The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. if you want new a copy of the article you can request it on my talk page and I can provide a userfied version. Nothing has being made during the weekend so I had to go with the consensus here which is for deletion JForget 20:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brynhild Olivier[edit]

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

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

Subject of article has no claim of notability except by association with others. Prod removed with claim to fix it some time later. noq (talk) 23:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No claim to notability. Association with others doesn't count as notability. Very few sources, and many (if not all of them) are irrelevant.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 18:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I committed to finish my edits this coming weekend, not some (unspecified) time later. The subject of the article was part of the Bloomsbury Group. Aarkangel (talk) 20:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 23:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, sorry, but we need coverage to be provided at the article. Nyttend (talk) 12:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy The article makes no claim of notability at the moment, but the single editor claims to have plans to improve it. I don't see much hope, but rather than spend time researching whether there might be adequate sourcing somewhere, why not move it to the editors subpage. This is how it should have started anyway, as someone who is not prepared to meet the guidelines at initial creation should be creating in user space until ready.--SPhilbrickT 02:16, 5 September 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. Clearly no consensus for deletion, but it is up to editors to debate whether it should be merged, although consensus for the most part is to keep with good points from that camp. JForget 22:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miniten[edit]

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

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

Very little content. Less than 4,000 relevant google hits. Very weak assertion of notability - dedicated naturists are already a rather small population, and I don't know how popular or known this game is among them. If someone can come up with substantial evidence of notability, I'll bite, but I am skeptical... Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 00:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Removing it would only make the game less well know. I have not had time to add to my the page of the AMA, but would given time create a more meaningful listing here. Unfortunately we are not all blessed with having loads of time on our hands to keep these things up to date.

• There are far more sports on wikipedia and otehr topics which are less supported. This is the only game that is only played by naturists so is a large party of the movement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.202.226.62 (talk) 12:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• [I reformatted the responses above]. I appreciate the concerns there, but wikipedia does have basic standards and it is incumbent upon interested editors to maintain those standards. It is explicitly not permitted, for example, to create a place holder page that does not assert notability or offer any sources, and then just assume that eventually it might get improved. Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 23:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Redirect/Merge - into Naturism Culture or suchlike.--EchetusXe 13:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep 37 google news hits legit sport. Ikip (talk) 02:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, only ten of these 37 hits are about the sport, the others are (mainly) typos for minuten (minutes). Oh, and "keep" comments like the one you made here will make it necessary for A Nobody to vote against you if you would ever try to become an administrator, since it is one of the arguments to avoid... I suppose he would badger you about it in thesame way that he does with people giving a "delete" opinion he doesn't like... Fram (talk) 08:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I never heard of miniten before today, but the number of references online to this sport are many; I added a cite to an article in The Guardian which confirms some of the facts in the article. I also added a link to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald that has a clever miniten picture. While closely linked to naturism, that article is already too long and it doesn't make sense to me to merge this into it.--Milowent (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Kudos to Milowent who has well demonstrated the merit of this topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Whether the sport exists of not is not the issue. Notability is and I don't see notability. It is 70 years old and only about a dozen gnews hits are all we can come up with? It's not like it is new and nobody has had time to cover it. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Google hits is an argument to avoid because it's so easy to get it wrong. The internet has not existed for 70 years, most news archives don't go back very far and so such searches have a bias. And then editors often don't search on a sufficient range of keywords. If you search for "mini-tennis", you'll find thousands of hits about cut-down forms of tennis. This indicates that we should expand our article to cover all of these, not just the naturist form. A move to the title Mini-tennis would be a good start and deletion would neither be helpful nor necessary. Colonel Warden (talk) 04:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't use it as an argument. I am referring to the lack of significant coverage. If this sport were notable, we'd see more significant coverage. The internet may not have existed for 70 years, but this sport has existed the whole time the internet has been around, so I think your bias argument is empty, unless you are somehow asserting that this sport was once popular and notable and just fell into obscurity. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are using naive Google hits to measure the coverage and this is not good enough. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm using the lack of significant coverage as my reasoning. Please try actually reading what I say and not what you think I mean. Or better yet, just stop telling me why I'm wrong because, unless more significant coverage from more reliable sources gets added, my !vote won't be changing. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I spent five more minutes & added more refs to the article. I can see there are older articles (british papers) out there that also reference this. Perhaps if Niteshift36 or any other editor has access to pay archives that other editors may not, they can find more of these references. But i think notability is easily passed here. Also, there appear to be a slew of other games on wikipedia that are far far less notable in terms of coverage than miniten, yet have articles. E.g., Feudal (game), Feather_Bowling, etc. etc. etc. If my criteria was "WTF is this crap!? i never heard of it!" i'd be AFD'ing all day.--Milowent (talk) 18:10, 1 September 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) 23:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As I've now researched this subject as commented on above, I find no serious question that miniten is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Miniten gets referenced very often in passing in British papers as a well-known sport for naturists, so much so that its not novel enough to generate "human interest" type stories anymore in Britian. It dates from the 1930s. It has officially published rules (in hard cover at least from the 1960s), and enough accessible sources which I've cited already that demonstrate notability. I invite any editors with access to hard copy archives of British papers from the 1930s - 1980s, or non-free online archives, to dig up more references to further improve the article. --Milowent (talk) 03:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge Notable enough to be owrth including. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a classic example of a type of article that belongs in Wikipedia. No one hears the term "tennis" and looks it up in an encyclopedia because you don't quite know what it means. You might however, hear or read the term "miniten", and not know what it means. Some would expect to find some coverage of it in Wikipedia, and I think some would be right. It isn't a neologism, so this isn't part of plan to spam a term Although I confess that the early comment ("Removing it would only make the game less well know(sic)") weighs AGAINST including it, but I think the weight of the evidence in in favor of keeping it.--SPhilbrickT 02:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the coverage is pretty incidental and I doubt whether it strictly meets WP:N. However, the game definitely exists and the article meets policy ie WP:V and WP:NPOV. Since it might well be of interest to enquiring readers, I think that it would be policy wonking to delete it. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:47, 7 September 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. per WP:SNOW JForget 00:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CoroCoro Comic[edit]

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

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

Fails to provide independent, reliable sources to establish notability. Mathemagician57721 (talk) 23:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: while the article should provide these independent reliable sources, you should search for them yourself before nominating it for deletion. If they are out there, some simple tags on the article are the solution, not deletion. And in this case, the sources exist, even in English (I presume they will be plentiful in Japanese), e.g. Time Asia, or more significantly the five pages it gets in Dreamland Japan. THis is only what is viewable online and in English, Google books reveals many more available sources[1]. Fram (talk) 08:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - [2] Plenty of reliable sources, meets WP:NME. ceranthor 12:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note - nominator has been blocked indefinitely. Parsecboy (talk) 19:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 23:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - plenty of significant coverage in reliable sources. --BelovedFreak 23:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep given that the nominator turned out to be a vandal only account. No prejudice against renomination. --Farix (Talk) 00:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep given that the nominator turned out to be a vandal only account and the article's subject is blatantly notable. Renomination would be asinine. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 04:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep Vandalism account. This article will surely be re-nominated if no one add the evidences of notability found into the article. --KrebMarkt 04:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And then that renominator will have done very sloppy work. A nominator is supposed to first look at evidence of notability outside of the article. Furthermore, when someone wants to renominate an article, reading the previous discussion(s) is always a good idea. In this case, the current discussion would provide plenty of evidence of notability. Fram (talk) 06:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure but that also mean people presenting evidences of notability during Afd have just the Afd in mind. Improving the article isn't in their agenda. Both pratices aren't great and one can't excuse the other. --KrebMarkt 11:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I often notice AfD's where it is obvious from the available sources that the topic is notable, but were I don't feel confident enough to accurately summarize these sources into a complete, correct article. The subject deserves an article, but the actual writing or improving is better left to those with sufficient knowledge of the field, interest in the subject, and time on their hands. We are all volunteers, and sometimes we have the time and the interest to improve the article, and sometimes we are only capable of presenting the necessary evidence, without integrating it into the article. This is perfectly excusable and not comparable to someone willing to delete the work of another editor without doing any effort at all to see if the article should be deleted or not. Fram (talk) 11:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • We are in the same case ;) I usually pile up my findings as external links and/or a reference section in the article talk page. Editors willing to improve article don't have to dig Afd archive to find the resources to improve it. --KrebMarkt 15:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Even without evidences of discussion, the magazine that initially serialized Doraemon and Pokemon, among other important works, is clearly notable in some way. Do we have enough snow falling yet? —Quasirandom (talk) 14:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP: SNOW, no point on going on, the references are there and this was nom by a Vandalism account. Yes I do believe enough snow has fallen here. —Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:40, 3 September 2009 (AT)
• Keep as per everyone. Sources showing notability clearly exist. Edward321 (talk) 22:40, 3 September 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 Władysław IV Vasa. Tone 16:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Princess of Vasa[edit]

