional means all the players of the league are pros and there are no amateurs. Its really a clear statement, it might not be as clear to baseball editors as I can't think of any baseball leagues that have a combination of pros and amateurs on the same team. However in a number of others sports there are leagues that are made up of both professionals and amateurs. This is why the word fully is used. -DJSasso (talk) 21:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        That might be your interpretation, but that's not the way I see it, and I would venture that the majority of the editors in the baseball project (the ones who would be affected by this article's deletion or retention) would agree with me considering the multiple votes from project members to merge. My interpretation of "fully professional" (as always, my opinion) is not that players are paid, but that the league itself is fully professional, meaning that the league isn't involved in training or promoting players. I know that you work in the hockey project, so if I might venture offer an example from the hockey team I follow: What makes Bryan Helmer and Quintin Laing notable, but Greg Amadio and Andrew Joudrey aren't? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Having dug through discussions that is why they chose the word. Perhaps its a North American vs European thing as the sports and leagues that have his setup are mostly located there. The word fully was introduced to weed out the amateurs that play in the lower tier soccer leagues that people consider professional but don't contain only pros. That being said training has nothing to do with not being professional, you are trained in every job you do. Being trained doesn't make you any less of a professional. -DJSasso (talk) 21:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        As for those players, nothing. The hockey project would create pages for and/or would vote keep on both of them since they are both permitted by WP:ATHLETE. We have our standards but they are just an essay, until wp:athlete is changed we respect that it contains the current consensus of the entire wiki and don't believe our project overrides it because we don't. -DJSasso (talk) 21:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        While I'll ignore your last remark, I would argue that, regardless of the standard's original intent, being "fully professional" necessitates that all portions of the definition of the words professional must be fulfilled. The Wiktionary definition of fully professional gives three meanings of the word. As a noun, a "professional" is: "A person who belongs to a profession", "A person who earns his living from a specified activity", and "An expert". While the first isn't under debate, and I won't argue that the second doesn't apply (though the salaries of minor league players vary), I don't believe that the third applies in this case, and that's where my argument lies. Reference.com also agrees that "expert" is one definition of professional. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        While we will agree to disagree I am sure, I have a hard time not accepting that someone who gets paid to play is not an expert. When you consider the thousands upon thousands who play amateur baseball. I would say if you are good enough to get paid, you are already an expert. The different levels of leagues are just people that are more expert than others. But I agree its probably a matter of perception. -DJSasso (talk) 03:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Toronto Blue Jays minor league players. Alex (talk) 08:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But minor league baseball leagues are not an exclusively developmental leagues as your statement is saying. Just like lower professional soccer leagues in Europe, there are players of lesser quality that make up Minor League Baseball. Kingjeff (talk) 06:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are very few absolutes in this world. The fact remains that much more than a simple majority of players in Minor League Baseball are there for developmental reasons, whether they are young players who are going for their first chance at the bigs, veterans who are trying to get back, big-leaguers who are rehabilitating, and some who are attempting to make a comeback. All of these player roles can be classified as "developmental", whether it's the development and improvement of new skills, or developing new strength through physical rehab. Several published works, including this one (see page 11), note that the minor leagues are organized according to the level of players' skills. Each affiliated minor league club has a "player development contract" with a major league club (see pages 12 and 13), reinforcing that this is their purpose. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - But none of that stops them from being completely professional. There isn't a job in the world where the training is ever done. Whether they are there for training or not doesn't change the fact that the leagues are completely professional. We don't stop calling a doctor a fully professional just because he has had to take some continuing education courses. To be honest if I was a minor leaguer I would be insulted if someone said I wasn't fully professional because I played in the minors. -DJSasso (talk) 14:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - But being offended is not what this is about. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You're right, its about being professional, which they are. -DJSasso (talk) 17:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        And now we are back to the same argument again, because it's about being fully professional. We're talking in circles here. I'm more than willing to agree to disagree. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Alcohol consumption by youth in the United States. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 04:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

USA College binge drinking[edit]

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

It is a very poorly sourced article, from article history an attempt had been made to merge it but it was copy and pasted back by an editor. It is a very narrow topic which can be covered in articles such as short-term effects of alcohol or binge drinking if anybody ever wants to dig out references for such an article. It is not a global topic and I do not feel that it reaches notability for wikipedia. Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as being the nominator and per my comments above.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is an international article on Binge drinking: anything useful from this article could be merged there. jmcw (talk) 13:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible keep The article is not very polished. However the topic itself, binge drinking by American college students, is certainly notable. It comes up a lot in the news media. There is no requirement that every WP article have a world-wide scope. Northwestgnome (talk) 14:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I agree with NWGnome that the sourcing and presentation needs to be polished, but the author has made an attempt to cite to reliable and verifiable sources and just hasn't got the ref/ref thing down. Binge drinking among college students is more of a problem now than it was a generation ago, for a number of reasons, and we have no article about it. Needless to say, its not confined to American colleges, and a title change from "USA College binge drinking" to something more encyclopedic, such as "Alcohol abuse in college", would be in order. Mandsford (talk) 17:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. With a bit of cleanup, this could profitably be merged into the existing article Alcohol consumption by youth in the United States. The text has POV issues, seeming to accept the public-healthist viewpoint that the drinking habits of young people are an "evil" needing medico-legal "correction". But at minimum, it could be used to expand that article, and covers subjects that one only lightly touches on, so at minimum preserve this somewhere, like on that article's talk page, and redirect this to that one. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not opposed to merging what is worth merging.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dero Sluts[edit]

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

non notable WP:NEOLOGISM. Prod deleted. No references. noq (talk) 13:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nominator. It might not even be a neologism, just some local slang term. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as there is nothing to indicate that the term is in wide enough use to be notable. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable neologism. the fact that several edits made to the article were to remove "references" that did not infact mention the word suggest either that this is a joke article, or the author was well aware that the phrase was not notable enought for wp. Fenix down (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced neologism. JohnCD (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO and others. ukexpat (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 22:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly a neologism if not a borderline hoax/attack page, totally non-notable. --Glenfarclas (talk) 23:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Its not a hoax, it is a real term. whether it merits its own entry is another issue. --Brunk500 (talk) 06:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete. The page is primarily a dictionary definition of neologism. Brunk500, who contested PROD, allows that it may not merit inclusion here. Cnilep (talk) 20:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability, slang. LeilaniLad (talk) 16:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

QMagazine[edit]

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

Cannot find any significant independent coverage. Article does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MEDIA. In my opinion, this page should be a redirect to Q (magazine). Brilliantine (talk) 13:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite fairly lengthy time in existence, the magazine doesn't seem to have built up much (or any) notability under WP:NMEDIA. Also, do not redirect to Q (magazine) which is a much, much different publication. In fact, this newer magazine in the present discussion is likely to cause unfair confusion with Q (magazine), here and elsewhere. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I'm only saying it should be redirected as a plausible mis-spelling of the major magazine Q. I am not suggesting there is any link between the two publications. So I would say this page be deleted and a new redirect established. Brilliantine (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Understood! Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 00:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7 product with no third party sources. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Heartstring Symphony[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:BAND, unreferenced, appears to be a recently self-published musical group without a track record of accomplishment; a brief due-diligence news search turned up one item announcing a play date. Also note WP:COI by creator. Prod contested by anonymous editor. MuffledThud (talk) 11:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 11:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because the artist only claims notability on the basis of being a member of the band above. It's also unreferenced, and there are similar WP:COI issues. As above, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Prod contested by anonymous editor at same IP address as above article. MuffledThud (talk) 14:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These two articles appear to be written without an understanding of WP:COI and WP:MUSICBIO principles, perhaps innocently. Some time might be needed before anyone chooses to help out based on the edit tags that have been appropriately placed on the articles. I'm not sure if recommending the passage of time for improvement is a legitimate vote for an AfD discussion, therefore I'm leaving it as a Comment. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both, fails WP:MUSIC. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice for re-creation when appropriate. This musical group is just too early in its life cycle to have garnered sufficient attention from the musical and public worlds to warrant inclusion (based on notability guidelines). Wikipedia should not be used to bring to the attention of the world groups that would otherwise escape notice; Wikipedia reflects the attention of the world to a group. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Spyksma[edit]

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

Doesn't look like he is sufficiently notable enough academic to justify an article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noteworthy guidelines state that a publication makes you noteworthy. Spyksma has had multiple publications. Trit (talk) 17:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Publications about you surely not publications of your own. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google scholar lists only single-digit citations to his work. As with most Wikipedia articles on junior faculty, this appears to have been created prematurely: his work has not yet had time to gain the impact required by WP:PROF #1, and there is no other criterion he comes close to meeting. Google news search also finds nothing. Trit's suggestion that having a single publication makes one noteworthy is a gross misreading of WP:PROF (which requires the publications to make an impact — even having many publications is explicitly stated in that guideline as being insufficient) or WP:GNG (which, as Spartaz says, requires the publications to be about rather than by the subject). —David Eppstein (talk) 06:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WoS shows similar results using "Author=(Spyksma K*)": 5 papers with citations 3, 2, 1, 0, 0 for an h-index of only 2 – not terribly surprising for a relatively-recent graduate. This is another textbook case of an article way too early. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. As shown above, notability is not yet there. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. NW (Talk) 01:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ardwick Athletic F.C.[edit]

