< 11 April	13 April >

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Macaw music software[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 23:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no coverage in reliable sources that I can find. All that is out there are download sites. -- Whpq (talk) 20:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aluwani dzhivhuho[edit]

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

Not notable. — H3llkn0wz ▎talk 23:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BIO, WP:V. — Rankiri (talk) 23:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - low-ranking chess player. Bearian (talk) 23:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The information seems trivial and not to the notability that Wikipedia requires of a person. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 18:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable chessplayer. SyG (talk) 11:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Boldly redirected Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decade (Beanie Baby)[edit]

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

Individually non-notable Beanie Baby. Very short article, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Replicates content at Beanie_Baby#Decade_the_bear, plus I am unable to find significant coverage for this Beanie Baby. I should note for anyone looking for sources, try Googling "Beanie Baby anniversary" as well. All I found there were press releases and other non-independent sources but it's potentially more lucrative than just Googling "Decade beanie baby". - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Ty Beanie Babies#Decade, where merging the text has already been completed. Xyz7890 (talk) 18:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Fame Monster. Merge can be made at editorial discretion. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dance In The Dark (Lady GaGa song)[edit]

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

I believe this should actually be a redirect to The Fame Monster but my attempt to make that happen was reverted without discussion, which is why I'm taking this route. My understanding of WP:NALBUMS indicates that since this song has not charted, won a significant award or been performed by several notable artists, and since there is not enough verifiable material material to warrant a reasonably detailed article, this song should redirect to the album on which it appears. The single useful citation is one where the artist explains the meaning of the song on the MTV site and I believe this article is unlikely to grow beyond the stub that would be in place if the original research, unreferenced speculation, etc., is all edited out. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Quite clearly one user taking things personally. I agree according to WP:NALBUMS this should be deleted. Jonathan McLeod (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I should add that this article was created by a new user whose first and only contribution this is, and I have every reason to assume good faith; just someone who doesn't know Wikipedia's processes/policies. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There might be one or two notable performances of this song, such as the mash-up of this song with the single Telephone at the 2010 BRIT Awards in memory of Alexander McQueen, although this event is already covered well in the Telephone article. Other than that, there's no charting, awards, covers, etc.. so it's a clear violation of WP:NALBUMS & WP:SONGS.
Merge and redirect as is the norm (and supported by our guidelines) in such cases. Likely will chart, no reason to make recreation harder.Hobit (talk) 06:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete. Every utterance by Lady Gaga does not need its own article. This is not notable (and the title is not formatted properly anyway). - eo (talk) 12:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to the album, per WP:NALBUMS. Rlendog (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tim David[edit]

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

Autobiography of an amateur figure skater (see Adult figure skating for explanations) who organized a benefit in New York. Does not meet WP:BIO. References are either from M. David's website or about the benefit. Pichpich (talk) 22:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Badly written piece of self promotion. Malcolma (talk) 09:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be an autobiography. No notability is claimed. Lacks coverage in 3rd party sources RadioFan (talk) 11:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I attempted to clean it up. Bearian (talk) 22:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While it is certainly cleaner and I applaud your efforts, its still not notable. RadioFan (talk) 00:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject of this article fails WP:ATHLETE and, more broadly, WP:BIO. I appreciate Bearian's cleanup, but no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per G3 (hoax) by JzG (talk · contribs). Non-administrative closing —Farix (t | c) 13:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bleach So De No Shira Yuki[edit]

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

Poorly written fancruft. Not notable outside existing Sode_no_shirayuki#Abilities. — H3llkn0wz ▎talk 22:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Half a joke - Half fan gibberish. Not only the subject doesn't warrant a spin-out article but it's written in a parody/comical delirium way. One step short from patent nonsense. --KrebMarkt 18:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:N. – allen四names 18:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy deletion under G3 as a blatant and obvious hoax. —Farix (t | c) 18:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, technically "Rukia Kuchiki in Bleach (manga) has power Sode no Shirayuki", so I couldn't really list in as speedy neither for patent nor hoax. Then again I should've just proded it.

The article is just so much gibberish that its hard to make out WHAT is is about (A1 No context). From what I can make if it, it is some sort of spin-off of the regular Bleach TV series. In which case, it would fall under G3 as there are no spin-off series. G1 Patent nonsense would be another good speedy deletion criteria as the article is mostly nonsense and random, disconnected comments. —Farix (t | c) 20:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong - Strong delete; I was just saying speedy criteria seemed arguable. — H3llkn0wz ▎talk 20:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; not enough context provided to identify the subject correctly; no references provided; rambling nonsense. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I don't think it qualifies as speedy, as there's just enough context to figure out what it's trying (badly) to talk about. But definite, very strong delete. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Milwaukee Brewers minor league players. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brock Kjeldgaard[edit]

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

Prod removed but I'm still unsure. Lexis has tons of hits but they are either from his signing (along with all the other players signed) or trivial mentions from individual games. I still don't think that a member of the ~~class-A~~ ballclub passes WP:ATHLETE. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strike that. He's moved to Class A-Advanced now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For Okip's sake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.172.199.187 (talk • contribs)

— 32.172.199.187 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Jclemens (talk) 21:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Milwaukee Brewers minor league players as per convention with other active minor league-only players. NatureBoyMD (talk) 22:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to keep Okip's dream alive.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.173.110.104 (talk • contribs)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Milwaukee Brewers minor league players , per NatureBoy. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Milwaukee Brewers minor league players per above. Spanneraol (talk) 18:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Considering the structure of the suggested merge target, shoehorning any content from this article there would be difficult, perhaps a redirect would be a better option. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The player would be added similar to the other players on that minor league page. Spanneraol (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per NatureBoyMD. Ron Ritzman's concern seems to be irrelevant, there are a number of individual player sections on the target page. --Absenteeist Ⓣ Ⓒ 19:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FASMLIB[edit]