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

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

This 10-year-old who died centuries ago is so unnotable that her first name is unknown. The title of the article is also misleading; she was an illegitimate child, certainly not a princess (may she rest in peace) and she wasn't the only princess of the House of Vasa. The article consists of only one sentence and no other Wikipedia has an article about her. Surtsicna (talk) 22:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. - dwc lr (talk) 16:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into her father's article. All nobility are presumed notable unless disproven. In fact, she was the subject of a court portrait by a notable Dutch painter. In this case, however, there is no evidence she was notable, nor is her name known. It contains useful information and a decent image, so I would merge instead of deleting. Bearian (talk) 18:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that being completely unknown and nameless counts as unnotable. Surtsicna (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• MergeDelete Agree with Surtsicna's points that being unknown and nameless generally means not notable, although the unknown soldier would be an exception, as would the unknown unknown. Also since there were several legitimate princesses of Vasa it is not reasonable to redirect this to another article. But I did add the picture to her mother's article Jadwiga Łuszkowska, and may improve that article - there are some sources. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Hopelessly unsourcable article on a royal bastard (term used in historical, not derogatory sense), flunks WP:BIO. youngamerican (wtf?) 22:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with father. The only objective of this article appears to be to provide a home for the image, but it is also in an articel on her (presumed) mother. Generally children (even of kings) are NN during childhood, and I do not think she is any exception. The merge could be done by placing the mistress and here children at the end of the "marriages" section of the father. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge the info on this child with the father. It is a sidebar to his life. --Stormbay (talk) 03:51, 7 September 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 with Fort Bonifacio. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 23:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forbeswood Heights[edit]

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

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

Describes a condominium building with restaurants and other commercial establishments on the ground floor. The page was PRODed by User:Tim Song with the concern, "No evidence of notability." PROD was contested by User:ThaddeusB who notes, "Appears to be a notable building (see: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Forbeswood+Heights%22&btnG=Search&um=1&ned=us&hl=en&scoring=a) - article could possibly be merged with city page, but shouldn't be deleted." Of the 23 articles suggested by Google News, however, most appear to be reviews of those ground floor restaurants that mention the building in passing as a location. Three other articles mention the building in passing as examples of recent construction in Fort Bonifacio. None of the articles I read offer non-trivial discussion of the building. (I did not read all 23, as some require pay per view or registration.) Cnilep (talk) 21:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original prodder. I must have missed it in my watchlist or I'd have AfD'd it by now. I did check Gnews before prodding - though I suppose I probably should have made it clearer in my prodding rationale. Thanks to Cnilep for catching this and confirming my conclusions. Tim Song (talk) 13:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Struck delete !vote for now pending further review of the sources provided. Tim Song (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The sources strike me as a bit press-release-y, especially since they seem to have come from the same publication. If so, they are not usable for WP:N purposes. I remain undecided for now. Tim Song (talk) 17:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I suppose we can smerge the material, even though I still think that the sources are press-release-y.Tim Song (talk) 08:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lacks verifiable sources asserting that this condo is notable especially since there are tons of other condos in the area which are larger, taller, or constructed earlier. --seav (talk) 15:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - the building appears to have local notability, as its construction was covered here, here, and here. As noted in the nom, the restaurant in has been covered in several sources. It also has received numerous mentions in coverage about the local area and undoubtedly has coverage in local sources (which aren't available online as far as I know). As such, I feel it should be merged into the city's page.

An alternative solution would be to create an article for its parent company - Megaworld - which is most certainly notable (over 1000 news stories), despite not yet having a page, and move the material there. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for linking to these, ThaddeusB. Do you have the full text? Only the first of the three talks about Forbeswood Heights in the sample snippet. Cnilep (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant snippets from the later two articles follow: --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Fort Bonifacio#Bonifacio Global City with sources as suggested by ThaddeusB. Cnilep (talk) 14:10, 3 September 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. JForget 21:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Herschel[edit]

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

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

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)).

Lacks notability. An exact google search turns up 365 hits, almost all of which are blogs, or translations of blogs, or page relating to Dan Brown (because of the title of a book). Most of the references are self-published and the page was created by someone close to Herschel (and has been edited by SPAs since). Looking at the talkpage I see this could be a controversial nom, and the page looks good, but I don't believe the effort merits keeping it. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the off-wiki attempt to vote stack, and the admission of AstronomerPHD that he would use sock/meat puppets to circumvent any blocks I would also endorse the page being SALT-ed. Darrenhusted (talk) 18:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:BIO, self-published book and got some publicity in some very minor and fringe sources. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and SALT - Same as Cameron Scott only adding to this that we can not confirm publication in key (fringe) sources as their online content does not include any reference to Herschel.Simonm223 (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simonm223 you know that this what we agreed at the last cabal meeting. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The shadowy cabal that want to misrepresent Herschel as claiming to invent the wheel?Simonm223 (talk) 03:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Not Delete - As the author in question here and treated as I have been treated so far by a wikipedia group determined to stop my work being listed, I will provide every single query and reference requested. The page yesterday was reduced to a meaningless garble and the anger I express on the Dan Brown Facebook page was justifiable since all the text was reduced absolute nonesense and fabrications. I appologise for the expression of anger. From here forward it is just my online rights I will defend and within the fair specifications that all other authors are subject to. If authors like Richard Hoagland and self published authors without valid measurable discoveries and wild theory like David Ike are listed here then I should not be treated differently.

To add here I acept the self published entry and have no choice being the author to make sure a simple page far shorter than the David Ike page.

People have tried to do this for me but were walked over. I am aware of conflict of interest but will upload neutrally and accurately and since there are so many trying to delete any false entries such entries will soon be removed any way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AstronomerPHD (talk • contribs) 09:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC) — AstronomerPHD (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I have been treated so far by a wikipedia group determined to stop my work being listed I think you misunderstand how wikipedia works and what we do here. The first thing to understand is that many of the people editing that article will have never of heard of you and have no interest in your work. I have never heard of you, I have no interest in your work or what you do, and therefore have no interest in preventing your work being listed because of some perceived slight or grudge. How I (and other editors) judge if an article should be on wikipedia is via reliable sources - 3rd party independent mentions of you and your work. When a claim is made "X did Y", we look to see if a reliable source exists to support that claim. It's not about what you write, it's about what other people write about you. As the article currently stands, it does not provide sufficient evidence that you or your work is notable enough for an article. David Ike has an article because he has been discussed by many many reliable sources and we can use those to construct an article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note about Facebook campaign Herschel (under his real name) has posted to Dan Brown's Facebook iste this request with a link to here: "please copy and paste the code there for Not Delete and add your own personal reason in this final debate. i have pledged to present all the requirements for the page and will prevail. Please join me in this last stand on this wiki debate here..." Dougweller (talk) 11:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• They can bring a thousand single purpose accounts to this page, it will not change the merits of the article, or lack thereof. I suggest that those with this page on their watchlist tag all SPAs with ((subst:spa|name of user here)), and someone tell them that we vote Keep. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't, it makes them easier to spot. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page has just been Reverted to next to nothing... the false claim by Ove von Spaeth is back and it is not true.

there is somthing drastically unbalanced here and it is about to go online on where others can see the manipulation is rife here!