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

This is essentially a hoax, as Manchester City F.C. was never known as "Ardwick Athletic F.C.". The club was known as Ardwick F.C., which already redirects to the main article, but there seems little point in having a redirect from a name by which the club was never known - who's likely to be searching under a name that never existed? Content was copied directly from Hyde Road, so there's nothing to merge. Club badge does not look like one designed in the Victorian era and is probably fake, article's creator has created hoax articles before ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note this article has been moved around a bit and is currently at Ardwick Association Football Club, redirects will have to deleted when the article is deleted. pablo_hablo. 20:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as the nominator says, this not a valid search term for a redirect and info already exists elsewhere no can't merge. Giant Snowman 14:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This appears to have arisen from a misunderstanding. Manchester City's predecessor was Ardwick Association Football Club. Ardwick A.F.C. is already a redirect to Manchester City F.C., and the only content here is copied from Hyde Road. The badge is genuine, though that point is moot really. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I know a bit about Man City (due to my flatmate supporting them), and they were never called Ardwick Athletic: it was just Ardwick. There's also no point in redirecting it to the Man City article, because who's going to search for a name that was never used (it's also unlikely they'd search for a term that has been used - who's going to search for Small Heath instead of Birmingham City, for example?)? DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 16:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes, I am aware that Small Heath F.C. redirects to Birmingham City F.C., so don't point it out. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 16:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- thanks Oldelpaso for telling me that it was Ardwick Association Football Club! i was told that it was Ardwick Athletic Football Club, and i have now moved it to follow suit. Pabmeista —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pabmeista (talk • contribs) 19:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As per the above, the user has moved the article to Ardwick Association Football Club. This is, I suppose, a plausible redirect to Manchester City F.C., but a separate standalone article still isn't needed..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

.........and now he has moved it into his userspace (and also, bizarrely, attempted to speedy delete Hyde Road, the article which the contents of this one were copied from) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back in mainspace now, the AfD template was showing an error (not for userpages). pablo_hablo. 20:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, hoax by serial hoaxer. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The One & Only Fools and Horses. A new redirect to Manchester City can be created if necessary when this is gone. pablo_hablo. 20:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Humphrey Scott Xavier[edit]

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

Someone clearly spent a long time writing this (most likely autobiographical) article. However, it seems to describe an entirely unremarkable person using terrible POV language. To be honest I think it's a CSD case but will give the author the benefit of the doubt by having it debated here. Biker Biker (talk) 09:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - the original editor also created a bit-for-bit identical copy at Humprhrey Scott Xavier, which for now I have blanked and redirected to the original article. --Biker Biker (talk) 10:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unremarkable biography. Unsubstantiated assertions of notability + questionable references. -Reconsider ! 10:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete on the basis that the author has created a section titled 'publications and masterpieces'. Also i checked out the "Order of Diplomacy General Secretariat Inc" which apparently has 70,000 members worldwide etc- and it just seemed like rubbish. I dont have the time to check all the claims made in this article and to check on the validity of all the organisations mentioned, but if anyone can show me evidence that this isnt all rubbish i'll gladly change my vote. --Brunk500 (talk) 12:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, just...wow. Except for #1 which is the website of a 501(c)(3) nonprofit out of Tennessee, all the references are either his personal website, Wikipedia, or wikipilipinas.org ("the hip 'n free Phillipine encyclopedia"). Google brings up the above sites, plus Facebook. Gnews and Gscholar, to my surprise, bring up nothing. His publications and masterpieces are not in Worldcat or any of the major academic journals, so far as I can tell (I admit, I didn't search for all of them). I feel like there must be something I'm missing, but based on what I've found so far I guess I'm forced to recommend delete: NN. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 14:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. And I'll add my own wow. PDCook (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and previous comments. I must admit to some surprise that he does not claim to be competent at full contact origami, or have outlaw status in Peru.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 03:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW anyone? PDCook (talk) 14:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Deletion decision seems unanimous, so can someone go ahead and do the dirty deed? --Biker Biker (talk) 07:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FastFractal256[edit]

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

Non notable computer program. Newly released and article written by someone with an apparent conflict of interest noq (talk) 09:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The program is notable mostly because it implements high-precision arithmetic on GPU. Is cited for this reason by nvidia on their webpage nvidia CUDA homepage. It is true, the program is new. Also, it is true, there is a conflict of interest -- please feel free edit, as you see necessary. I believe it is 100% truthful, but am also open to your opinion. fractal_gpu (talk) 23:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete all products with no third party sources. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Delete self-published software without third party sources. This is not actually eligible for A7 speedy deletion because it's not a person, organization, or web site; however, all the usual reasons for A7 deletion apply. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CCCalc[edit]

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

Unsourced and non-notable application. Has only been released. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 01:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete all articles with no third party sources. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

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

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

The result was redirect to Tomonori Kogawa. Cirt (talk) 16:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool Cool Bye[edit]

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

Lacks third-party sources to prove notability. Makes no assertion of notability. —Farix (t | c) 12:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 12:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it has notable producers and directors perhaps it can be merged to one of them Polarpanda (talk) 13:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tomonori Kogawa, I was about to AfD this myself but held back to see what would happen reference wise. I think it is best to just make a redirect here, Tomonori may be a notable director but not all works from a person can be as notable by themselves. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tomonori Kogawa, same as noted above. I checked google for this and didnt find much coverage- but apparently it is quite loved by a few people http://www.pelleas.net/aniTOP/index.php?title=cool_cool_bye&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1. The article at its current length (tiny) could easily be incorporated into a list of works in the Tomonori Kogawa article (the Tomonori Kogawa article is itself tiny- it list cool cool bye but doesnt even have a one line plot summary). --Brunk500 (talk) 14:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Life As We Knew It (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:NF, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. MuffledThud (talk) 11:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 11:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the guidelines, I understand that the press releases and IMBD are excluded from the reliable sources. Barring that this project will be submitted to Sundance come January, it is notable in that it is the directorial debut of Lucas Hardeman, another page that for whatever reason is also suffering through threat of deletion. What sort of info are you looking for in order to keep this page included in the encyclopedia? Archer Drezelan (talk) 14:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (films) is the best place to start. MuffledThud (talk) 05:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the case that this page is deleted before more information can be gathered, may it be resubmitted at a later time? Or will it be flagged for deletion again? Archer Drezelan (talk) 23:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please do resubmit it, if it becomes notable. MuffledThud (talk) 07:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking Sundance Festival films tend to be notable because of the press attention they get, so if the film is actually accepted, its screening there and the resulting coverage is probably enough to get the article here without deletion problems. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The list of films for Sundance 2010 was released yesterday, but this film has not been included. MuffledThud (talk) 07:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Same as muffledthud, i checked, this film hasnt been accepted to sundance. The film is slated for release march 2010 - once its released it may achieve notability, its not even close right now --Brunk500 (talk) 14:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 21:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Userfy to article author User:Archer Drezelan/sandbox/Life As We Knew It (film) out of consideration to his interest in the article and his willingness to continue improving it to meet guideline. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Orange County High School of the Arts. Wizardman 19:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Production and Design Conservatory[edit]

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

This department within a high school(!) has 32 Google hits. Deprodded. Abductive (reasoning) 06:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Orange County High School of the Arts, its parent school. Not separately notable. TerriersFan (talk) 23:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup and Merge/redirect to Orange County High School of the Arts. Jujutacular ^T · C 01:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zhu Benli, Prince of Han[edit]