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

Conflict of Interest -- Author of FASMLIB Wikipedia page is author of FASMLIB itself -- Wikipedia User Vid512 is Martin Mocko aka. vid. SpooK (talk) 21:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Desperately needs external validation. In current state appears to be nothing more than an advert. I can't even work out from the article exactly what it is supposed to be about. In my opinion it has no contribution to Wikipedia. Jonathan McLeod (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does appear to be a conflict of interest for the author, however the text does not seem spammy in nature. Im not familiar with this topic. Is the subject of the article notable? If the text is accurate and the subject is notable it should stay despite the conflict of interest. definatly needs references establishing notability. Ill wait to see if any are added and until I get a chance to look into the subject before I vote. -Tracer9999 (talk) 02:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found one source ([1]) that notes that the software can be used for memory-management purposes, but the source might be considered "self-published". In the absence of a specific notability guideline for software, WP:GNG's standard requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". PleaseStand ^(talk) 02:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a notable libraries would make appearances in one the multitude of programming books that are available. I found none in searching Google Books. -- Whpq (talk) 20:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Whpq. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur with Whpq; I checked google books and scholar myself, there's no independent coverage for this library. Pcap ping 20:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 23:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Milanzi[edit]

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

fails WP:ATH - Malawi league isn't as far as I can find out fully professional - he may also fail WP:GNG - can't find a lot of sources by a look around. Steve-Ho (talk) 21:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Steve-Ho (talk) 21:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 21:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 21:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He plays for the top football league in Malawi and has played internationally, placing him firmly within the bounds of #1 on WP:ATHLETE. Silver seren^C 21:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment' - I would like to see some evidence that the Malawian league is fully professional. Also youth international caps don't in their own right confer notability Steve-Ho (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it is the top league in Malawi, then it is fully professional. What other evidence do you need? Silver seren^C 21:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not all top leagues are fully professional - see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues Steve-Ho (talk) 21:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell of the discussion, "Fully professional" means making a livable wage off of playing the sport. Is there any way to determine this for the Malawi league? Silver seren^C 22:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable to me; its just a low-quality article for now, but doesn't necessarily mean it can't improve. $Raa G gio (talk)$ 21:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Recreat if/when he plays in a fully-pro league. Giant Snowman 23:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Malawi Premier Division not a fully pro league and can you show me where this is said? Silver seren^C 00:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The top flight of Malawi football is not fully professional. The top flight is the Malawi Premier Division, also known as the Super League. That league is only semi-professional: see the second paragraph under "introduction" here: [2]. Thus the subject fails the community set standard of WP:ATH. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding that - I guess we will need to update the list of non-fully professional leagues now to include Malawi Steve-Ho (talk) 08:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done: [3]. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is yet another case where a robotic insistence on the letter of WP:ATHLETE gets in the way of common sense. Whether the top league in Malawi is fully professional or not, its record seasonal goal-scorer is more notable by any conceivable rational standard than some journeyman who has turned out for a match or two for Torquay United, but only the latter gets a free pass for notability. If a reliable source can be found to confirm even half of what is in the article then it should be kept. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to find the sources to make sure it meets WP:N - I just nominated it because it didn't appear to meet WP:ATH.... Steve-Ho (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You do have a point. I mean, he is the main scorer for the entire team. Silver seren^C 20:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, not just for the entire team, but for the entire top league of a country. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added some sources. Silverseren^C 20:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Those sources don't exactly establish notability do they? Both sources are about individual matches. One mentions that he scored a goal, the other mentions that he had a shot saved. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the information in the article other than his exploits with the under-17 national team (which I don't think is enough to establish notability) are unverifiable. The Nation's online website indicates that Milanzi plays for Escom United, not the "Eagle Strikers" indicated in the article. If he had really had led the league in goal-scoring, The Nation and other sites dedicated to sports in Malawi would surely have noted it. My guess is that the local football information is wrong or a hoax. Jogurney (talk) 21:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On further inspection, Eagle Strikers have scored 33 goals in the 2009–10 season, so are we to believe Milanzi scored 30 of them (without a source) especially when a reliable source has him with Escom United? The editor, Milanese-Brisbane, who entered that information has a history of other hoaxes if you check his contribution history. Jogurney (talk) 21:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - RSSSF contradicts the article's assertion about Milanzi's 17 goals scored in 2008 as well. I'm sure we have a hoax on our hands here. Jogurney (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (after edit conflict) I'm willing to accept that the information may be innacurate, which is why I didn't give a "keep" opinion above and included an "if" in my comment, but FIFA says that he was playing for Eagle Strikers in 2009.[4] My main point is that we shouldn't get hung up on the professionalism of the league when deciding whether an individual player is a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that's reasonable. If Milanzi had actually set the goal-scoring record at such a young age, it's very likely he would have coverage sufficient to pass the GNG. As it is, we have a hoaxster editor that added the information and it cannot be verified (as seems a likely hoax). Jogurney (talk) 21:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails ATHLETE, youth caps do not imply notability. Appears to be a hoax anyway, it's hard to believe that a 15-year-old could be a record holder for the most goals. Most of the claims in the article are contradicted in reliable sources. Big Dom 15:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless a cast-iron reliable source can be found to prove that a 15 year old set a goalscoring record, which frankly I don't believe for a second -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John R. Curtis[edit]