I will give moderators here an hour to provide a solution to this then i have no other choice other than taking astand against the moderators names who claim all is fair here. I have a full page put together that will upload in an hour... if I have already been blocked it will come from another party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AstronomerPHD (talk • contribs) 12:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I will give moderators here an hour", What are you talking about? There are no "moderators", this is not a chatroom forum. "it is about to go online on where others can see the manipulation is rife here" I don't understand what you are talking about, all changes to Wikipedia articles are live. "if I have already been blocked it will come from another party" are you threatening to use sockpuppets? If so that could lead to you being blocked. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete How is this COI notable? I've self-published far more interesting things than this, but wouldn't dream of trying to push them here unless they first get traction in RS's. kwami (talk) 15:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Salt A good-faith search turned up none of the multiple, non-trivial mentions in reliable sources that we require to support claims of notability, and AstronomerPHD's conduct suggests that he'll keep trying to create an article. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 15:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (and salt): fails WP:AUTHOR and some appearances on talk-shows does not meet WP:GNG (WP:PRIMARY, not particularly reliable and not significant coverage). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt - This article is a concerted attempt by a group of people trying to promote a non-notable fringe personality and his non-notable books. Salting will avoid future drama when his group inevitably tries to recreate the article. -- Atama頭 17:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to failing all relevant notability guidelines, and salt due to ricoculous campaign. Verbal chat 18:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Salt - Fails WP:AUTHOR. No significant coverage by reliable sources.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 18:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Delete (see below) (Disclaimer: I was brought into this from the COI Noticeboard while looking into accusations of COI. The COI issue is ongoing and is separate from the question of Notability which is what this page is for. I have zero stake in this, and no opinion either way on Mr. Herschel or his theories, books, etc.) That said: Whatever your personal feelings are of his theories, or of pseudoscience in general, the question here is Does he meet the GNG... In my opinion, he does. This came after much discussion HERE for those who would like to follow the conversation. He has been the subject of several South African mainstream newspaper and magazine articles (not counting the "fringe sources"). As he lives there, please don't fall victim to systemic bias because the sources are South African. The talk page links to a page on his site which contains scans of these articles, and in the discussion on the talk page we were able to confirm the articles via search, albeit behind reg/pay walls. So in my opinion, these plus the talk show appearances demonstrate that he has received "significant coverage", defined as "sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content". Arakunem^Talk 19:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage is not the same as significant coverage. Living in South Africa and being interviewed in South African papers for a puff piece, or getting a passing mention (and the link you provided has a number of subscription only articles) does not merit significant coverage. In fact the first article (from 2004) comes up dead. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To be specific, living in Durban and being interviewed in Durban papers for a puff piece.Simonm223 (talk) 19:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I used "significant coverage" in the sense of the GNG. In fact the quoted part came directly from the GNG's definition of Significant Coverage. Do the articles address the subject directly in detail with no O.R. required? I think they do. Note: the subject's web site has scanned copies of the articles without having to go through the reg/paywalls: [3]. Granted, the website is a primary, though I don't think it likely that the scans are fabrications. Arakunem^Talk 19:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, Durban is the 2nd largest city in S.A., so they're not exactly tiny local papers. Durban has a larger population than many cities whose "local papers" would be unquestionably Reliable Sources. Arakunem^Talk 20:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It also happens to be the town where Herschel lives. The fact that mention by media not aimed at the local market of his home city is essentially non-existent and that locating mention by local media in a source other than his personal webpage requires three editors and a heap of searching just to confirm the articles exist tends to lead me to say that he does not meet WP:GNG.Simonm223 (talk) 20:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arakunem, I have read the talk page, I have read Dan Brown's wall at Facebook, I have done a number of searches, and I have even clicked on all the links supplied by you, and yet I cannot find a few solid, third party references that would pull this guy (or his book) over the GNG bar. I understand that foreign (that is not US or UK) authors sometimes find it difficult to show the necessary sources, and sometimes that is because their work is obscure or only in translation. That is not the case here, the guy has self-published a book, and no one has been interested. On the Dan Brown page when he implores people to come here it is so the book can have the maximum exposure. If the sources were there, for a book published in the last five years, in English, then we would have found them. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you're coming from. I have not used the self-pubs in my considerations, nor the more "fringy" magazines (though an argument could be made that they do constitute media coverage) and find the off-site canvassing somewhat distasteful. I'm not using AUTHOR as the bar, which I don't think he meets for the exact reasons you specify, but the GNG, which I feel he squeaks over based on the S. African newspaper articles. Where the articles fit into the paper will match the subject; we would not diminish a restaurant review because it appeared in the Food section of the paper, for example. He has unquestionably been "the" subject of multiple newspaper/magazine articles. So the question, as Simonm223 has brought up, is whether the Durban papers are reliable enough, or whether they are too local. I can't speculate whether those same papers would have covered him if he did not live there, so I will go on what I can verify. To me, that means I go on that he has been covered by multiple newspapers in the 2nd largest city in a country of 49 million. As I said, in my opinion, he squeaks by WP:GNG based on the 5 definitions used in that guideline. Arakunem^Talk 20:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{Undent} I am afraid I disagree. From what little I can see past the pay-walls the articles are clearly of local scope. As such, notwithstanding the size of Durban I find this is not sufficient for GNG notability.Simonm223 (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simonm223 is right, under GNG then Durban is notable, and the papers published in Durban are notable, however Herschel is not. And having looked that the scanned articles on his own webpage they are nothing but puff pieces. And on an unrelated note, the face on mars? Seriously. He managed to convince a reporter to publish a softball interview, doesn't make him notable. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm waffling. I think a strict interpretation of WP:N might let him squeak by. But WP:GNG also states, "Presumed" means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a standalone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not. This gives us the latitude to decide that he's not notable despite the coverage in these articles. These do seem to be "puff pieces" and remind me of newspaper articles that I've seen of close members of my family that I wouldn't consider notable. My suggestion to delete isn't as strong as it was, though. -- Atama頭 21:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's how I see it - notability is not conferred by a couple of puff pieces. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Puff pieces are of questionable reliability, don't really contain much 'significance' of coverage, and are essentially WP:PRIMARY (as they do not contain any critical analysis that is expected of a WP:SECONDARY source). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After sleeping on it, and straining my eyes re-reading the full scans, I think you guys are correct. The articles are rather puffy, and lack the sufficient level of journalism to make them proper News pieces, as opposed to what Paul Harvey would call "For what it's worth". Some level of coverage, but not to the depth needed. Switching to Delete. Arakunem^Talk 14:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something to be aware of in regards to the scans - at least one of them has been photoshopped to change it from the original (see article talkpage for more information). --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, many of these sources only show that he was interviewed, saying nothing about him otherwise. No evidence of actual notability. Nyttend (talk) 12:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete His sole book is self-published. Googling turns up pages that seem to all be linked to what appears also as self-promotion. Is this self-generated notability? BashBrannigan (talk) 06:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep You don't have to be a published author to be notable. You don't have to be a mainstream scientist either. To me, the Durban papers are reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject. I have to assume they are verifiable, and I believe the coverage is actually there even though I can't verify this myself. Herschel's methods, especially the Facebook campaign (which we don't actually know he instigated), are despicable, but have no bearing on the question of inclusion. So the question becomes whether the coverage is "significant." This is somewhat a matter of opinion, and I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt. Rees11 (talk) 17:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, you don't have to be an author or a scientist to be notable, but you do have to do something notable. Herschel's only claim to any notability is his book, which is self-published, not itself a bar to being notable, but his book has not sold in any significant numbers, not has it been covered significanctly by the press, outside of a puff-piece (which has been doctored on Herschel's website) in his local paper. So to sum up: he is a self-published author whose book expounds a fringe theory, and who has been interviewed by a local paper, but whose only coverage comes form his own website, and has been doctored. As for the facebook campaign, having looked at the various pages it is Wayne Herschel encouraging SPAs to come her to register a keep vote, and he has also edited his own page as AstronomerPHD, in an attempt to make himself seem notable. Whether he is notable is not a "matter of opinion", it is a matter of whether he meets the GNG, and he doesn't. But if you can find better sources than the ones in the article then feel free to improve the article, but judging the article on how it stands it falls well short of the GNG. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GNG doesn't give a metric for "significant coverage," so I don't see how it can possibly be anything other than a matter of opinion. It just says the coverage has to be somewhere between trivial and "main topic of the source material." Rees11 (talk) 20:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And in Wayne's case all the information comes from him (as the paper articles are either dead or behind pay walls) so there is nothing outside of primary sources, and even the copies of third party articles on Herschel's site have been altered, so cannot be trusted. And if it is down to numbers 378 Ghits is not significant. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He was fairly borderline for me as above. After actually reading the article scans (now of dubious reliability after one confirmed case of Photoshopping a scan), Hrafn's comment that "they do not contain any critical analysis that is expected of a WP:SECONDARY source" swung me back under my own "line" for Notability. You are correct that there is no hard and fast line; everyone has their own metrics. Hence we all get together here and lay out ours, and the consensus shall determine the outcome. Arakunem^Talk 20:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that the Durban papers are verifiable is difficult to do now that we know that the evidence he has presented on his web site has been altered from the originals. I don't trust any of it anymore. -- Atama頭 00:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you and I can't verify the Durban stories doesn't mean they are not verifiable. Nowhere in wp:v does it say that you have to be able to verify the content for free from your easy chair. And I don't think we need the full content to verify notability, just enough of it to know there is "significant coverage."