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

I'm taking this to AfD because I've spent quite a bit of time trying to find out who this is and came up with only [17] which isn't a RS. Context is the editor is creating a number of unsourced articles, some clearly copyright, and in addtion we have List of emperors of the Ming Dynasty with a template [18] which contradicts it. And if this is the last Southern Ming 'emperor' (they are usually called pretenders I believe), who is Zhu Youlang, Prince of Gui (or Zhu Youlang, we seem to have two articles on this person)? I'm wondering if this is simply an error. Dougweller (talk) 19:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. These two are definitely not the same person, from what I've read. The zh.wp article says that whether he exists, or whether his name is Zhu Benli, is uncertain, but its sourcing appears quite weak. But then most of what I can find on google is that one particular Ming history (罪惟录) suggested his existence, but that account has been refuted by subsequent research. All in all, delete as failing WP:V. Tim Song (talk) 02:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 06:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no prejudice to an article with better sourcing. Abductive (reasoning) 06:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if it's impossible to find reliable sources, we can't really verify it. As Abductive says, no reason not to recreate if you can find the reliable sources later. Nyttend (talk) 06:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Zhu youlang and Zhu benli is not the same person, both of them were descendants of Ming imperial family. When Ming fall, many of them claim themselves as ruler of Ming, i dont agree if people call them as pretender. In fact, Zhu youlang, zhu benli, zhu changqing and others rules southern area of China (Ming) at that time. So they use dynasty name "Southern Ming Dynasty". There is many source, but written in Chinese, i have spend my time to search and write in wikipedia, dont just delete my article before seek the truth. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kungkang (talk • contribs) 03:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I tried searching by "朱本鉉" "定武", but none of the sources seemed reliable. Abductive (reasoning) 04:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand mandarin ?? i am so dissapointed with the deletion of my article "Zhu Benli, Prince of Han" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kungkang (talk • contribs) 07:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus to Delete unless solid sources can be found to prove existence (and hopefully encyclopedic value through notability). tedder (talk) 07:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remington high wall[edit]

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

Very short orphan article, no claim to notability, and no references. Unedited since creation 3 weeks ago. Nothing on Google. Shem (talk) 18:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~in its current form, unless someone can find some references for it. I'm not sure if this is a particular model Remington made or just a category.~~ Nonetheless, references are scarce. PDCook (talk) 14:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the information below, I'm changing my opinion to an unconditional delete. It's clearly not notable and verifiable. PDCook (talk) 17:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —PDCook (talk) 14:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this gun actually existed back in 1885, it's a very early example of something like the CornerShot. I've got a encyclopedia of fire arms which might contain more info, but I haven't got it with me at the moment. I'll take a look when I can; please remind me if I don't within 24 hours. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 06:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Roy Marcot's History of Remington Firearms (isbn 1592286909) doesn't mention a high wall in its index, and I didn't see anything in the section on model 1882/85 rifles. The November 2000 issue of Guns magazine does have an articled entitled "The Model 1885 High Wall," which has this quote:

The 1885 Single-Shot was also found in both High Wall and Low Wall versions. These terms refer to the sides of the receiver and their position in relation to the hammer. With the High Wall version, built for the more powerful cartridges, just the tip of the hammer is visible when viewed from the side; the Low Wall, chambered for such pleasant shootin' rounds such as the .22 Rimfire and .25-20, exposes the entire side of the hammer.

You can see the article here; I verified it in a database as well. Clearly not a gun for shooting over the tops of walls as the article claims, according to this source. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 15:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: probable hoax; if the barrel slants upwards on an angle, the bullet will slope upwards on an angle as well. Admittedly this will allow you to fire over the wall in question, but you could do that with a perfectly normal gun as well with about the same chances of hitting the intended target (i.e. none).Vulcan's Forge (talk) 02:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Empowher[edit]

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

Not notable, fails WP:CORP. Tagged for sources for over a month to no effect. AndrewHowse (talk) 05:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable web content or business; also obvious spam: provides women access to health information, medical resources and a community of members and advocates committed to their well-being. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

working on sources now —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachieheather (talk • contribs) 18:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 06:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: All I'm getting for sources are PRNewswire, Businesswire, and Internetwire. Most are "news in brief" type stuff (so-and-so named head of such-and-such, what's-her-name announces new this-or-that initiative, &c) amidst the day's other goings on. The dedicated articles are clear press releases from empowher itself; they have the head of Public Relations contact info attached to them. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 15:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am sometimes a little forgiving of organizations (I think this one might squeak by WP:Notability (organizations)), but this article is unencyclopedic and promotional. The article was also previously speedily deleted and the user was warned about writing promotional articles. PDCook (talk) 15:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Chasan[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. I cannot find anything besides trivial mentions. Prod declined by originating author, who appears to be an SPA. Ray^Talk 03:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 03:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks OK to me. Founding a company that goes public is already a bid for notablility IMO. --MelanieN (talk) 05:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

And if anyone happens to disagree with you on that, this information can be included in the article about said company because being listed at NASDAQ is a sign of a company's notability thus making the company suitable for inclusion. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not that I am unbiased, but if you think iTunes and iPods changed the face of music, Emusic was the pioneer. It was that first company in history to sell digital music files and mp3 players. Mark Chasan was the founder and CEO when he started the company in 1995. There is plenty of verification in well respected periodicals, SEC filings and even an article in Wikipedia mentioning Mark Chasan as the founder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.70.60 (talk) 02:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question at hand is whether he is notable - in the sense of having been covered in a significant way by reliable sources independent of the subject. A wikipedia article, specifically, the one under discussion, does not count - that reasoning would be a bit too circular. Ray^Talk 06:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is one article that mentions his name which is verifiable. If more citations like these can be found maybe it can be fixed and kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cablespy (talk • contribs) 15:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 06:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I don't see anything problematic with this article.Daviderudit (talk) 08:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stack magazine[edit]

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

Delete: A somewhat not very notable magazine with a "distribution" of 800,000 and a "claimed readership" of 5,000,000 athletics. Kind of contradicting, if you think about it. Dave ¹¹⁸⁵ 01:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the contradiction. Magazines get passed around and shared, and that's without the ones in waiting rooms of doctors and dentists. That claimed readership is entirely plausible, assuming the distribution is correct. By the way, why did you put apostrophes around distribution. There's nothing wrong with a distribution of 800000 copies. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep gSearch of the phrase Stack Magazine Athletics showed that some of the schools named in their annual Top 50 gave attribution to the magazine. If Notre Dame and Florida State think the magazine in noteworthy enough to point out their placement on the list I think that should confer some. As for the contradiction of circulation and readership numbers, remember, if 10 people read each distributed magazine, you have a readership of 6 million. You can argue how many people actually read each one, but it isn't implausible that readership isn't 5 million. Vulture19 (talk) 02:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spam Sourced to press releases from the company. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

That is the reference in there. Before it is deletable, you also need to know there is no alternative. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – further information added since the original AfD demonstrates that this publication is far from being "somewhat not very notable". Third party sources cited include a public library and an independent review in another magazine, indicating notability. If the article has deficiencies, let's work on them together. As for the assertion of contradiction between the circulation and readership figures, "Dave" is making assumptions about the number of people who can read a particular copy of a magazine; his assumption may apply to magazines that are bought (and owned), but the situation with free publications accessible through schools and libraries is different. -- Hebrides (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Vulture19. Nay problems with this article can easily be sorted out.RadManCF (talk) 01:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 06:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Would clearly benefit from improved sourcing, but there's enough to satisfy the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WARNING: Some of the sources being cited are essentially press releases provided by Stack magazine, which is no better than a primary source to some degree, but the remainder of the sources/text do take a fair crack at establishing notability so I feel comfortable erring on the side of keep in this case. JBsupreme (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although currently a poor article, there is enough potential to warrant keeping the article around. If can be AFDed later if it remains in this dismal form. Dethlock99 (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to FidoNet. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FidoNews[edit]

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

Unsourced stub describing a "self-published newsletter". In fact, this is a moderated email list. No indication whatsoever that this is notable; the only current content of the stub is simply that this email list exists. In the absence of sources, it does not seem likely that this will ever grow into even a normal-sized stub, let alone a real article. Stub was redirected to the "publisher" (FidoNet, although that does not seem to be very notable either), but this is being contested. In the absence of any sources showing any notability, my vote is to delete this. Crusio (talk) 21:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 21:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Nothing to indicate notability. Nsk92 (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FidoNet easily passes the notability criteria, being the first, largest, and longest-running BBS network, and having received extensive treatment in a recent documentary film and in various books, academic journals, technical papers, doctoral theses, etc. The question as to whether its official publication, FidoNews, is likewise notable is certainly debatable, though. Some observations, then:
- The fact that it is "self-published" is not in and of itself a reason to dismiss it, as many other notable periodicals, online and in print, could be likewise described.
- The publication's longevity should be taken into consideration; it's been published continuously since 1984.
- The term gets about 12000 Google hits, though one would expect a paucity of online sources, given that FidoNews's heyday predates the World Wide Web.

Based on these observations alone, and its association with its obviously notable parent organizations, I would guess that FidoNews is at least as notable, if not more, than the various Usenet newsgroups, IETF series, and other online magazines for which we already have articles. It would be helpful, though, if this notability could be confirmed by finding references to FidoNews in established online or print sources. I'm not aware of any off the top of my head, but I suspect these books and articles might be some good places to look, as they are about FidoNet:

Bush, R. 1993. FidoNet: technology, tools, and history. Communications of the ACM Special issue on internetworking, Vol. 36, No. 8, August 1993, pp. 31–35.
Quarterman, J. S., Mitchell, S. C., and Smoot, C. (1993) The Internet Connection: System Connectivity and Configuration. 1st Ed. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc.
Crosser, E. G. 1998. Ifmail: FidoNet technology implementation on UNIX platform. In Proceedings of the Annual Conference on USENIX Annual Technical Conference (New Orleans, Louisiana, June 15 - 19, 1998). USENIX Annual Technical Conference. USENIX Association, Berkeley, CA, p. 37.
Surratt, C. G. (1996). The sociology of everyday life in computer-mediated communities Dissertation Abstracts International, 57(03-A), 1346.