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

Local Mayor - may not meet the notability requirements. I'd like the community's input on this. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. No external links. Jonathan McLeod (talk) 21:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:OUTCOMES and WP:POLITICIAN. Mayor of a city with 118,581 residents. Bearian (talk) 00:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Provo, UT is a medium-size U.S. city and this meets WP:POLITICIAN. -PlainSight (talk) 12:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mayor of a large enough municipality to warrant inclusion. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per those above - does appear to meet the notability guide for politicians. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ (weak) WP:POLITICIAN says a mayor will 'usually' count. i.e. will usually generate enough coverage. Adding Provo to the news search above gave me 5 hits (I think it was). Is that 'enough'? David V Houston (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You'll miss a lot of the coverage if you don't also search for "John Curtis" (assuming you just searched for "John R. Curtis"). Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. Sorry I missed that. Have rescinded my 'delete' !vote. David V Houston (talk) 12:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I'm seeing significant coverage as I search, turning up articles such as this in The Salt Lake Tribune and this in the Deseret News, as a start. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Meets WP:POLITICIAN and has media coverage without middle initial. --Absenteeist Ⓣ Ⓒ 19:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Ty Beanie Babies. Scott Mac (Doc) 21:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Special Beanie Babies[edit]

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

No qualification for what makes an individual Beanie Baby "special." ~~Also a vandalism target as people keep adding some unverifiable entry on a mongoose Beanie Baby having a (funny but) "mean poem," for which I've found absolutely no verification.~~ Son of a nutcracker, that "mean poem" for Runner actually exists.

Not to mention that there is only one source on the whole article and a large whack of OR. The few that can be verified (e.g. that super-expensive Peanut the Elephant) can be selectively merged to the main Beanie Baby article, which is itself a mess. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see this one getting some support votes and some delete votes, but I'd go ahead with a "delete". I don't believe it is notable, and not only that, like you said, the article doesn't specifically define what it is about. $Raa G gio (talk)$ 21:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect back to Beanie_Baby#Notable_Beanie_Babies, which it apparently spun off from. I am unable to find significant coverage for the term "special beanie baby" which implies there are insufficient reliable independent sources to establish a stand-alone article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as Dust suggests, for the reasons mentioned by both Dust and the Hammer. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Ty Beanie Babies per creator's request. I had only intended this to be a temporary page as the merger of several others. All the information can be placed there in a more organized fashion. Xyz7890 (talk) 18:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do you really think "Special Beanie Babies" is a likely search term for a redirect? I doubt anyone would type that in. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No but if we're going to do a merge it needs to leave a redirect per WP:MAD. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if this is to be merged, it has to be with the edit history preserved, and not a delete and merge, because the edit history is necessary in completing the merge. Xyz7890 (talk) 22:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above comments. David V Houston (talk) 12:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 17:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Withdrawn by nom. Sources added demonstrate notability. Non admin closure. Szzuk (talk) 07:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Society for the Encouragement of the Fine Arts[edit]

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

~~This is a non notable art organisation. There are two references in the article both offer trivial mentions. Szzuk (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC).~~ Withdrawn. I'm withdrawing the afd nomination. The sources added since the afd demonstrate notability. Szzuk (talk) 07:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral- If reliable sources can be found, then I think the article could stay. If not, then it is most adequate to delete. $Raa G gio (talk)$ 21:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I've added a couple more references to the article under External Links, one from 1878 the other from 2006. I wouldn't suggest for a moment that this society has anything like the importance of the RSA or is ever likely to be reassessed as having the formative importance of the Leeds Arts Club, for example, but it may be better to include than to exclude. AllyD (talk) 21:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- One of those sources was already there, its just a sentence. The other you added similarly a sentence. The article has been an orphan with just 4 non bot edits since it was created 3 years ago. Szzuk (talk) 21:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One of those sources happens to be EB1911, which gave it a mention 50 years after the organisation was established. There are many sources to be found[5], including many very notable periodicals of the time.--John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The EB1911 is one sentence, does that demonstrate notability? I've just been to the links you gave, they don't add up to much in my eyes. Perhaps as the article creator you should properly source this article yourself? 4 edits in 3 years demonstrates nobody else wants to. Assuming you can find, WP:RS, reliable sources. Szzuk (talk) 06:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Did you read The Musical World 40 (11): p 165? What part of this article is not sourced to a reliable source? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - How could I read it when the link to it in the article is dead? I suspect it is a) a one sentence trivial mention or b) something best left in the dusty old manuscript it came from. All of the sources in the article are in my opinion trivial. Szzuk (talk) 08:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've read it and it is not one sentence (the link works fine for me), it is the whole page, with details that are useful for the article. IMO, the best reference here, though, is the one from 2006, which shows that no matter how dusty, someone has written about this society professionally as part of an ongoing project: Exhibition Culture in 19th Century London 1878-1908. Also, read this: The website database records over 3,000 exhibitions and 900 galleries in London [...] between 1878 and 1908." How do you decide which of those have sufficient material available for articles? Maybe a better approach is to have an article on exhibition culture in 19th century London? Carcharoth (talk) 01:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, one sentence is often sufficient IMHO. e.g. EB1911 entry for Accius was a single sentence. If it was "A meeting was held at ...", that wouldn't warrant any further attention. OTOH, if it says that the organisation was important to "progress" in a discipline and/or region, that indicates it is historically relevant. We are not limited by the costs of distribution (WP:NOTPAPER) or the need to write exhaustive articles about topics immediately (WP:NOTDONE). John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per John. Hobit (talk) 05:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. John created the article. It would be unusual if he wanted it deleted. Szzuk (talk) 06:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - We are suppose to be a superset of encyclopedias. If a 100 year-old mainstream one covered it, we should too. Pretty much per the 5 pillars. Hobit (talk) 12:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - They didn't cover it. It was mentioned in one sentence. My mother has a copy of the EB from the 1950s. I'm sure it was very good in its day, now it is very dated and much of it simply wouldn't get on WP. Szzuk (talk) 13:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Really? Can you point to any article in the EB1911 that has been deleted after being created here on Wikipedia? Redirects and merges, maybe, but deletion, I think not. Simply waving a hand and declaring something dated doesn't make it so, and is certainly not a valid deletion reason. Carcharoth (talk) 01:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Welll... battue was deleted as a WP:dictdef. More can be seen here. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP common practise is helpful, but human intervention provides nuance and exception. I believed this was an exception because the page is so sparse. I was wrong, but exceptions occur perhaps more than you think. I'm going to withdraw the nom. Szzuk (talk) 07:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was going to boast about my Google-fu (a deliberate red-link as we should have an article) by offering up a helpful link to some Google Books search results, but I see that John Vandenberg has already linked the same search. This was clearly notable for many decades, which means that, by our standards, it is still notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - added some sources on the talk page. This Society held regular meetings for decades in London, attended by many of the great and good of the time, with lectures by people who often have articles themselves, and the people running the society often have articles themselves, and it gets mentioned in the The Times fairly regularly. Does that make it notable? I think so, but I can understand why others might not think so. Carcharoth (talk) 23:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete - CSD G10. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Anderson (gay rights activist)[edit]