In addition, shouldn't Wikipedia:Notability (people) apply here? It says, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Rees11 (talk) 02:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can not actually confirm much of that potential avenue of notability due to pay walls and shopped content on Mr. Herschel's website. Furthermore the articles which do appear are puff pieces in his hometown newspaper. And the consensus here has been that these do not meet the notability criteria.Simonm223 (talk) 03:38, 7 September 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. The consensus of the editors here is to delete the article at this time. Since the creator has shown an interest creating a viable article, I have userfied this at his user page for improvement by interested parties. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Behaviorology[edit]

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

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

"Behaviorology" is already an uncommon term in the literature, and this article focuses on a fringe usage. Compare, e.g. [4] versus [5]. Melchoir (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decibert:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SSCI 245 INTRODUCTION TO THE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY OF BEHAVIOR

SSCI 345 APPLIED SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY OF BEHAVIOR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Weak keep. There does seem to be enough about this in the various Google hits to warrant a seat someplace within Wikipedia, however, I cannot find a consistent definition of what it is to determine whether it should have its own article or be merged with something else. For example: 1) "Behaviorology is an independently organized discipline featuring the natural science of behavior."[6] 2) "'Behaviorology' names the science of contingent relations between actions and other events."[7] 3) "There are some pretty lengthy and complicated definitions of behavior out there..." [8]. This last one states that it is a broader field than applied behavior analysis but is quickly becoming its own field. Location (talk) 04:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. A professor at SUNY give a good definition and states that it used to be known by the "compromised name 'behavior analysis'" which in Wikipedia redirects to Behaviorism, of course.[9] Location (talk) 04:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Underground Herbal Spirit[edit]

Underground Herbal Spirit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

Non notable product from a non-notable company. I42 (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom noq (talk) 20:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the article provides 3 references but only one could be considered a reliable independent source but the link for it doesn't work. Assuming it is a substantial article, that still doesn't represent enough coverage to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:51, 3 September 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. per WP:SNOW JForget 00:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Writism[edit]

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

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

Appears to be a neologism, lacks an indication of notability and judging by the justification for the article on the creating editor's talk page also has a conflict of interests. danno 19:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as advertising. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteAn interesting essay, which ought to be published somewhere. But not here, not yet. Seems like a promising new art movement. I hope the talented creater of the article will come back when it has caught on and there are several reliable and independent sources with significant coverage of writism, which would satisfy our need for notability and verifiability. The essay distinguishes the authors concept of "writism" from earlier modern art such as conceptual art. but does not appear to identify the inventors of "writism," nor are major exhibitions which gained critical commentary listed, nor books or articles about the movement. Wikipedia is not the place to make your new idea famous, no matter how creative or praiseworthy it seems to you. Edison (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original research. Wikipedia is not the place for first publication. JohnCD (talk) 21:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Neologism, unsourced essay. Hairhorn (talk) 05:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Interesting original research, but original research nonetheless. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree, interesting OR, but ultiamtely, OR.--SPhilbrickT 02:59, 5 September 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 Cosmetic surgery. Cirt (talk) 09:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revisional Cosmetic Surgery[edit]

Revisional Cosmetic Surgery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

No evidence given that this article should exist apart from Cosmetic surgery. Probable COI on part of article creator, as well. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to cosmetic surgery. Author is a determined spammer. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Article makes no attempt to distinguish why this procedure is sufficently notable to be a separate article from plastic surgery. Three references are included:

• Reference 1 doesn't talk about Revisional Cosmetic Surgery but about Joint revision surgery, something very different.
• Reference 2 even has the headline "Isn´t Revision Surgery Just More Plastic Surgery?"
• Reference 3 doesn't even include the term

I did do a general search for the term, and found some examples, but none suggested that (at this time) the practice is notable enough for a separate article. The editor should consider including an entry in cosmetic surgery. That article needs work anyway, perhaps the editor can help.--SPhilbrickT 12:34, 5 September 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) 09:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bosnian footballers who have played for another national team[edit]

List of Bosnian footballers who have played for another national team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

Uncited list of nationality claims in violation of BLP policy. Off2riorob (talk) 17:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nom. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 22:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you check each player, you will see that they were born in Bosnia and Herzegovina; of course this makes them eligible to play for the national team. Jaganjac (talk) 23:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is so weak for something as important as what you are claiming, look at this one Velimir_Radman you have to go to his page and there you find a claim that he was born somewhere, and there is a link to [[15]] it is all so weak and unsupported and most of them are the same. Off2riorob (talk) 11:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The list also says at the top that it includes foreign born bosnians? This guy that you constantly were inserting Marko_Arnautović has a serbian father an austrian mother and was born in vienna, and has chosen to play for the austrian team, it is highly likely that he has only an austrian passport. To brand him as Bosnian is a step too far. To say that someone is Bosnian, without a citation is wrong. This list is totally uncited and you seem to have no desire to add any citations either. Off2riorob (talk) 12:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unreferenced & not encyclopedic; not needed on Wikipedia as it is a pure case of WP:LISTCRUFT. GiantSnowman 13:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Doesn't benefit Wikipedia and is WP:LISTCRUFT. It has already led to many edit wars. Spiderone 15:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - the article could be more tightly (re)defined as footballers born in the present day Bosnia / Herzegovina who represent another national team (eg Mario Stanić). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Are there or have there ever been any similar articles to this? What would stop there being a Serbian and a Croatian and then a Macedonian version of this? Where do we draw the line? Spiderone 17:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• see Category:Lists of footballers playing for a foreign country. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:51, 5 September 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. It's clear that this list not only needs work but clearer criteria for inclusion. But no consensus to delete it exists at this time. Chick Bowen 02:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of stock characters in science fiction[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment If one more source could be provided that says a list or compilation of stock characters is an interesting topic, this list would be okay in my book. Otherwise it is just a sub-index entry in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction. Abductive (reasoning) 23:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The purpose of a list is to assist navigation. The list itself does not have to be notable--its just a device to help find articles. If the subjects of the articles are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles, then a list is justified. If it were an articles about Lists of stock characters in science fiction, instead of a list of the stock characters, the objection would be valid. DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and move over the first paragraph from each article and add one character, add a fictional mad scientist for example. A list still needs context, other wise a category does it better. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's rare that an article gets even worse after it was nominated (see [16]), but this pathetic excuse for an article accomplishes that feat. The first time around, the objections were that this, although an interesting read, was original research. I'm afraid that an indiscriminate list doesn't improve with 32 mentions of the "The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction". Send this one out the airlock. Mandsford (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a legitimate subject for an article. The solution for poorly-written articles is improvement, not deletion. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete Reliance on the single source is troublesome. there are some discussions of 'stock' characters in fiction and science fiction but so many of the sources and references are dispersed across different genres and discussing different things. Might come back later w/ some more discussion. Protonk (talk) 04:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Keep Assist in navigation, which is what a Wikipedia list is suppose to do, and there is a book published listing these, which would count as a reference for those obsessed with the suggested notability guidelines, and most importantly, its just WP:common sense, a policy that outweighs everything else on Wikipedia. These are common stock characters found in science fiction. Aliens, robots, mad scientists, monsters, whatever. If you have a problem with a specific entry, discuss it on the talk page. Perhaps we could list the most popular science fiction works that use each feature, although it would probably be a rather long list. Dream Focus 15:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your use of the word "obsessed" seems as if it is meant to imply that editors who, in good faith, try to build a better encyclopedia by the use of proper sourcing are doing so for fetishistic reasons understood only by themselves. Given that I, an editor who tends towards deletionism, am arguing on behalf of this article and the article is likely to be kept, this seeming dig also seems rather pointless. Abductive (reasoning) 19:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY Is a good policy to read. You don't follow the suggested guidelines mindlessly, they not absolute law you must obey. And the Wikipedia was far better off before the mass deletion of articles do to this ridiculous obsession with sources, instead of just using your own reasoning ability to determine if something was notable or not. Dream Focus 14:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is true; I don't follow the guidelines mindlessly. Thank you for noticing. Abductive (reasoning) 17:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DGG FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:02, 8 September 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. per WP:SNOW JForget 00:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christ: the dark years[edit]