Another potential source of citations might be the current editor of FidoNews, Björn Felten. He may be aware of coverage of FidoNews in other media. —Psychonaut (talk) 22:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to FidoNet, as it is not notable enough to have his own article. Armbrust (talk) 12:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 06:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sources provided by Psychonaut may (perhaps) establish notability for FidoNet, but unless other evidence turns up, they don't establish notability for FidoNews. --Crusio (talk) 11:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to FidoNet; create a stand-alone article later if new sources with non-trivial coverage are found. — Miym (talk) 23:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to fidonet though Fido was a bunch of whiners, they are notable. this is not. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Damascus Road[edit]

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

The subject of this article is a musical recording by Damascus Road, a band which does not have its own Wikipedia article. No indication of this particular album's notability is given in the article. I tagged it with A9, but the article's creator has changed the article so the infobox says the album is by Matt Wertz, who does have an article on Wikipedia, while the main text says the album is by the band Damascus Road, which includes Matt Wertz. There's no indication of notability here, so I submit this for deletion here because it just barely escapes A9. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NALBUMS states that "[i]n general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." This is not one of those cases. The "musician or ensemble" is teetering on the brink of even minimal notability, and this is just not an album on which I can find anything approaching significant reliable coverage. (See, e.g., "damascus road" wentz). --Glenfarclas (talk) 06:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not finding any significant coverage for this album; does not appear to meet WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 06:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 06:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per the conventions of Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums the band article should be created first and pass the test of notability. Then it will be time to discuss the albums. More specifically, this album has a relationship with Matt Wertz that is too distant too piggyback off of his notability. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This Is A Real Album, You Idiot
http://www.soundunwound.com/sp/release/view/Damascus-Road-Damascus-Road?releaseId=6234536&ref=DI
http://phorum.nettwerk.com/mattwertz/index.php?topic=61.0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitaminsandgravy (talk • contribs) 21:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Vitaminsandgravy, no one said this wasn't a real album; the issue is that there's no evidence it's a notable album. Also, please don't call anyone an idiot or make any other personal attacks. Thank you. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 00:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 00:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grigori Galitsin[edit]

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

Nominated by a new account-holder who cannot create this page. At the moment I have no opinion on the article. Kevin (talk) 05:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grigori Galitsin was arrested and jailed for the production and distribution of underage and illegal pornography. He faced trial in November 2009 and is currently in prison. This article promotes illegal pornography, features links that are permanently removed and links that contain material in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”). Mr. Galitsin has violated and abused me in the past, and this article continues to harm me by using www.wikipedia.org as a platform to disseminate illegal pornography that was reportedly destroyed by regulators. Alice (talk) 5:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep Article isn't promoting illegal pornography simply by discussing someone who seems to have participated in it any more than an article about Seung-Hui Cho promotes shooting college students. He seems to pass our notability standards, and any other objections are content matters that don't belong here at AFD. Nyttend (talk) 06:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sorry, but regardless of the claims and trials of the nominee, this article does nothing more than state the facts. It appears to pass WP:N. Gillyweed (talk) 09:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a common error to accuse an information source (like an encyclopedia, news, etc.) of promoting something that it is merely describing. I agree with the others above - this article describes the facts in a neutral way, including the man's criminal history. He probably deserves criticism from his victims, but that can be done elsewhere. An encyclopedia like this one simply describes the facts if they are notable. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If this article were to be deleted, it should be on the basis of Galitsin's not meeting WP:NOTABILITY criteria. I believe that Galitsin is notable, having been one of the more popular and recognized online erotic photographers/pornographers during the early-to-mid 2000s, as well as having had numerous non-trivial mentions in the Russian press during his initial criminal investigation. (In fact, translation of this article for Russian Wikipedia is propbably called for.) Iamcuriousblue (talk) 02:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If this article is to survive, it should certainly have a reference to the criminal proceedings in the lead paragraph, especially as this is likely to be part of the subject's notability. Also, as pointed out by the complainant, a number of the external links are to sites which are either not working, primary sources, or of dubious nature. Sussexonian (talk) 10:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I absolutely fail to see why external links to primary sources are a problem. External links are not references and hence have different criteria for inclusion than citations. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 02:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep He had prominent works and his case attracted considerable mainstream media interest. Behemoth (talk) 14:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vince Williams (line backer)[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:Athlete, not a professional athlete. Shadowjams (talk) 04:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (I had originally PRODded this article). Clearly fails WP:ATHLETE, and not enough significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. I can find only the typical player stat profiles, tomahawknation.com blog posts, and passing mentions elsewhere, which is not enough. --Glenfarclas (talk) 05:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without the sources to pass the GNG, he's not notable, as college football players aren't professionals. Nyttend (talk) 06:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Kenk[edit]

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

This one's going to be controversial. It's a bicycle thief, which by itself is completely non-notable. Even a spree of thefts doesn't satisfy the criminal inclusion criteria.

What complicates it are the high profile sources. Some of those sources, however, are bureau chiefs or similar regional posts doing online articles for the respective areas. Beyond those I don't know if this has widespread coverage. That coverage also suggests some human interest-style reporting, which I don't believe meets WP:N. Shadowjams (talk) 04:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The most notable person in the world in any activity is notable, if there are reliable sources to prove it--as in this case. DGG ( talk ) 17:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. LOL the most notable bicycle thief in the world. he he. It is stuff like this that keeps me coming back. keep per dgg. Turqoise127 (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Maybe it highlights some fundamental differences about what WP:N means, but I'm pretty confident that it does not mean the "most notable...in any activity," unless that's meant in some sort of tautological game, which I don't think is what you mean. For an easy example, the most notable person at highschool X is not notable. It isn't said enough, probably because most people take it as implicit, but notability standards are what separates wikipedia from a google search. They're important. Shadowjams (talk) 04:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Weird one, this, but I think the amount of coverage allows for notability, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 11:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Home of God's Love[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Home of God's Love

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

Written as an advertisement, complete mess. No sources. Shadowjams (talk) 04:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this was the best ref i could find, and i dont think its enough to show notability. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, comes close to speedy deletion both (1) as spam, and (2) as an organisation without a plausible claim of significance. Nyttend (talk) 06:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I also found [19], but between the two articles, I don't see this being sufficient coverage to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 14:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cantor-de Waal multiset[edit]

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

A pointless concept with no references or google hits. Possibly a hoax or joke. r.e.b. (talk) 03:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No Google scholar or books hits at all for the search phrase Cantor "de Waal" multiset ([20], [21]). Only a few web hits, but none of them appear to be relevant. Also, the article is unreferenced, and the "definition" is pure nonsense. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For what it's worth, the author created a copy-paste article Pascal's hexagon and copied the entire "See also" and EL sections of this article from Order of magnitude. KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm calling hoax on this one. Cornelis de Waal is a professor of philosophy at IUPUI ([22]). What the heck would he be doing mucking around with mathematical theory? KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm unwilling to call hoax based on his CV, since he's written a paper on “Why Metaphysics Needs Logic and Mathematics Doesn’t: Mathematics, Logic, and Metaphysics in Peirce’s Classification of the Sciences.” It's an area of interest of his; rather than a hoax, it may just be original research. —C.Fred (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, I hate to break it to you, but logic (including set theory) is an important branch of philosophy. Anyway, if this is genuine, it's not notable, so delete. Hairhorn (talk) 00:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inability to verify the term to any online sources, including publication titles on de Waal's university page. I'm still willing to assume good faith in the original editor, and I don't see a speedy deletion criterion that this article meets. —C.Fred (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are sure this isn't a hoax? These multisets are particullarly useful for calculating cardinalities of Z-related infinite sets. In the case of finite sets of integers the method of Cantor-de Waal multisets reduces to the usual powers-of-2 calculation, however for infinite Z-related sets, the method of Cantor-de Waal multisets can be up to three orders of magnitude faster than any other method. implies that finding cardinalities of powers of Z is hard, which appears to be nonsense. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's more math than I got to in college, so I will defer to subject area experts. My comment was in response to Kuyabribri's assertion that no philosopher would be involved in math theory. (And that I didn't see anything so blatant in the hoax department that I was willing to delete it under G3 myself.) —C.Fred (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not G3; that is to say, it's not screamingly obvious. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whoever wrote this seems to confuse multisets with sequences. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is silly and naive to say a philosopher wouldn't be doing mathematics. People can be interested in more than one topic, and there is a substantial intersection when the topic is logic. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no evidence of notability given and no one seems to be able to find any, that's sufficient cause to delete. Given that, much of this discussion is off topic; it makes no difference here whether philosophers can do math or not or, given that the topic isn't notable, whether it's a hoax or not or.--RDBury (talk) 11:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no references and hence non-notable. Of course the reason for that is that it is a blatant hoax. Quotient group (talk) 17:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of projects in development hell[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This list is entirely subjective. It will always violate neutral point-of-view requirements.
- The list doesn't even specify clear inclusion criteria ("lengthy", "usually", "fairly" are ambiguous), but even if it did, the criteria themselves would be an NPOV issue.
- Making the determination of "Project X is in development hell" ourselves will always be a POV judgment.
As it is, I also think this list suffers from verification, original research, and citation problems.
- While there are some sources given, few to none justify the claims of "development hell", and several are broken links.
- There is no question that various people might state various things are "in development hell". I don't see how we can pull together reliable sources to create a NPOV list.
Some notes on the scope of this nomination:
- I'm not saying we should delete the article on development hell.
- I'm not saying we cannot mention "development hell" anywhere.
- If a work (book, etc.) on development hell projects is created, and that work becomes notable, that work can have articles/lists. If multiple such works exist, we might have a list of works on the topic of development hell.
This list was sort-of deleted once before:
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of development hell projects (27 June 2009)
  - Full disclosure: I was the nominator then, too.
  - Since my objections remain unchanged, much of the text of this nomination is copied from the previous.
- I was tempted to ((db-g4)) the new page, but I couldn't find conclusive evidence of recreation.
- I do find it highly suspicious that this page sprang into being fully-grown in one edit, complete with already broken reference links, but I'm trying to give the benefit of doubt.
- If an admin thinks this qualifies for speedy deletion (e.g., based on deleted history), more power to you.