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

Appears to be self-published information about a non-notable person. EuroPride (talk) 20:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and so tagged. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that clear evidence of notability does not exist. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Leahey[edit]

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

I can find very little evidence of notability for this individual. He is the president of a Canadian outfit called Friends of Science but appears to have no independent notability. There is a bare handful of mentions of him in Google News' archives [6] but he otherwise seems to have attracted little public attention. This biography is a stub, linked from only one other article in article space, with only one source and no references to indicate that he has any notability on relation to anything other than Friends of Science. I propose that it should either be deleted or merged into Friends of Science. ChrisO (talk) 20:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Several news articles mention Leahey, for instance, these two:

He has a Ph.D, has published numerous peer reviewed papers, and is president of a highly visible and controversial organization. The article has stood for over three years. I vote it be left as is. FellGleaming (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Keep. He's the "principle scientist" of a Government of Alberta agency, equivalent to a department chair. See WP:PROF. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is your source for that? His CV, which is cited in the article, doesn't seem to mention it. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now I can't find it. Mever mind. Bearian (talk) 00:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Volume of publications and his role in AGW debate warrants inclusion. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 23:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I came here at Bearian's suggstion expecting to try to say keep, as I tend to support inclusion of non-mainstream people if I can find a plausible reason, but I must say the opposite--looking at the available information shows not only that there is no evidence of notability, but that there is strong objective quantitative evidence that he is not notable. He does not even come near to meeting WP:PROF on the basis of the extent to which people cite his work: Scopus gives the rather striking situation of a great many papers in respectable mainstream journals, but few citations to any of them: the cites are 7, 6, 6, 5, .... and h=4. Twenty-five of the forty papers have never been cited by anyone at all , and a substantial number of what cites there are, consist of self-citations to his own work. He works in an area, micrometerology, studying local wind flow and pollution. It seems an area where most works are cited considerably more than that. I can not see how his scientific work possibly shows him as an authority. If he is notable, it is as President of his society. His society does not seem to have enough importance to necessarily make his presidency of it notable, and he himself does not seem to be referred to in any specific capacity. DGG ( talk ) 02:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe anything would vote to keep him just on his professional background alone. It is his position as president of FoS, and his role in the AGW debate, that makes him notable. FellGleaming (talk) 03:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: "Notability is inherited". In actuality the notability of each article's subject has to be established independently. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an encyclopedia, not LinkedIn. Thepisky (talk) 04:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above discussion and my second look at the sources. Bearian (talk) 20:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems clear from the above discussion that he does not pass WP:PROF. We could consider WP:GNG or WP:FRINGE instead, for his climate change denialist activism, but the only news coverage I can find that mentions him does so only trivially as part of stories about his advocacy group Friends of Science. The group itself appears to be notable (although too much of the article we have on it is self-sourced) but not to the level where its president would also be notable ex officio. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Spoonkymonkey`s reasoning mark nutley (talk) 09:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For those arguing to delete, I would ask you contrast the notability with Leahey -- 80+ papers and president of a highly visible think tank -- with the Wiki entry on another ex researcher who has far fewer published papers, fewer cites, no current notable status of any kind, yet has survived several deletion attempts. FellGleaming (talk) 14:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:WAX. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - A good point, but it doesn't quite apply. Both articles are ex researchers involved in the same area. But more importantly, I'm not arguing for inclusion based on the presence of this other entry; I'm merely asking editors to consider a firm and consistent set of criteria for what they consider notability, and apply it evenly. FellGleaming (talk) 16:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As DGG has outlined even with his reported 80 publications, they are of so little note that he clearly fails WP:PROF. Also fails WP:BIO Even with the recent presidency of the Canadian organisation (FoS) he has had little or no coverage as an individual for his views on AGW. Those arguing for keep have thus far failled to present sources to show that he is individually notable. I see no significant news coverage of him, only trivial stuff as mentioned by David Eppstein. As a final comment per WP:OTHERSTUFF there is more detailled news coverage on me in more major outlets and I don't have an article ;) . Polargeo (talk) 09:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this is to be deleted can it be sent to my userspace please. Unless FG wants it in his of course, i`d like to work on this when time allows mark nutley (talk) 09:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Closed early per the snowball clause, due to the strong and unanimous consensus that this is unsalvageably original research. ~ mazca ^talk 21:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook stalking is it a form of cyber-harassment or simple curiosity?[edit]