Christ: the dark years (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

We are not told, but I assume this is a book. It is being promoted by its author and no evidence of notability is offered. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No evidence found for notability. Clear COI as article started by the writer of the book. Quantpole (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this book. Joe Chill (talk) 21:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Quantpole. Looking at this article & the nomination, I find it hard to add anything more than a "me too": it's an obvious case for delete. (Well, maybe I can figure out how to add a joke about the new book: Christ: The nightclub years.) -- llywrch (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a specified Google search reveals only five commercial sites on Ghits, and broader searches reveal lots of blogs and online stores. Zero reliable sources and no reviews to prove this book is notable. Bearian (talk) 18:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Original research about a book based on original research. From the article "the author makes no attempt to cite his sources". I recognize that it's a new contributor, and it's possible that there may have been some significant coverage about responses to someone's (blasphemous? silly?) attempt to make up stuff about Jesus "during the years that are not included in the Bible", but a book has to be notable in comparison to other books. Mandsford (talk) 19:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No sources, no indication of notability, and appears to be an attempt at self-promotion. Edward321 (talk) 23:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- unless the book has some literary merit as fiction, the article deals with the author of the book's invention about Christ. The creator is Brianddiederich, whose name is identical with the book's author. Accordingly there is conflict of interest. The book is original research, since the author has provided an article on his own book, it is also WP:OR or something very close to that. Accordingly it also fails as WP:ADVERT. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:12, 6 September 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 Psychopathic Rydas. Cirt (talk) 15:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dumpin'[edit]

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

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

Non-notable album that fails WP:NALBUMS. Allmusic shows it never charted [17]. Lack of significant coverage by reliable sources. Unlikely as a search term making redirect a poor choice. Since I'm moving to redirect the band name to another article, that redirect doesn't seem likely either. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Psychopathic Rydas. --Cyclopia (talk) 18:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Allmusic review says "obscure, underground release" "of only 5000 copies", therefore a merge is reasonable. Hekerui (talk) 08:46, 5 September 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 AIDS Walk Boston. Much of its content is already in that article JForget 21:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Kessler 5K Run[edit]

Larry Kessler 5K Run (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

non notable foot race WuhWuzDat 15:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a 5K run that is entering its 10th year, with over 650 registered participants in 2009. Many runners come from states outside of Massachusetts and I think it is helpful to have information about when it is held and its history on Wikipedia so that the running community can learn more about it. Ckujala (talk) 16:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to AIDS Walk Boston. No third-party reliable sources provided to establish notability. Also, violates the spirit of WP:NOBLECAUSE. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to AIDS Walk Boston. Worth a mention in the article as a joint walk. ceranthor 16:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above; there is useful information, but it is not independently notable. Bearian (talk) 18:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge A merge makes sense, it is very much related to AIDS Walk Boston; would help improve that article, but not enough for a standalone article. Is Merge AND redirect an option? The material should be merged, as it is material not in the other article, but someone might search for Larry Kessler 5k.--SPhilbrickT 14:05, 5 September 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 Muhammad Ali. Tone 16:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cassius Marcellus Clay, Sr.[edit]

Cassius Marcellus Clay, Sr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Family "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person." Nowhere in the article, or the obituary, does in suggest that he did anything other than act as a father and unskilled worker: if his son were not who he is, he would be in no way noteworthy. Also nominating Odessa Grady Clay. Kevin McE (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Since this nomination was made, the article has been expanded and many references added. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Smerge (Selectively merge) to Muhammad Ali. No independent notability other than as a parent of a notable person. Edison (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to his sons page (and if anyone thinks there is anything worth merging they can do that.) Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm concerned that a redirect may be confusing to the normal reader, given the similarity of the names, and the likelihood that the target article will contain very little information about the parents. Gigs (talk) 15:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable on his own. Simply know because of his son. Skip the redirect. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Only claim to notability is his famous son. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Notability is not inherited. Joe Chill (talk) 21:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not even an once of notability. Just being related to someone notable does not make someone notable. TJ Spyke 22:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment How about creating an article called Family of Muhammad Ali, and merging this and Odessa Grady Clay into that? I'm pretty sure we could write at least a couple of paragraphs on each of Ali's parents, and there's no sense in preventing readers from having that information. Ali is a major historical figure, so many readers will be interested in his family and background. Zagalejo^^^ 04:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure the family has any collective notability either. One notable member doesn't make a whole family notable. Gigs (talk) 13:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, there have been several news articles primarily about Ali's family tree: [28], [29], [30] Sure, you can say that they wouldn't have been written about if not for Ali, but if the information exists, I don't see a compelling reason to exclude it. Zagalejo^^^ 18:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • For the small amount of actual meat in the articles you just linked, it could be a couple sentences in his main article. Gigs (talk) 23:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge, if the AP and NYT thought they were notable enough to publish a small obituary, then they are notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Says what? Joe Chill (talk) 03:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The father of the most notable boxer of all time is certainly worth mergeing and redirecting at least as it is absolutely verifiable information relevant to the early development of his incredibly significant and world-recognized son. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 13:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge with mother's article. Many of the references for the two articles are the same. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge with Odessa Grady Clay or create a 'Family of Muhammad Ali' article. Jack1956 (talk) 16:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to son's page. Artemis84 (talk) 19:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Muhammad Ali. TomCat4680 (talk) 02:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Odessa Grady Clay. Crafty (talk) 03:01, 7 September 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, as there is no consensus here to delete the article. Merge proposals and discussions are welcome at the talkpages of the relevant articles.  Skomorokh  18:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Odessa Grady Clay[edit]

• Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Jack1956 (talk) 21:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Odessa Grady Clay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Family "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person." Nowhere in the article, or the obituary, does in suggest that she did anything other than act as a mother and unskilled worker: if her son were not who he is, she would be in no way noteworthy. Also nominating Cassius_Marcellus_Clay,_Sr.. Kevin McE (talk) 15:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both. Not notable herself and notability is not inherited. Same with his father. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Smerge (Selectively merge) to Muhammad Ali. No independent notability other than as a parent of a notable person. Not much to say that is encyclopedic other than what is in the article about the son. Edison (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to her sons page (and if anyone thinks there is anything worth merging they can do that.) (e/c) Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm concerned that a redirect may be confusing to the normal reader, given the similarity of the names, and the likelihood that the target article will contain very little information about the parents. Gigs (talk) 15:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Notability is not inherited. Joe Chill (talk) 22:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is enough information in the news on Ali's family for an article, and his trip to Ireland to meet his cousins. Merge the two together if we only want one on his ancestry, its too big to be in his article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As the article's creator I believe that Mrs Clay, as the mother of one of the greatest figures of the 20th century, is notable in her own right though her influence on her son, and I believe I have demonstrated this notability through the use of independent sources and references. The article's logs show that people are coming here to look for information about her. Jack1956 (talk) 07:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep well established article which has already survived an AfD and which clearly demonstrates her notability. Dreamspy (talk) 10:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should note that the first AfD had a rough consensus of "merge", even though the admin closed it as "no consensus" Gigs (talk) 13:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a person who not only influenced the life of an important sports figure but who also has a considerable amount written about her. The article needs expansion and further research, but this seems clearly to be a notable subject. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where? All the sources in the article are about Muhammad Ali, or simple obituaries. Simply saying "keep, there's sources out there" without actually coming up with them is unlikely to sway the closing admin. Gigs (talk) 17:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When the Associated Press publishes an obituary of you, or the New York Times, you are notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC) --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Says what? How do you know it's not just because she's related to a notable person? Even with that obituary, where is the significant coverage? 03:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