—DragonHawk (talk|hist) 02:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced original research — Selmo ^(talk) 02:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this has problems identical to the original list. As you say, there's no way that this can get over problems such as original research. By the way, I've checked the version deleted some months ago, and the text itself is different, so we can't speedy this as G4. Nyttend (talk) 02:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment while i totally support deletion, i suppose an admin should compare the previously deleted article to determine if this is just a recreation, or if it has been improved. even if improved, i say delete, but at least we would then debate it here. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep It probably does qualify as speedy delete, but I think that sourced articles about failed projects would be welcome. Most of this is already in the history of development hell anyway, so it's not as if it would be lost through deletion. Why this was brought back with the same name and with no changes... well, beats the development out of me. Mandsford (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Baleet Is this an article about video games, or cars, or is someone who likes it just trying to pad it? horsedreamer 15:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Possible merge of fully referenced material to relevent articles. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 19:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentBut merging material defeats the purpose... The page is intended to show disappointment or frustration garnered by not-to-be projects. This visibility will disappear if each (sourced) snippet is tucked under individual pages. The aim is to strongly connect a particular project with "development hell", or in other words, this page. Now, few companies are keen to admit their particular project is in this particular kind of trouble. Thus it is very difficult to obtain sources; especially to "prove" the project isn't simply abandoned or delayed, but truly in "development hell". CapnZapp (talk) 08:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not our place to strongly link anything, that is for other writers to do and us to comment on in individual articles. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 15:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't usually like to say "per nom", but I don't think it could be said better. Development Hell is a term that gets thrown around with projects, and it's all subjective to opinion. There's just no way to verify this list. --Teancum (talk) 14:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Random bucket of trivia, the vast majority of which is unverified, about things which are either cancelled or abandoned or merely rumoured or never get off the ground or... what the heck is that about? A lot of this info which can be verified is already in place in a relevant article. Although I can certainly see why some of these are of interest to many people, the way they're thrown together in this textual dustbin for things-which-aren't is depressing. Someone another 23:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mason Marconi[edit]

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

No significant coverage and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 00:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RadManCF (talk • contribs) 01:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make any sense; she was a Penthouse Pet, was in tons and tons of magazines, was in music videos (Snoop Dogg), and was actually famous. What does no significant coverage mean? And doesn't pass porn bio because she was in Penthouse and not Playboy? Does Playboy own stock in wikipedia now? • Librarian2001 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.21.174 (talk) 08:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in reply to 99.141.21.174: Wikipedia:Significant coverage is when there are "sources [that] address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." I've also felt there's something problematic about the way WP:PORNBIO seems to give Wikipedia's imprimatur to Playboy and/or journalists' ideas of notability as what encyclopedic notability should be. WP:NOTNEWS states "not all newsworthy events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own" and conversely not all subjects of encyclopedia articles are deemed newsworthy. But PORNBIO is what it is. The argument for including Playboy and excluding Penthouse from PORNBIO seems to be that the media appear to cover Playboy more; see penthouse prefix:Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)//penthouse prefix:Wikipedia talk:Notability (pornographic actors). "Significant coverage" and PORNBIO are both notability guidelines about which it is said "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." Saying they're just guidelines isn't especially productive, though. Thus, if you disagree with the guideline, the main options would seem to be: (1) change it through establishing consensus for changing it on the talk page or (2) offer an argument here for not following it for some reason. Coverage of her being a Pet, her resume of appearance in magazines, documentation/coverage of music video appearances would be places to start that argument, if you're willing to do it. Her own presentation of information about herself is a place to start, e.g. [23], but for most (not all) purposes the guideline is not to use self-published sources. If some of her print and television appearances are coverage of her rather than simply appearances, that might constitute significant coverage.

Conversely, the stronger AfD arguments are when nominators do not just point at a guideline but include their reasoning as to why the guideline is not met. "No significant coverage" is actually an unsubstantiated claim and there are indications that there might be significant coverage. It is true however that the article does not substantiate that there is, thus "No reliable sources cited in the article verifying either significant coverage or WP:PORNBIO criteria" would be a marginally better way of just pointing, since that qualified statement at least appears to be true about the article. AfD nominations are also stronger when they document how they followed WP:BEFORE, and subsequent recommendations by additional Wikipedians are stronger when they "Do not base [their] recommendation solely on the information supplied by the nominator," offering a more substantive reason than "Delete per nom" (I must admit I have done just written that on occasion, though) or don't also only point at a guideline like not notable. In closing an AfD an admin is supposed to be "looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted. [...] Wikipedia policy requires that articles and information be verifiable, avoid original research and synthesis, respect copyright, and be written from a neutral point of view. These policies are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus" Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus. Theoretically a closing admin could close as keep or no consensus default to keep if the arguments made are not strong, as has been the case here so far. However, in practice it's my impression that doesn't happen often, and when it does the admin's closing reason would probably have to make an argument as well, and regardless of whether it did or not, it might then end up going to WP:Deletion review. Welcome? Шизомби (talk) 10:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:PORNBIO, no indication that the subject can satisfy the GNG or any other specialized guideline, o indication the article is capable of meaningful expansion beyond the existing stub. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 22:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiZnanie[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable internet encyclopedia. Minimal coverage and not apparent lasting notability. MBisanz ^talk 01:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its a notable wiki in Russia, maybe not the rest of world, but its is a big hit in Russia. --TIAYN (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this notability evidenced in sources? MBisanz ^talk 23:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if its notability can be sourced — Delete no sourced notability (yes I'm saying the same thing, but reworded for clarity) Selmo ^(talk) 04:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, as of now it can't be sourced, so shouldn't it be deleted? MBisanz ^talk 03:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, cool, thanks. MBisanz ^talk 04:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete It might be too soon to declare non-notability because it seems to have some mainstream coverage and GHits, and there are more possible sources that could be added to the article, but they're in Russian. Also since "95-98%" of the content is from Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary I assume that the site is just getting started and will grow over time. For now it's tough to justify inclusion in English Wikipedia but that might change in the future. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 12:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since the Dictionary was copied there in 2005, and the project was practically abandoned since then, "will grow" is very unlikely to happen. — AlexSm 17:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even the russian version of the page does not add to notability. - Altenmann >t 01:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This wiki-encyclopedia received press coverage. Historically, it competed with Wikipedia. SA ru (talk) 05:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the project did receive a little bit of coverage when it was created but only as a "potential competitor of Russian Wikipedia" which never happened, probably because the main purpose was just to make some money off commercial ads and the growing Wikipedia popularity. — AlexSm 17:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

José Capellán (left-handed pitcher)[edit]

The result was No consensus --w^L^{<speak·check>} 19:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