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

Unreferenced essay about a subject that does not really require an article. EuroPride (talk) 20:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is essentially WP:OR; an original synthesis of previously established facts to draw a new conclusion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unreferenced mixture of original reasearch and synthesis. Could this be a school class assignment? If so, have any similar articles been created around the same time? -- The Anome (talk) 22:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unsourced essay (quite possibly someone's homework). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 23:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Essay consisting entirely of WP:OR. Fundamentally unencyclopedic content. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Delete as OR. OlYeller^Talktome 15:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Delete: Wikipedia:No original research. Tangurena (talk) 22:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per everyone; WP:OR. ^Pepper∙_piggle 22:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:OR, reads like an essay, etcetera etcetera...--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 15:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Consensus was to delete. Rlendog (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Lady Gaga Album[edit]

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

A prod tag was removed without apparent improvement; the relevant policy, at WP:NALBUMS, says: "a future album whose article is titled "(Artist)'s Next Album" and consists solely of blog or fan forum speculation about possible titles, or songs that might be on the album, is a WP:CRYSTAL violation and should be discussed only in the artist's article, and even then only if there is some verifiable information about it. (See also WP:TenPoundHammer's Law.)" There will be plenty of time for this article if and when there is a title, track list, etc., all confirmed by "reliably sourced information about a future release". In the meantime, there is sufficient information at Lady GaGa that nothing would be gained by merging this material. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This stub of an article is looking too much into the crystal ball. No confirmed release date or title means that this article is premature. —C.Fred (talk) 20:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL.—Kww(talk) 20:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Premature - Mlpearc MESSAGE 20:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- It should be created eventually, but for now, it fails WP:SPEC. $Raa G gio (talk)$ 21:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Imperatore (talk) 22:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails Wp:CRYSTAL, but will be welcomed back at a later date. (PS - I don't know what other chart companies are doing, but the British one considers The Fame and The Fame Monster to be the same album.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 23:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Come back when it has a title and/or a track list. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but keep for when the album's title is confirmed. It should be made around June when all of the Fame Monster songs have been released.
Delete per nom. Nymf _hideliho! 13:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER. Recreate when cover art, title and tracklist are confirmed. Adabow (talk) 02:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does this need to happen with every not-yet-released pop music album? - eo (talk) 12:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and close per WP:SNOW. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete idk if i should even be writing this but yea it should be deleted I rap ass off 00:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To much of a WP:CRYSTALBALL at present. No title either. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 16:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 23:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IA/UX[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/IA/UX

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

neologism, prod removed without explanation Jac16888 ^Talk 17:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The anonymous IP editor has removed two PRODs without justification. Truthanado (talk) 01:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, more or less self-acknowledged as a neologism describing original synthesis, as well as being vague to the point of unreadability: Although neither of these terms are new to technology, software, or ergonomics, they're are currently morphing into a common term in digital internet development defining the aesthetics, the functionality, and the technologies used to create an Internet application and/or experience. It is the "intertwining" of these two terms, which in older technologies were consider separate that has changed web "browsing" into web "experience". This definition can be expanded to fit any technology an individual or group interacts with personally. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia:Patent nonsense Tangurena (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - makes no sense whatsoever. This could have been deleted as patent nonsense and no one would have objected. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 22:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, redirect to Interaction design or Web usability. Google has over 90,000 hits for the transposition "UX/IA", and over 20,000 for "IA/UX". PleaseStand ^(talk) 02:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonsense. B.Wind (talk) 04:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snowdelete, --Nuujinn (talk) 18:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 23:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elmwood Productions[edit]

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

Vanity article about an obscure film production company that has yet to create any films that meet Wikipedia's definition of notability. Does not pass WP:CORP. Warrah (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any reliable sources that indicate this company is notable per WP:CORP. Most of the Google hits are blogs, WP, the official site, and social networking sites. The article was created by User:ElmwoodJon, who also removed COI and unref tags without appropriately dealing with those issues. PDCook (talk) 19:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete without prejudice as not yet notable. If or when this group receives coverage that shows notability, its return might be considered. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources of the company. Jujutacular ^T · C 18:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as recreation of a page that was deleted via deletion discussion. — ξ ^xplicit 20:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'xbox 720'[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/'xbox 720'

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

Contested WP:PROD - Speculative at best - fails WP:CRYSTAL Codf1977 (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the current article fails in many aspects. Plus it is speculation that the XBox 720 is going to be released this year. We need concrete information on this and not speculation. No need for WP:CRYSTAL ball. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!}
Delete. Speculative essay. See deletion logs on Wii 2, PlayStation 4 and Xbox 720 — Rankiri (talk) 18:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged the page with WP:G4: unimproved recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion.. — Rankiri (talk) 19:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree with above.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G4. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. One two three... 20:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of tribology organizations[edit]