To guess why the New York Times and the Associated Press do or do not publish obits about people is Original Research. We just have to stick to the fact that they did publish one, which constitutes notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 12:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't show notability per WP:BIO and you haven't told me how it shows notability when I asked. Joe Chill (talk)

How do you know it wasn't because she was regarded as notable in her own right? Try doing a Google search on her...she receives a lot of coverage. She has been portrayed in two feature films and even has a listing on The Internet Movie Database in her own right[31], which I thought was regarded as a yardstick for notability here. Jack1956 (talk) 06:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually IMDB wasn't even considered a reliable source at all until pretty recently (because the material was often provided by publicists/stars themsevles, and not fact checked at all), and it's still a somewhat controversial source. Gigs (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those films are about her son. Joe Chill (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Films about her son in which she is portrayed by actresses. She also appears, and is credited as such, in various documentaries about her son. She is listed on IMDB in her own right under her own name, not her son's. A lot of less credible articles about people remain on here based on their appearing in IMDB alone. Jack1956 (talk) 06:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what if she was portrayed by actresses? The film was about her son and a movie about a real life person would inlude his or her family members. Joe Chill (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Whether this passes the primary notability guideline is debatable, but I this might be one of those rare WP:IAR situations. This is a popular article that is well written and contains verifiable material, even if it is gathered from many minor sources.--Blargh29 (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article is about a notable subject and has the sources and references to support that claim. The subject is more notable than Ali's wife, who has not been nominated for AfD. Pemberton08 (talk) 20:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person. But recieving significant coverage in multpile reliable sources does. Rlendog (talk) 03:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - WP:IAR Crafty (talk) 20:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Muhammad Ali. TomCat4680 (talk) 02:17, 7 September 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. JForget 21:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of cavalry charge films[edit]

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

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

I fail to see the encyclopaedic value in this. "Cavalry Charge" is not a genré. I'm sure plenty of films have a cavalry charge but that doesn't mean we need a list of them all Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 15:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lists organized by trivial features should be avoided, lest we wind up with articles like List of songs featuring hand claps Gigs (talk) 15:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, listcruft, unencyclopedic. That handclapping AfD is hilarious mind you :-D Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 15:51, 2 September 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 12:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Fadul[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)).

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

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

• Delete. The subject of the article does not appear to meet notability criteria, specifically Wikipedia:Notability (academics). I have been unable to locate independent published sources that would establish notability. Nesbit (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Fadul seems to have started several accounts (e.g., User:FadulJoseA) that were blocked due to sockpuppetry. Nesbit (talk) 15:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you didn't search enough. See http://timss.bc.edu/timss1995i/TIMSSPDF/QAApG.pdf 122.3.211.251 (talk) 14:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also http://www.rukhsanakhan.com/TeacherguideforKing%20of%20the%20Skies.pdf where Fadul's work was cited regarding the history of kites. 122.3.211.251 (talk) 15:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not enough there to meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics) - The attempt to make an impressive list of references at the end of the article consists of things like evidence that the institution referred to exists [32] and don't actually even mention Fadul. Or just use as references Mr Fadul's own forum posts [33]. Hunting dog (talk) 08:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Evidence provided by 122.3.211.251 is not enough to establish notability per WP:PROF. Google Scholar doesn't show too much either. --CronopioFlotante (talk) 10:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But Google Scholar is not that comprehensive yet. Hundreds of significant works of people in the University of the Philippines Libray and De La Salle University, and even the famous Henry Otley Bayer's works, are not yet in seen in Google Scholar. 122.3.211.251 (talk) 22:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Add to this that there are 0 publications in WoS. The search "Author=(fadul j*)" does turn up 5 hits, but they are evidently all for a scientist who worked briefly at the University of Uppsala hosp. in Sweden. His journal publications are mostly in something called the International Journal of Learning, which does not appear to be widely indexed. For what it's worth, that journal's page seems to have text bordering on WP:COPYVIO (compare the WP text to the first paragraph at the journal's "about" page and a user called Fadulj has contributed frequently to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agricola44 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Perhaps 0 publications in Western, Anglo-European hegemony. But in Philippine, Ilocano, Malay, and Chinese circles, his publications are numerous. I don't think challenging the notability of the International Journal of Learning was necessary. The International Journal of Learning is peer-reviewed, supported by rigorous processes of criterion-referenced article ranking and qualitative commentary, ensuring that only intellectual work of the greatest substance and highest significance is published. One thing notable about Jose Fadul is that he succeeded in life in spite of his severe stuttering, poverty and poor health. People with such resilience are one in a million. I used Google Scholar and got more than ten hits. 202.57.48.72 (talk) 11:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. <sarcasm>Wow, 10 hits? That many?</sarcasm>. I don't know how you claim to speak on the subject's behalf, but your comments suggest you do not really understand what the academic world considers to be significant. Boilerplate assertions of "...ensuring that only intellectual work of the greatest substance and highest significance is published" are just PR talking points of no substance. Mainstream journals are widely indexed and the scientific ones (relevant here, since the strongest claim seems to relate to his work in the psychology of learning) of importance will invariably be listed in at least one of the main indexing services like WoS. The fact that practically nothing shows up in any of the usual places where one would expect find evidence of notable contributions is very compelling indeed. Finally, his background of overcoming various hardships points to strong character, I'm sure, but do not confuse this with notability. They're not the same. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Rejoinder. Agricola44, please prevent this discussion from deteriorating into sarcastic exchanges. Wos has an Anglo-European Christian bias. I hope you won't pit Christians against Muslims, or Euro-Americans vs Asians. By the way, Fadul is a Christian despite his Muslim-sounding name. And I am muslim but I respect Fadul as a human person. 119.111.86.73 (talk) 02:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response. Why on Earth would you bring religion or ethnicity into this discussion? You seem to want to make it into some sort of referendum related to how the subject has overcome all kinds of disadvantages, biases, and prejudices. Nobody is disparaging his character in this regard and you should now recognize and accept this. With all due respect, you also seem entirely ignorant of the consensus-based standards that have developed in this forum regarding academic notability. I'm sorry to say that with what we now know, it is clear that the subject is a long way from satisfying any of the criteria of WP:PROF. Add to that the obvious WP:CANVAS and perhaps other shenanigans at work here (how do so many anon IP eds. know so many intimate personal details about the subject?), and I think the closing admin will not have much trouble in coming to a verdict. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep. Even Yahoo Search shows JoseFadul's notability. 122.3.211.251 (talk) 12:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Could you kindly elaborate on the actual results? Thanks. Agricola44 (talk) 15:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Answer: I don't exactly know how to elaborate. But I think http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=jose+fadul&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-701 is self-explanatory. 119.111.86.75 (talk) 02:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Aside from the WP page we are debating at present, most of these seem to hit blogs, pages on LinkedIn and Facebook, the subject's own website, pages for a notable politician evidently having the same surname (see Nomoskedasticity's comment below), etc. I'm afraid we're quickly exhausting any possibility of finding anything of significance. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete. This article is a nightmare. Many of the references don't support what is claimed; some of the links are to old chess games(!). I did a search for Fadul at his (alleged) university's web site and got zero hits -- it's not even clear to me that he is in fact employed there. There's no citation record to speak of. For news results, once you get rid of the PM of Guinea-Bissau and the guy in Miami, there's almost nothing left. Given lack of obvious notability and the intensity with which this thing is being pushed by someone (Fadul?), I think we are much better off without it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but improve the article. I know for a fact that Jose Fadul is an alumnus of the University of the Philippines and worked as teacher trainer for about ten years in the same school before moving to his present teaching position at La Salle-Benilde. I see no point in attacking Dr. Fadul for something he has no control over. 119.111.86.73 (talk) 02:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Bluemask (talk) 02:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but improve the article as suggested by 119.111.86.73. Fadul should be noted for his butterfly collection. I've never seen such numerous butterflies preserved in resin that Fadul once displayed in an academic gathering. I think he can also be considered as one of the few surviving Filipino kite artisans. I bought some of his one-of-a-kind miniature kites (that actually fly) which may be considered original works of art. I wonder why the article didn't mention that except for some books he wrote on butterflies and kites. 119.111.86.75 (talk) 03:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notability is a very relative thing. In the United States or Germany, an author of ten or twenty books is ordinary, while in a Third World country like the Philippines or Ghana, an author of a couple of books is already notable. Jose Fadul may be shit to the Americans but an academic to his people. :) "In the land of the blind the one-eyed is king!" 119.111.86.74 (talk) 04:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a bit insulting. Do you believe the majority of the people in these countries are illiterate? They read books too, have public schools, and even some universities which teach the same classes we have over here. He is notable because of his accomplishments, and media coverage, regardless of what nation he comes from. Dream Focus 14:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Notability to WP standards is not established by any objective measure. This does not reflect on the subject's many admirable achievements. I note that 119.111.86.74 has voted multiple times. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Remark 119.111.86.74 represents one of the computer many terminals in De La Salle-College of Saint Benilde's internet nook where any student can access and use the internet during school hours and school days.119.111.86.73 (talk) 08:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. We, 119.111.86.73, 119.111.86.74, and 119.111.86.75 are all very decent students sitting next to each other discussing, among other things, this Jose Fadul entry in Wikipedia. 119.111.86.74 (talk) 08:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm very glad everyone where he works thinks he's wonderful - but you're really missing the point about notability. Which is whether people who haven't worked with him or been taught by him or otherwise know him personally would expect to see him included in an encyclopaedia, on the basis of what has been written about him in independent reliable sources. -Hunting dog (talk) 10:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-Comment - I've checked the few but significant independent sources including http://timss.bc.edu/timss1995i/TIMSSPDF/QAApG.pdf and http://www.viloria.com/secondthoughts/archives/00000217.html. I have also attended some awarding ceremonies in Manila Science High School, University of the Philippines, and De La Salle University where Fadul was one of the awardees. My son told me that he also saw Fadul being one of the honorees in an awarding ceremony in Hiroshima, Japan. I admit that the article should be improved, but the beginning lines are accurate--Jose Fadul is a multi-awarded Filipino, notable enough for at least one of his books, according to the very respectable Prof. Viloria. A Strong Keep. 122.3.211.251 (talk) 23:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I think Jose Fadul is notable because, among other reasons, he is tenured and ranked Full Professor at De La Salle University-College of Saint Benilde; he is one of the only six Full Professors in this school. The rest of the faculty members numbering more than three hundred have ranks ranging from Lecturer, Assistant Professor, and Associate Professor. 119.111.86.73 (talk) 09:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This list of De La Salle faculty in Counseling and Educational Psychology does not show a Jose Fadul. He also does not appear on this list of all De La Salle faculty alphabetized under F. In any case, being a tenured, full professor is not sufficient to establish notability in Wikipedia.Nesbit (talk)