He was notable when he was on a team's 40-man roster. He is now merely "just" a minor leaguer who has yet to reach the big leagues, and judging by his 2009 performance (ERA over 6.00) I don't think he'll get there any time soon. That is conjecture and take it as you will. Alex (talk) 04:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If he was notable when he was on the roster, he still is. Notability doesn't change over time. That would be the same as saying J.K. Rowling isn't notable because she hasn't written something in a while. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree w/MacGyver.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Boston Red Sox minor league players. -Spanneraol (talk) 23:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:WPBB/N, cites independent reliable sources. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 10:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes based on the variety of cited sources per WP:GNG. -- Mgm|^(talk) 12:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong Delete~~ This is ridiculous. Unlike major leaguer José Capellan, whose article now says "(right-handed pitcher)" to distinguish it from this farmhand, this guy has never played at a higher level than than the Carolina League team in Salem, Virginia. Never played AA, nor AAA, and certainly not the majors. He's not notable in the usual way, and certainly doesn't qualify for the free pass of WP:ATHLETE. Sure, he's mentioned in "reliable sources" like mlb.com or the cbs sports website. So is every other minor league baseball player who signs to the farm clubs of a major. And to infer that every baseball player gets his own page, if he gets mentioned on mlb.com, isn't in our guidelines. If he comes up to bat next April, give him his own page. Until then, treat him no differently than any other player in the minors. Mandsford (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Boston Red Sox minor league players. (See WP:BASE/N for notability criteria for minor league baseball players.) BRMo (talk) 15:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fails WP:ATH but passes WP:GNG.--Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 15:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per this.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People keep bringing up the General Notability Guideline, but could somebody tell me which of the sources is considered "significant coverage"? I would understand it if he was referred to in Sports Illustrated, but I've yet to see anything that would set him apart from any other minor league player. Even the guy who created the article wants it deleted. Mandsford (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Changing vote to Keep per WP:ATHLETE~~ , based on the source that Eppefleche identified that shows Capellan as being on the Dominican Republic national team at the Caribbean World Series. [24]. This would qualify as playing at the highest level of professional competition in the Dominican Republic, regardless of whether he ever makes it into a Major League Baseball game. Generally, minor league players would not pass WP:GNG, but the coverage here was from USA TODAY and it was more than a note of a transaction. Nice work on Epee's part. Mandsford (talk) 14:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, changing vote back to Delete. It was the major leaguer José Capellán who played in the Caribbean World Series, and not the minor league player "José Capellán (left-handed pitcher)" about whom the article is written. I had forgotten, when looking at the news search posted by Epee, that there is a José Capellán, born in 1981, who has played major league baseball, and this fellow, born in 1986, who has not played major league baseball. Again, if someone can point to any evidence of some significant coverage for "left-handed José Capellán", that would back up the statement that he passes WP:GNG, but I have a feeling that other people are getting the two guys confused. Mandsford (talk) 04:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Boston Red Sox minor league players. --Muboshgu (talk) 18:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 19:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rob McDowall[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Per DRV decision to overturn G4 speedy deletion and list on AfD. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He has not been the subject of independent secondary source material. The comments made in the first deletion still stand: good article, good man, but not encyclopaedic. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep. He gets one Google Scholar hit, which is for the blood campaign and Google News has him speaking about this to the BBC and the Scottish papers in a few articles. He also gets covered in Scotland On Sunday concerning a deportation case. He now has coverage for more than a single issue but the coverage is still far too shallow for me to vote "keep" with conviction. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment These articles report various subject matters, and quote McDowall as a spokesperson. The coverage is not directed to McDowall in detail per WP:GNG - it is directed towards the matters on which he campaigns. In my view, this makes him no different to a spokesperson or activist for any interest group. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The standard is coverage of the subject in reliable sources, not mentions of him in relation to something else. The news appearances seem to be quoting the viewpoint of an opinionated person, not quoting him as a major figure in the issue. Chick Bowen 21:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep non admin closure TheWeakWilled (T * G) 15:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FloodSim[edit]

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

This article is likely a result of paid editing: see my post at COIN. As such it wouldn't be here if it weren't for some unethical dealings behind the scenes. The product also fails WP:N as it hasn't received significant discussion in reliable, third-party sources. Them From Space 04:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It most likely is, yeah. Still, the current article may be due for a re-write, but we shouldn't hold its origins against the topic. You have more experience than me with conflicts of interest, so do you know where we'd go to look for third-party sources? --Kiz o r 12:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I will dig around for sources quickly, and list below:

There are a few other sources sitting about too, however they are much shorter and less informative versions of the above. However, I still think this gives notability. A rewrite could be good as there seem to be good claims to notability here. Hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 14:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if a total rewrite is needed due to the COI issue, feel free to drop a message on my talkpage. I would be happy to do it but unfortunately at the moment am a little busy IRL, so if others are able to rewrite thats good too. --Taelus (talk) 14:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that this game has recieved significant enough to meet the general notability guideline, I found more than Taelus has previously found. I've removed all the previous content that was unsuitable for the article, some more may need to be removed. COI or paid editing isn't a valid argument for deletion so I personally can't see why it should go. Smartse (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. There's also significant coverage in an academic paper. SharkD Talk 23:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to San Francisco Giants minor league players. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 04:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Copeland[edit]

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

Non-notable minor leaguer. The page was created when he was placed on a team's 40-man roster. He is not there now. Alex (talk) 05:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to San Francisco Giants minor league players. -Spanneraol (talk) 23:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All your arguments seem to be based on the fact he was notable but WP:NTEMP states "Notability is not temporary."
- Comment Perhaps that rule needs to be revised then.Alex (talk) 23:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why does that rule need to be revised? That just smacks of recentism. Rlendog (talk) 15:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Because there are times when someone may lose notability. Being on a team's 40-man roster for a few weeks and then never doing anything else is one of these cases. They are notable at the time of their being on the 40-man, but outside of that they just become another minor leaguer. Alex (talk) 18:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - If they are ever notable, they should stay notable. If making the 40 man roster establishes notability (which I am not sure it does), then once the have accomplished that they stay noable. People will always be able to find the 40 man rosters, at least back to the 1970s, so (again assuming that establishes notability) it is perfectly valid for someone with an old Street and Smith to look up someone from the Dodgers 1976 40 man roster and expect to find an article on him. And the fact that the player accomplished the feat of making an MLB 40 man roster doesn't disappear just because he is no longer on the roster, just as even though Ronald Reagan is no longer president of the US, or governor of California or an actor doesn't mean that he stopped being notable for accomplishing those things. Rlendog (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, hasn't played a major league game. Wizardman 16:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. But that's clearly not the standard. For someone who is closing a lot of these baseball AfDs to not be aware of and respectful of the standard poses a greater concern to me than when an average editor does so.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I tend to agree with you Epeefleche. As well, it concerns me that Wizardman does not let some AfD nominations run the full seven days before deciding what to do with them, whether it be delete or keep or what have you.Alex (talk) 18:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that Wizardman has too much of a conflict of interest to be the closing admin on baseball afds. Unless it is one that is obvious he should probably refrain.Spanneraol (talk) 05:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails WP:ATHLETE since he never played in Major League Baseball, and the references provided are only from statistics sites and don't prove that Copeland meets the general notability guideline. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to San Francisco Giants minor league players (see WP:BASE/N for notability criteria for minor league baseball players). BRMo (talk) 15:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to San Francisco Giants minor league players as per WP:BASE/N.--Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 15:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per this.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to San Francisco Giants minor league players. --Muboshgu (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheltenham Township Police Department (Pennsylvania)[edit]

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

Extremely unnotable local police department of an police devision of a town of less than 40k people. Prod removed with note of "try AfD". -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, typical police dept, nothing encyclopedic to talk about. Abductive (reasoning) 23:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, average township police departments (like any other small departments) aren't going to be notable, and this seems thoroughly average. Not a likely enough search target to justify redirecting. Nyttend (talk) 05:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless they have been involved in some high-profile cases. I don't think they have. This article is just information that should be on their own website, if it wasn't copied from there wholesale. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 12:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Hybrid mail. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 04:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail letter[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/E-Mail Letter

Articles for deletion/E-mail letter (2nd nomination)

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

This article is still laden with unnotable and useless factoids about a service that may only exist (if at all) on the very obscure fringes of the Internet. I note little incoming links and no major improvements which it needs regardless of whether it is obscure or not. Furthermore, it looks like the article was original research by the original editor, who was grasping at basic terms since User:Nehtefa invented the terminology specifically for this article. I like to saw logs! (talk) 06:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of original research: Please see [25], which is the original author User:Nehtefa discussing his need to invent or re-use terminology for his pet article. I like to saw logs! (talk) 06:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To me, it looks more like english isn't their first language. Hohum (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed why I felt the original author was editing that talk page. He wanted to say "message transfer agent" and apply it to his made-up term of E-mail letter. User:Nehtefa had discovered that a message transfer agent is a real term for the real thing (that is, SMTP e-mail) and now he was stuck... How could he say "message transfer agent" without parenthetically saying that he was trying to coin that term for a person, not a computer program? So in short, he wrote that "Huston we have a problem" thing because he discovered the conflicting terminology.