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

WP:NOTLINK. Wizard191 (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Wikipedia is not a mirror. $Raa G gio (talk)$ 21:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
D/e/l/e/t/e/: Neutral 'mirror' is less of a problem than 'repository of links', but neither are apparently valid Wiki topics. Note the the article was just created today. It is possible that the user would turn this into something wiki-able - possibly move this into his user space? Certainly, if it is deleted, he needs to be told how to get it back and fix it. He has added an underconstruction tag... Oh, and the fact that for Higher Ed, whole universities are cited, not the departments or institutes that are actually concerned with the research make this less of interest.--David V Houston (talk) 01:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the author of this page, and actively involved in the research field it pertains to, I feel that this page while under construction, is absolutely necessary. The reason I created this page is because a very similar page exists for na/notechnology, which is arguably a smaller, but more known field than the that of tribology. The issue being that the tribology page is due for serious improvement, but the first step seemed to be to remove the clutter that a few of the researching institutions had added. nanotechnology had done this in what seems to be a very correct way by placing all of the organizations in one neutral list. I have begun by adding a number of institutions who are world leaders, most of which are competitors to the group I work in, however, as the number of organisations is well over 100, the site is listed as 'under construction'. There are a number of us working on collecting the relevant information, it just takes more than two days to collect and prepare it all in a manner that is acceptable to Wikipedia. If there is a better way to go about this, I am all ears, as I am very new to Wikipedia, and am quite certain that the current arrangement, while not the best option, is far superiour to what existed just a couple of days ago. • gregzore (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2010
- I'm at a loss as to where on the nanotechnology page there is a link to something along the lines of list of nanotechnology organizations. Instead of this article of just ELs you should look at the DMOZ. Wizard191 (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's right here list of nanotechnology organizations ... The link to it is from the right hand navigation bar on the nanotechnology page. gregzore 1633 15 April 2010
    - Ah...thanks for that. I missed the link on the page and the spelling. Wizard191 (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have been working on improving this page per the comments regarding listing individual groups instead of just blanket labels. I am going to continue this effort. However, I am going to wait until the decision has been made regarding the article's existence before I put too many more late evenings into it, hopefully this is understandable. user:gregzore 22:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this list topic fails WP:NOT#DIR as it does not have a verifiable definition in accordance WP:LISTS#List content without which it is just listcruft without any externally validated rationale for inclusion in Wikipedia. A list needs some form of external validation in accordance with WP:BURDEN to demonstrate that it is not entirely novel or the product of synthesis, and looking at the content of this list, its lack of souring that suggest it is entirely made up of unrelated topics stitched together to create an entirely novel list topic that has never been published before. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am inclined to strongly disagree with the point on " entirely made up of unrelated topics..." as every single one of the listings on this list are directly related to the title of the list. Similar lists to this have been published in various journals through the years, and so are very inaccessible and difficult to find. I disagree on the other points in their interpretation.Gregzore (talk) 12:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment They are only related because you say so. There is no published definition or published list cited in htis list article to verify that your opinion is correct. I have to call you bluff - show me the sources that show this is published topic - otherwise it is impossible not to conclude that it is an entirely new and novel topic published nowhere else other than on Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Keep in mind that this list is not complete (per the header) as I have been obliged to spend my editing time validating its existence instead of improving its content. Another similar list on a commercial site [7], another [8]. Or, for a truly exhaustive list of tribology organizations see the references from the links provided here [9]. I have a paper copy at my office of an older list of groups engaged in this field. I will either post the link, if I can find it among all the massive number of articles related to this topic in the next day or two, or if you like I can scan the abstract and send it directly to you. Gregzore (talk) 22:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here are a couple published lists of research organizations from a peer reviewed journal, [10] and [11].Gregzore (talk) 07:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The list you have cited is "The A-Z of tribology research organizations working on modelling". This is a different topic to this one. We can't presume that this list is verifiable in the absence of evidence. No amount of crystal ball gazing is going to make up for this. As far as I can see from web searches, this list has only ever been published in Wikipedia, which supports my view that it is an entirely original and novel list topic. Wikipedia is not a platform for original research, and until such time as a source can be found for the list itself, or for the list defintition, then Wikipedia should not have a list article on this topic at this time. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You can say this about essentially *any* list on Wikipedia, as you'll never find exactly that list published somewhere else (that would be blatant copyvio anyway). Mention in established conference papers and the like should suffice to provide notability. Your argument is invalid to me. Nageh (talk) 15:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems to me to satisfy Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists, and the author has probably done the right thing in not adding the list to tribology. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The whole reason for creating this list is that organizations involved in tribology research had begun to add themselves to the main tribology page without any order or neutrality. The issue being that without a list such as this, it will be an uphill battle to keep the main tribology page clutter free. Gregzore (talk) 12:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SALAT states: "Some Wikipedians feel that some topics are unsuitable by virtue of the nature of the topic. Following the policy spelled out in What Wikipedia is not, they feel that some topics are trivial, non-encyclopedic, or not related to human knowledge." Which essentially means that WP:NOT must be followed first. Seeing how this is an external linkfarm WP:NOTLINK applies here. Wizard191 (talk) 17:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So, if this list is to be deleted, what should be done to it to make it acceptable. More importantly, how should related topics wear, friction, and lubrication be treated so as to be neutral in their treatment of 'major publications' etc? And finally, what makes this list different from list of nanotechnology organizations? Gregzore (talk) 21:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oh, good, they added the actual groups doing the work (instead of just listing the University). I rescind my delete vote. Ja, that shouldn't change things, but it does. David V Houston (talk) 23:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but greatly (greatly!) trim I think that this could be a useful navigational aid, but is currently a WP:LINKFARM. My reading of LINKFARM indicates that the internal links, as a navigational aid, are quite reasonable. So keeping only blue-linked groups is, as I read it, perfectly fine. That said, I'd prefer, via IAR if needed, to keep the academic journals too. Finally, that nano-tech one needs the same thing done. Even worse than this one does. Hobit (talk) 04:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A little confused, do you mean for example that the societies that are not linked should be removed? I wasn't terribly happy with the societies portion of the list, but at the same time was trying to be neutral. Using the possibility of linking seems to be a reasonable and fair way to differentiate between important and unimportant groups. I will try to get that worked out shortly.Gregzore (talk) 07:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Right, those groups that don't have an article should be removed as I read the relevant policies. Academic, company, whatever. As I said, I personally would prefer to keep the journals in any case (not so spammy, and honestly I find them useful to have). I just don't see a way to avoid having every little group that does tribology listed without having such a bar. Hobit (talk) 11:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - To be clear, I think that would remove every single academic group as no group (not parent institution, but group) has an article. I'm not overly happy with that outcome, and maybe this is an IAR kind of thing and such a list can be useful. But per policy I believe they should go. If there is an official list (say by ASME) of tribology research groups, that would be different (in my opinion...) Hobit (talk) 11:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. I see nothing deeply wrong with this list, as long as entries refer to organizations for which blue-links exist. There are far more disputable lists on wikipedia. Nageh (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's not that easy. You will easily find articles on established universities, and citing all that have departments working on the subject will easily result in a never-ending link farm. Keep vote retracted. Nageh (talk) 15:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The challenge is deciding what qualifies. As the list stands now, the university groups generally have considerable laboratories and resources dedicated to the field of tribology research. There are however, as in any field, a lot of individual researchers with a couple machines who do research. That being said, I feel that the term 'organization' generally refers to something larger than 2 or 3 persons, and should lead to the more major groups being included and the smaller groups not being included. Examples being INSA de Lyon which has coupling to three separate tribology laboratories, or Imperial College London which each has around 50 people actively researching with in the field. Groups that large should maybe be worth including.Gregzore (talk) 20:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Shak. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kendal Nagorcka[edit]