Comment The lists you presented are lists of faculty for the De La Salle University-Manila, otherwise known as DLSU-Main. The College of Saint Benilde, an autonomous unit within the La Salle system, would have a faculty list separate from that of the list of the main university, hence why the subject does not appear on that list since he is not a professor of DLSU. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 06:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well then I repeat that I was unsuccessful in trying to find him on the web site of the College of Saint Benilde. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fadul was featured in Best of Benilde 2003: Special edition Perspective. Marketing Communications Office. 2003. 119.111.86.75 (talk) 06:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Full professsors at places considered to be major universities can often be shown to be notable, after a bit of digging. Unfortunately we can't confirm that he is a full professor from any reliable sources, and we do not see anything to show that De La Salle-College of Saint Benilde has a research reputation. His non-appearance on their website might be due to the Saint Benilde website providing no list of their faculty. We know that Fadul has published in International Journal of Learning, but the Social Science Citation Index has not chosen to index that journal, which suggest that articles which appear there are not considered part of the mainstream. The current reference list of the article includes work published by Lulu (publisher), which is a self-publisher. If Fadul's work has been cited by other academics in major journals, that would be significant, but using Google Scholar I could not find any such citations to his work. (Google Scholar gave three pages of results, mostly self-citations or work by unrelated people). EdJohnston (talk) 13:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google scholar is not that comprehensive yet, I believe. Some thirty years ago I read Jose Fadul in at least two leading newspapers in the Philippines (Daily Express and Times Journal) news about him winning the 1978 National Science Fair. He was also featured in Banawag Magazine which is in Ilocano, and in the now defunct Who magazine. I remember having them clipped but I misplaced them. Could anyone look into this? 122.3.211.251 (talk) 22:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The references and his accomplishments prove him notable. If we had someone search in his native language, there would certainly be a lot more media coverage found. Dream Focus 14:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you please point out which references establish his alleged accomplishments and also meet WP:RS? Is it the chess games? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe not chess games, but the use of chess variants in teaching, for example: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/42/WorksheetPeasantsRevolt.JPG
  • Yet, more. Dear Nomoskedasticity, if you happen to visit the Philippines, you might meet Jose Fadul in person and discuss with him the psycho-social aspects of usog (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JakqnTEuUsE which, however, is in Tagalog). Usog has been underresearched until some academics including Dr. Jose Fadul presented papers that inspired even medical doctors to check on the differential pain killing effect of the saliva of the Filipinos. And for this, Fadul is also quite notable. http://neurophilosophy.wordpress.com/2006/11/14/lick-your-wounds/ 122.3.211.251 (talk) 23:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the article has been much edited by the blocked user Fadulj and the anons active on this page as have the articles Usog and International Journal of Learning. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep He was once a speaker in our school, and he was introduced by our Dean to be a very notable and respectable person, inspiring each of us to do ur best despite the obstacles of poverty and similar hardships. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.83.58.52 (talk) 05:07, 7 September 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. Consensus is that coverage is insufficient to cross the notability threshold.  Sandstein  05:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warrior Knights[edit]

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

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

The Warrior Knights board game does not appear to be notable. There is no statement in the lead indicating why it stands out from the mass of board games. The fact that a famous designer may have worked on it is not, by itself, adequate for notability, even assuming the designer is notable as alleged on the talk page. Compare the guideline for books, being a book by a famous author it is not, by itself, adequate for notability. It has been marked since December 2007 as needing references. In External links, the so-called review in French is more just a description of the game. The link to BoardGameGeek gives more information, but little to provide notability. It ranks the newer version of Warrior Knights at 272 in board games, and 406 in wargames, and the original even lower at 948 in board game rank, and 643 in wargames rank. It has few incoming links, all of which are lists. Delete for lack of notability. Bejnar (talk) 16:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete cannot find sufficient coverage  Chzz  ►  05:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep the BGG ranking is actually not bad, but more importantly [34], [35] would appear to be reliable reviews. Further, I'm very confident that there will be reviews in specialized paper publications. Hobit (talk) 12:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are reliable sources, but those are not reviews, they are basically listings. --Bejnar (talk) 05:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well the first one isn't, but the militarygamer one is a review, it actually talks about the game. However, just having one or even two reviews does not make a board game notable. --Bejnar (talk) 05:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on the first. But I disagree on your main point. 2 or 3 RS reviews would meet the letter of WP:N. There is certainly wiggle room there, but that would be multiple reliable sources. Finally I found those with 30 seconds of looking. There will be a lot more reviews given the publisher. Hobit (talk) 20:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question is one of significant coverage. No significant coverage has been shown. Given the publisher, a notable game should have had more coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 21:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, minimal coverage on a couple of gaming websites. Abductive (reasoning) 01:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There are so many large-scale gaming publications that if a game has a foothold, it's usually not nearly this hard to find coverage. I don't see any reason to stretch the notability criteria for this category. Chick Bowen 02:32, 9 September 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. JForget 21:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Rhenman[edit]