All of that is indicative of deep-seeded original researching. He was making it up as he wrote it, just to stick it into the Wikipedia. I like to saw logs! (talk) 06:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know that's what you think his motivation were. Nice eggcorn in your second to last sentence though! Seems he isn't the only one who can confuse terms. Hohum (talk) 19:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. (Merge to Hybrid mail. 19:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)) Given that there is/was more than one provider that offered this kind of email-to-snail-mail service (Swiss post, L-mail, etc.), and that the references are WP:RS, I see no reason to delete this. AfD is not cleanup for minor issues (a few unsourced statements, which may or may not be WP:OR), and this site isn't Encyclopedia Dramatica: "no Internet relevance" is not a reason to delete (here). I've also added the previous AfD to the box above; it was listed on the article's talk page. Pcap ping 21:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the sources cited in the article use the term "e-mail letter". Useful facts can be merged to Hybrid mail, which already covers internet-based electronic-document-to-physical-letter systems. — Miym (talk) 23:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Aside from the fact that Hybrid mail is currently unsourced, it appears that the terminolgy is the proper one there, so I agree that the examples in this article should be merged there. We don't normally delete it after the merge, it needs to become a redirect; see WP:MAD. Pcap ping 19:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hybrid mail, for which e-mail letters are one variety. The sources for this article can be applied there. Pcap is correct that leaving the redirect would be the typical practice, and I don't see any reason we should do that in this case. --RL0919 (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Postal Protected Email[edit]

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

Nothing notable, no incoming links, too obscure for own article, so copy to USPS if content is really all that important. I like to saw logs! (talk) 06:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searching for this term doesn't list USPS in the first couple of results, only warez and other such unreliable places. Me suspects it's not kosher. Also, it's a stub that can't really be expanded upon. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Mgm above. This article is also likely to remain an orphan. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 12:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 19:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ragini Shetty[edit]

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

Her only claim to fame is as an non-celebrity contestant in Bigg Boss. WP:ONEEVENT applies. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Her status as a "popular Telugu actress" (which would pop up in the Google search) Ragini was a hoax created by Bigg Boss [26].--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable - she has worked as crew in a few independent films and TV shows. the notability as popular telugu actress as User talk:Redtigerxyz notes was a publicity stunt by the TV show's producers.--Sodabottle (talk) 17:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shira gavrielov[edit]

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

The entire article is written as a promotional piece. The individual does not meet the general notability guidelines and I cannot find any significant independent coverage of the subject, nor could I find reliable sources to back-up the multiple claims of "hit singles" Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 16:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what it says, it seems she might be notable in Israel at least, although the Hebrew-language article doesn't have any references either. However, in the English language I can only find a massive amount of social-networking site search results for her name, nothing else.Philip Howard (talk) 11:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the article again. IMO, the promotional content was removed, leaving mostly factual information. Since Shira is on the verge of entering the world market, outside social media sites, there is not a lot of media coverage. I didn't see the point of using references in Hebrew, unless you tell me otherwise. I'll appreciate the re-evaluation of the article, basing on recent editing. Best Regards, 08:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by נירג (talk • contribs)

The tone is indeed less promotional, however it is still a BLP that is unreferenced and therefore the information contained therein is unverified. The fact that there is not much media coverage outside of social sites as you've mentioned above only bolsters my contention that the individual does not meet the general or specialized notability criteria at this time. Perhaps the article can be userfied to your userspace, and once she does release internationally and notability can be verified, then the article can be moved into article space. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 14:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - For what it's worth I have just moved the article to Shira Gavrielov for proper capitalization. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 12:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of independent reliable sources sufficient to establish notability. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

XXXena[edit]

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO, no indication the subject can meet the GNG or any other specialized guideline. Long-unsourced BLP, substub quality. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO. No awards or unique contributions, and coverage in mainstream press consists of a few passing mentions in articles about other subject. Props for the name, however. --RL0919 (talk) 21:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 04:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HardwareZone[edit]

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

Completing nomination for IP. Reason on talk page is:

Advertising, references mainly parent company SPH's publications and user forum threads. External links promote advertising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.7.30.64 (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I abstain. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the subject is notable enough to have several independent references. The article content itself is not an advertisement. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the site is mainly popular for its user forum. If sites can be popular for it's forums, sites like SGClub, Flowerpod, SGForums, Singaporemotherhood etc etc should also have their own wikipedia entry as they also have very popular user forums.219.74.104.99 (talk) 06:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Locally notable in Spore, as sources show. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

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

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

The result was merge to Lloyd discography. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 04:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like Me: The Young Goldie EP[edit]

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

Non-notable EP. Lack of substantial coverage from secondary sources, fails to meet notability criteria for albums. Prod was contested. — ξ ^xplicit 23:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lloyd (singer). It's a reasonable redirect, and the EP is not yet mentioned on the artist's article, but there is nothing to indicate that this EP is independently notable. --RL0919 (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep EP was just released three days ago as I write this and it may gain notability if it reaches the charts. A full article is probably premature but I think it's too soon to declare non-notability. Note that this article says it is Lloyd (singer)'s first EP, but he has three previous full-length albums and the articles for those are undisputed. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 12:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That was kind of where I was going with the merge idea. With a merge the original article will be redirected, so the content is easily recoverable (just revert the redirect edit), but we are not keeping up a separate article on the speculation that the subject may become notable. --RL0919 (talk) 00:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The EP currently fails WP:NALBUMS (as far as it can be applied to EPs) on several accounts, in that I can neither find significant coverage of it nor does the page currently contain much more than a track list. The little verifiable information I've found should, again per community consensus detailed at WP:NALBUMS, be included in the discography or artist article, where size certainly permits it.
Title is a reasonable search subject, so a redirect should be retained. Amalthea 01:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Titanic: The Animated Movie[edit]

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

Only references are IMDb, a personal website and TVTropes. I have searched under various titles, including the Italian title, but have not been able to find any reliable third-party sources regarding this film. As amusingly bad as this whole movie is, it just doesn't meet WP:N and WP:NOTFILM in any way — the writer is a red link with no notable credits on IMDb; the film didn't win any awards; nobody even saw fit to review it besides the Nostalgia Critic, but I don't think he counts towards notability here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's fine research. Plenty of coverage on forums, blogs, database listings and such, but sadly no reliable sources. PC78 (talk) 12:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination - lack of independent reliable sources sufficient to establish notability. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 19:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Yuros[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Article about an amateur boxer, fails WP:Athlete. Google search turns up mostly social networking sites, fails WP:GNG PDCook (talk) 23:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful Delete - I'd like to seem American boxing have more visibility, but this one fails WP:ATHLETE. Shadowjams (talk) 10:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: an IP editor removed the AfD and notability templates. I reverted the edits and warned the user. PDCook (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can be userfied on request. Wizardman 19:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Eiler[edit]

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

This article, a BLP authored by User:Jacobeiler, is about a gay kid who took his boyfriend to prom in 1997, and had his car vandalized. News outlets noticed, but interest was ephemeral, and he moved on to an ordinary enough life. I submit this should be deleted under WP:BLP1E. Abductive (reasoning) 23:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there's not much to add from what Abductive said. Shadowjams (talk) 09:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a perfect example of BLP1E; we grant exceptions to that in rare cases, but this guy isn't anywhere close to the level of Seung-Hui Cho or John Wilkes Booth. Nyttend (talk) 05:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An obvious case of WP:BLP1E and his listed accomplishments are just plain vague and show little evidence of WP:GNG. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 12:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but drastically re-write, or userfy, or incubate. He's still a notable, and National, speaker for PFLAG. He's kept his day job as a webmaster. The initital incident that brought him fame happened in 1997, but the article's better sources date from 2006, so this is more than ephemeral fame. Much of the current stub is a rough edit of this article from Oasis magazine. I don't know where to start in the editing process, so if it's deleted I would strongly encourage userfying/incubation. Bearian (talk) 21:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 00:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guido (slang)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Even if the lack of reliable sources is fixed (seriously, www.fark.com is a citation?!), Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this term should exist as a soft-redirect to Wiktionary.

User:Yukichigai reverted the redirect last year and said "Restore article. Redirect to wiktionary is inappropriate. More on the talk page." Consensus on the talk page wasn't clear. Ultimately, AfD is a definitive way to resolve this, even though the outcome is likely to be Keep or Soft-redirect. tedder (talk) 02:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep there's one decent source already in the article, sources in the previous afd, which should be enough to meet the GNG. But yeah, remove fark from the references. Besides, it was Totalfark that had the epic guido thread :P. Umbralcorax (talk) 04:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am certain there are many references that can be added to this article. Its a term and concept that's significant far beyond just a dictionary definition.--Milowent (talk) 06:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added some more sources.--Milowent (talk) 07:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. The added sources show this is more than merely a definition. Bearian (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well, gees, it's not like this term isn't all over the news or anything: [27]. Given the nature of the term, there is enough encyclopedic (not dictionary) context to write an article. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ah, i'll add that source as well. I've been studiously avoiding learning what the Jersey Shore "controversy" is all about.--Milowent (talk) 14:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it! I came here looking for more info on the stereotypes of guidos, due to the controversy of the "Jersey Shore" show, and I'm sure many others come looking for the article for the same reason. Tons of sources eventually will pile up to make this article more credible, because now people will research the phenomenon of guidos. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 05:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources have now been improved, and the term seems to have enough cultural resonance to justify a wikipedia article over a wiktionary entry.≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 22:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everybody else. Referenced in Jersey Shore and Cars for starters Purplebackpack89 (talk) 05:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ViewGL[edit]

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

NN advertising. See also: [28] and [29] K03942 (talk) 00:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid WP:Jargon. What is this NN you talk about? Use plain english. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 02:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NN = non-notable.