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

Article of actor known primarily for one role in an Australian television show consists of list of roles of anonymous or "unknown" people and relying upon a self-published promotional site for the bulk of the citations. Not finding significant information about Nagorcka's notability outside of her role of Picasso in reliable sources I am still convinced that redirecting is the appropriate action. The article consists of a one sentence lede, a list of roles she played, and a two sentence mention of her leaving the show. Twice I've attempted to redirect to the series, but both attempts were reverted; so here it is. B.Wind (talk) 13:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Shak. No sources to establish independent notability. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The majority of the sites are not promotional or fansites and by the section WP:ANYBIO"2.The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field and since Kendal Nagorcka has made a widely recongnized contribution the article stands as a biography suited to wikipedia WP:ENTERTAINER 1.1.Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productionsShe has appeared in many notable Movies,Plays,Tv Shows and Musicals WP:ENTERTAINER 2.Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.As B.Wind said self-published promotional site for the bulk of the citations A self-Published promo site can also mean 'fan site' so WP:ENTERTAINER 2.Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following would state this article as notable with so many fan site refrences.

Matt-tastic (talk) 02:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC) Matt-tastic (talk) 03:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC) Matt-tastic (talk) 05:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- It should be pointed out that the above (the result of ten consecutive edits) is from the originator and sole contributor of prose to the article. The article itself consists of a two-sentence lede (the second being "Her dress is heavily criticised"), a table of roles played by the subject, a sentence mentioning her departure from her primary (only?) source of notability, and a section of "references": 8 of the 13 from a promotional website promoting the Harvest Rain Theatre Company (not a reliable source per WP:RS), flickr (a user-supplied photo site), a promotional page for The Shak from Nine Network (which might be considered reliable, but doesn't demonstrate her notability outside the series), a link to a TV blog (blogs are generally non-notable), an announcement for Pyramid that doesn't mention Kendal Nagorcka at all, and (finally) the imdb (which is not a reliable source by WP:RS). Thus there is still no support by reliable sources in the article for notability of Kendal Nagorcka outside the series. Fansites and self-promotion cannot be used to demonstrate her notability sufficient enough for WP:CREATIVE and WP:ENT - coverage of these by reliable sources independent of them is needed to sustain it. It should also be mentioned that merely appearing in a movie or a series is not sufficient for the notability guidelines: coverage of them in independent media is necessary. B.Wind (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy keep~~ The Nominator has since redirected other cast members of the shak Libby Campbell and Jacqueline Duncan and the user is showing intrest in Beau Walker's article claiming "notable outside of The Shak? Demonstrate it!"I tried to assume good faith however I will not allow notable articles to be deleted while some even less notable or simmilair articles such as

Remain Matt-tastic (talk) 06:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I have crossed out Matt-tastic's vote above because he has already voted once. Please don't vote multiple times. SnottyWong talk 14:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Shak per Blanchardb above. Note that I am contributing to this AfD because User:Matt-tastic asked me to (along with two other people) on my talk page. Matt, if you were looking for a Keep vote from me, then your canvassing efforts have backfired. SnottyWong talk 14:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Blanchardb, I was also canvassed on my talk page, although he was specific in not asking me to vote any certain way. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I removed the rescue tag from atop the AFD discussion and placed it on the article, as I believe that is where Matt-tastic intended it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 16:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Buster Good[edit]