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

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

Declined CSD, so bringing it here for further evaluation. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, and suggestion that the nominator remove from AFD, based on article improvements. OK, I just spent 30 minutes on this article and was able to dredge up a ton on this person. He was a leader in the field of management research in Sweden, based on what I have read. I also want to comment generally about what happened with this article today and how I think it negatively effects wikipedia -- Twelve minutes after this article was created, it was nominated for "speedy deletion." Luckily another editor saved it from speedy deletion about 2 hours later, but it still is now up for "deletion." I believe it really discourages new wiki contributors to push brand new articles into AfD, when their real problem is lack of citation and need for expansion. I'm sure this has all been discussed a million times before, but isn't there some way a brand new article can be be alerted for expansion/improvement/possible lack of notability -- before getting it right to AfD? --Milowent (talk) 16:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Typically when I decline a speedy deletion, I ship the article off to a procedural AfD nom. I don't really have an opinion on whether or not it should be deleted, so I don't really think it's necessary to withdraw the nomination. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you are saying, and its better than just leaving it as a speedy, but if you don't have an opinion on whether it should be deleted, such a practice results in a bias towards ill-advised AfD nominations. In other words, the person who nominated this for speedy, perhaps without much thought as it comes within 900 seconds of this article's birth, has an undue influence on its future. --Milowent (talk) 17:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's a facility when articles get tagged for speedy deletion to alert an admin. Just put the ((hangon)) tag on the article. AfD generally gets a wide consensus from a lot of editors, and this discussion runs for a week - so more time to get a few references on there and that kinda thing. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 15:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, a procedural AfD nom is typically appropriate after a 2nd prod, but typically not so appropriate after a declined speedy deletion. I'd rather it were left up to the speedy nominator whether to bring to AfD in the hope they read and follow WP:BEFORE first. Qwfp (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —CronopioFlotante (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep When I proposed speedy delete it had no references whatsoever. Some notability has been established... not sure if it's enough. Teapotgeorge^Talk 20:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A Google Books search for his name in books authored by others that can be previewed shows plenty of evidence of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to satisfy WP:N. In fact this one quotes R. Edward Freeman saying he is "perhaps the originator of the term" 'stakeholder theory', which that WP article seems to credit to Freeman at present. Qwfp (talk) 21:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, easily meets PROF (though looking only at what is on google (scholar, news) doesn't make this immediately apparent -- as is often the case with people whose work is from an earlier period. Proposing/nominating an article for deletion is to be based not on the state of the article at the time but on a judgment formed after one has tried to determine for oneself whether the person is notable. If you don't know, don't nominate; do the research first. Chances are, people who see the AfD will not know the person and will have to do a bit of research to make a judgment; if that research turns up evidence of notability, the AfD was a waste of our time that could have been prevented by doing it yourself and then not nominating. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. GS gives h index around 11, older work so not so much cited. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep in agreement with Nomoskedasticity -- & in agreement with him also I note that h index by itself is a useless measurement for anyone working in the 1970s, especially in Europe in the social sciences. DGG ( talk ) 17:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Given all the keep votes and the weak keep by Teapotgeorge, I think that this is a good candidate for a speedy keep. --CronopioFlotante (talk) 20:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It has references. And I don't think there is a any procedure listed anywhere to move a protested speedy delete to an AFD. You have to have an opinion, and believe it should be deleted, to send it here. Otherwise you are just filling up AFD with nonsense nominations, and wasting everyone's time. Dream Focus 02:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to close. "Declined CSD, so bringing it here for further evaluation" is not a valid reason for deletion. The nominator has given no reason per policy to delete the article. Fences&Windows 15:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You're right, because I have no opinion on whether or not it should be deleted. This is purely a procedural nomination. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have recently seen the phrase "procedural nomination" used more and more when brining an article to AFD and have to ask the question; "....what the *&^% does that mean". I have looked through our proceedures - policies and guidelines and have not found that phrase either used - listed or even mentioned. On the other hand, I have seen it stated in before "...that before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator or notifying an associated wikiproject, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." This guideline seems to invalidate the reasoning for bringing an article to AFD as "Procedural Nomination". Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 16:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Juliancolton, there is no "procedure" that requires or permits this. In fact, WP:BEFORE effectively prohibits it. Please don't do it again. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, considering that many, many admins do this, I think it's best to initiate a discussion at WT:AFD. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Started. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 16:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The nominator has given no reason per policy to delete the article." I would assume that the mention that there was a CSD is a good reason as it shows that someone proposed for it but in the wrong manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it shows that someone wanted to delete the article. It gives us no reason to believe that they had a valid reason. Fences&Windows 17:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Julian asked me to comment on procedural nominations. I think it's reasonable to bring a situation here involving the keeping of an article that needs community resolution--although I do not call these "procedural nomination". Myself, I try to do this only if I personally think the article should be deleted, but sometimes it's unavoidable. Suppose I come across a challenged article at CSD where it is clear that it passes the bar for speedy, or thee is no speedy reason that fits, but which might well not pass WP:N. If I think it should be deleted, I take it here and give an argument for deletion. If I think it should be kept, I decline the speedy, explain why I think it should be kept on the talk p. or at least the summary, and then whoever challenged it can bring it here if they still think it should go & think it worth the trouble--often they don't. If I simply do not know what should be done with it, or think that others should give opinions also, I can either wait for the original tagger, or simply bring it here. I usually wait for the tagger, unless it's clear that it involves a substantial issue. Waiting for the tagger simplifies the discussion, but if I know it should be discussed and they might not bring it, then I do. This is within the discretion of the admin--or in fact of anyone else who thinks a discussion that might lead to deletion is needed. -- such as when I am bringing it on behalf of someone who for one reason or other is not able to . DGG ( talk ) 18:02, 6 September 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 The 7PM Project. JForget 21:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 7PM Project Ratings[edit]

The 7PM Project Ratings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

Not needed Mclarenaustralia (talk) 12:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Not needed" isn't a valid deletion reason - the correct question is not whether the article is "needed", but rather whether it is a notable topic. I see no reason why this shows ratings are notable within their own right, however they are notable to the show itself and as such I say merge to The 7PM Project. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Information that can easily be added for the most up-to-date time period on the main page. We don't need a page devoted to ratings of a nightly program. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 15:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Although the nomination reasoning is malformed, the lack of sources and obsessive detail about the ratings for a newsmagazine isn't needed. These kinds of articles are usually only of interest to a select few. Nate • (chatter) 23:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Quickly, this is an embarrassment, totally inappropriate. - Shiftchange (talk) 10:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. Ironholds (talk) 12:39, 6 September 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. Without prejudice to later recreation if shows necessary. Tone 17:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rifqa Bary[edit]

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

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

Does not meet some of the notability guidelines, is the subject of a single media event, and presumably a temporary one. So far, the American media have made a lot of this, but the subject is a nearly-adult runaway, and whatever ruling is made regarding whether she stays in Florida or returns to Ohio, she will be 18 soon and that will likely be the end of it. This was originally tagged for speedy deletion, which I declined. The author of the article has provided some arguments for the article's inclusion on the talk page. Maedin\^talk 11:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete. Occurrences in news sources once does not mean that it attains general notability, i.e., it may be the last one for the concerned person on the article to be mentioned on news.--JL 09 _^q?c 12:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- Fails WP:ONEEVENT. ceranthor 13:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I added the article because I looked for Rifqa Bary here on WP after noticing her mentioned on another site, hoping to find any background information, and noticed there was no article. I'm not precious about whether it stays in. Kaid100 (talk) 18:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article does not meet wikipedia's established notability criterion yet. As of right now this is just a case of a runway with religious overtones. If this case becomes a societal phenomena the way Elian Gonzales, if we are still talking about this in December or January then this should be here. Until then this is not notable, a non-event really. --Hfarmer (talk) 22:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Retain - Ms Bary's story is currently in the news and only likely to expand. It makes no sense to remove the article only to recreate it later after further developments. Or is someone trying to hide something> B00P (talk) 22:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ComentPlease assume the good faith of your fellow editors it's a ruel WP:AGF. Second wikipedia can't act on what is likely or what someone think's will happen. I think it is as likely that no matter the outcome of this court case after the judge rules latter this month this story will basically disappear. That's just as likely as it becoming bigger. That said WP:CRYSTAL says WP must follow not lead. Thus IMO your "point" is incompatible with our rules.--Hfarmer (talk) 18:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Retain until this matter is settled and a more definitive decision can be made. I agree with B00P that it would be more work for someone to redo the article if she were to become "notable". Iceberg007 (talk) 05:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coment it would not be too hard to recreate an article of this quality. See the talk page for my critique. Basically, the article is not so great.--Hfarmer (talk) 18:06, 7 September 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. per WP:SNOW JForget 00:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of BSP fixtures and Results 09-10[edit]

List of BSP fixtures and Results 09-10 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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