Delete - fails WP:WEB
D nn, fails WP:GNG and WP:WEB and 80% of it fails V for lack of RS. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Delete or rewrite totally. The current version of this page is simply an attack entry targeted at Google Earth. Hairhorn (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not satisfy WP:WEB. A little on the spammy side, with a decent amount of criticism of Google Earth. A lack of reliable third-party sources. Cocytus [»talk«] 03:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 00:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Commonwealth Bank Tournament of Champions[edit]

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

there is no Commonwealth Bank Tournament of Champions in 2008, the first tournament started in 2009. MbahGondrong (talk) 00:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article was intended to be a redirect to the Commonwealth Bank Tournament of Champions article, because the TennisEventInfo template on the 2009 Commonwealth Bank Tournament of Champions would contain a redlink to this article. Armbrust (talk) 01:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The discussion schould be clossed, as the nominated isn't an article. It is a redirect. Thus it should be WP:RFD. Armbrust (talk) 09:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Wrong venue; this is a WP:RFD issue. I wouldn't bother taking it there, as the rationale given for having this redirect (technically an incorrect name, but so is everything tagged with ((R from misspelling)), for example) is sound, at least until the wayward template is fixed. After that, then yes, RfD it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 00:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mariano Lagasca[edit]

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

Non-notable, only a single source from 1858 used. Creator is a banned user. Athenean (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Really quite notable. Cited moderately in scholarly works, and he was the director of Real Jardín Botánico de Madrid. It appears from the Spanish WP article that there is a statue of him there. Meets the WP:PROF guideline without breaking sweat. A definite keeper. Brilliantine (talk) 01:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Searching Google includes many citations, such as this (if you're like me and don't have JSTOR, you can only see a little bit in a Google preview) of his works. Seems to have been what today we'd consider a prominent and well-published scholar. Notability should often be treated differently for long-past subjects — we don't often run into the problem of people adding articles promoting people or groups that have been gone for 150 years like we do about contemporary people or groups. Yes, this was created in violation of a ban, but I don't see deletion of this otherwise valid article for that reason as helping the encyclopedia, so let's overlook that for now. Nyttend (talk) 05:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, for a fuller list of sources, look at his German Wikipedia article. Nyttend (talk) 05:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the statue in the photo is really him, then I would argue that this is a step toward notability. Regardless, I agree with the arguments above. I have added a "refimprove" tag to the article because that's what it really needs, not an AfD. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 12:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gscholar turns up enough on him e.g [30], to show he passes the GNG, with works specifically or largely on him, no necessity for WP:PROF citation counting and the like.John Z (talk) 09:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears to meet WP:PROF due to the citations. I'd argue he likely passes WP:ANYBIO as well. The article should probably be expanded as opposed to deleted. Cocytus [»talk«] 02:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Molecular processors[edit]

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

Unreferenced original research. There are very few hits on Google and Google Scholar for "molecular processor". The concept clearly exists but doesn't seem to have achieved notability. The only references are to the author's own writings (which are not available to readers outside his university) and his website. Fails WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:N andy (talk) 00:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is obviously a cut and paste from some guy's PhD thesis or something. Unless someone can provide real sources to establish notability of this concept, it should be deleted. SnottyWong talk 00:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weak Delete, more reliable sources must be provided to establish notability --Rirunmot 00:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rirunmot (talk • contribs)

Delete, original research, as the references make clear. Hairhorn (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The article not original research, though I must say it will be very hard to cite the inline citation since most sources don't cover the things in minute detail. We will definitely need some writers to help on the cybernetic mechanism verification part.
- CNN -Moving toward molecular chips
- Newscientist Atomic Logic
- Softpedia - IBM Is Working on DNA-Based processors --75.154.186.99 (talk) 20:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: has this subject reached notability as defined by wikipedia? From your comments I think not. A few people are talking about it, that's all. andy (talk) 23:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I see no actual news coverage on "molecular processors", what I see is coverage of molecular computers, biocomputers, and DNA computing, all of which already have wiki pages. Any non-OR content from this page could probably be merged to one of those pages. Barring that, this page needs a rewrite to purge it of original research. Hairhorn (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its notable enough to get news coverage. Dream Focus 01:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Looking at Google Books and Google Scholar, it appears to me that the concept is notable. On the first page of results from the book search I got:

William Henri Groverm, Microfluidic molecular processors for computation and analysis, University of California, Berkeley, 2006, 470 pages; and
Sergey Edward Lyshevski, Nano and molecular electronics handbook, CRC Press, 2007, ISBN 0849385288, 912 pages

The first page of the scholar search had:

David Margulies, Galina Melman, and Abraham Shanzer, A Molecular Full-Adder and Full-Subtractor, an Additional Step toward a Moleculator, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2006, 128 (14), pp 4865–4871, DOI: 10.1021/ja058564w
A Chiabrera et al, Physical limits of integration and information processing in molecular systems, 1989 J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 22 1571-1579 doi: 10.1088/0022-3727/22/11/00
Jorge M. Seminario, Pedro A. Derosa, Luis E. Cordova, and Brian H. Bozard, "A Molecular Device Operating at Terahertz Frequencies: Theoretical Simulations," IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON NANOTECHNOLOGY, VOL. 3, NO. 1, MARCH 2004
Nicholas G. Rambidi, Biomolecular computer: roots and promises, Biosystems, Volume 44, Issue 1, September 1997, Pages 1-15 doi:10.1016/S0303-2647(97)00031-2

It appears to me that the concept of molecular computing is notable enough that multiple people are writing books and journal articles about it. EastTN (talk) 20:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article as currently written is unquestionably original research - see the talk page and this edit. andy (talk) 00:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a problem with the article, then it can be fixed. You do not delete an article, if the subject matter is notable. That isn't how Wikipedia works. Dream Focus 02:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see that anyone calling to keep has explained how the topic of this article is differentiated from DNA computing or Molecular electronics. If it's the same as one of those, merge and redirect. If it's different from both, then delete this until there are sufficient sources—ones that cover this topic—to use to write an article. I don't doubt that molecular computing is gaining notability, but we don't need multiple articles on it. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would it make sense to merge the article with DNA computing? That seems to be the closest article in terms of content.EastTN (talk) 16:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. andy (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is different than Molecular electronics which "is an interdisciplinary theme that spans physics, chemistry, and materials science." Just like regular electronics includes many things other than just a processor, so it is with this. So I don't think it should go there. This may be the same thing is DNA computer. Are all methods to make a molecular processor based on using a DNA template? What's it called in all the scientific papers and patents? I see them calling it molecular computers as well as molecular processors. Dream Focus 18:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The big issue with this article is that it's written from a very narrow perspective by, and largely based on the work of, one person who thinks he owns the article. Merging will have to be done by a subject expert who is not the original author. Any takers? andy (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Although one recent edit, which restored the tabs at the top of the article, suggests that he may be starting to get it. I'm personally not qualified as an expert in this (or any related) field. If someone can find sources that are accessible on the web and accessible to the lay reader, I may be able to help with summarizing them and with general copy editing.EastTN (talk) 21:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — To get someone who knows if its the same thing, and what should be done with it, to participate. Dream Focus 18:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a bio-engineering article. I have delisted it from list of Computing-related deletion discussions and (lacking a suitable bio-engineering deletion category) have added a note to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemical and Bio Engineering. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 22:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ample reliable and verifiable sources provided support the claim of notability for the subject and the article. Alansohn (talk) 21:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per User:EastTN showing subject's meeting of inclusion criteria at WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Fray (album) JoshSiber (talk) 16:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Syndicate (song)[edit]

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

Song not notable. Fails WP:NSONGS. Suggest a redirect to The Fray (album) WPTX-FM (talk) 23:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 16:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the album. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Fray (album). FMQB confirms the January 12 release date, and per Mediabase's website, the song has already started to receive spins at Hot AC and Top 40 radio. While I believe it's likely to chart in the next few weeks, at this time there is no in-depth coverage for the song to warrant an independent article. Redirect for now until notability (beyond the mere fact that it's a single) is established. Gongshow ^Talk 19:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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