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

Declined PROD. Possibly fails WP:PORNBIO Polargeo (talk) 13:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep His group scene award technically satisfies WP:PORNBIO. I think in generally our standards in regards to adult entertainers need to be raised, but until they are I have to say keep here. AniMate 14:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only nominated in one year, not across multiple years. Fails WP:PORNBIO. EuroPride (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails express terms of WP:PORNBIO, without winning award or multiple-year nominations. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. PORNBIO is depreciated. Hipocrite (talk) 14:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was BLP Delete. While sourced, the article is primarily negative. The individual is covered in a mishmash of sources about his crimes, flight, etc., as well as his relation to a notable historical figure. The "keep" !voters and those who attempted to rescue this are commended for their sourcing efforts, but ultimately, this doesn't belong per our various BLP policies, most of which have been cited below. Jclemens (talk) 18:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edvard Broz[edit]

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

I have declined the WP:PROD tag as this needs more investigation. Yes notability is not transfered to relatives and WP:1E applies but there may just be enough coverage of this individual, just not in English. Polargeo (talk) 13:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. —Polargeo (talk) 13:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. —Polargeo (talk) 13:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. —Polargeo (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: All of Josip Broz's descendants are fairly notable in southeastern Europe in their own right, and Edvard's case has been well-publicized. I'm not averse to deleting this, I'd just prefer that the content was incorporated somewhere else (like the Josip Broz article itself, but I expect that there would be great resistance to such a thing).--Thewanderer (talk) 13:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Basically WP:NOTNEWS - not really notable as Tito's grandson apart from his otherwise unremarkable trouble with the law. I can't really see this merged into Josip Broz Tito either. GregorB (talk) 14:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - I prodded this. It is still not clear to my why he's a fugitive and why he's notable. Drink driving is a crime at 0.5 % BAC in both Bosnia and Serbia. Bearian (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not just DUI, in his case it's effectively a vehicular homicide. GregorB (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 20:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 20:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not believe that this article falls under one event, as the news coverage for his trial and subsequent events spans two years. That alone would mean that it is not a single event, even if it is just based on one. If the coverage was merely about the event, his trial, and the trial ended with a guilty or innocent charge, then yes, it would qualify under one event. However, his fugitive status and continued absence from the trial has instigated further news and, for our purposes, separate events, which takes him out of the one event category. Please refer to WP:WI1E. Silver seren^C 20:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you have an argument there, but I'd like to see more cites before changing my mind. Bearian (talk) 22:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's already 12 references. How many do you need to see? Silver seren^C 22:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Meets invalid criteria for notability and WP:ONEVENT but fails WP:PERPETRATOR. --Morenooso (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Silver seren, WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS: "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion", however many press cuttings you can find. The GNG says that a subject with significant coverage "is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article", but it goes on to say:

"Presumed" means that significant 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.

and, in a footnote:

Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example... minor news stories are... examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.

This violates WP:NOT. He's grandson of someone famous, he got drunk, he had a crash, he's doing his best to avoid arrest; where's the encyclopedic quality, the "enduring notability" in that? This is an encyclopedia: we have Wikinews for this kind of thing. JohnCD (talk) 11:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sources brought up at the end of the discussion seem to establish notability. I will gladly relist, however, if a user feels that this closure has been too disregarding of consensus (although note that nominator is neutral). Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Intuit Money Manager[edit]

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

Procedural. Dealt with an IP at WP:AIV that was removing PROD tag. Since it shouldn't have been replaced regardless, bringing to AfD instead. Concerns; notability, references, COI, spam etc. I am neutral. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable , COI, spam. Marokwitz (talk) 13:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete promotional article. no coverage except press releases.--Sodabottle (talk) 14:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hobit below. Independent coverage in Livemint and CIOL is enough to establish notability.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, though it is probably worth a mention in Intuit India. A minor product of a significant brand. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or how about a Merge? $Raa G gio (talk)$ 21:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep lots of spamming out there via PR releases, but [12] and Wall Street Journal? appear to cause the topic to meet WP:N. Hobit (talk) 05:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rabbabodrool (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Erb? Nom it neutral and sources have been provided... Hobit (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 16:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruchir Punjabi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-Notable former president of the University of Sydney Union. Codf1977 (talk) 11:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Codf1977 (talk) 11:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This appears to be a student politician, and I'm fairly certain that doesn't qualify under GNG. AniMate 14:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Student politicians should be held to the WP:POLITICIAN standard, which they fail. Of absolutely no notability beyond the very narrow world of university politics. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Mkativerata (talk) 20:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - previously deleted as non-notable in 2007 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruchir Punjabi, and I don't see any evidence that he's become significantly more notable since then. Robofish (talk) 23:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the main consideration I propose is that this person has contributed significantly to the International students arena in the country and certainly lead the government to various reviews in the sector Da amazerxl (talk) 07:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not fulfill WP:POLITICIAN criteria. Australian Matt (talk) 13:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The article has been improved since the nom, now it is much better Tone 21:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hiro Muramoto[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. —Viriditas (talk) 01:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Viriditas (talk) 01:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Textbook WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:WI1E violation. The subject was not a notable journalist. --DAJF (talk) 11:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant, independent, reliable coverage is being generated on this individual at the moment due to the recent event. Given this volume, it's very likely that this article will meet any verifiability guidelines. It seems it already does. —siroχo 12:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- We can't speculate that the subject would continue to generate coverage. He is non-notable for now, because Wikipedia is not a news site. If after the events, he still has significant coverage, we could revisit. But for now, this is a "strong delete". RaaGgio (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That isn't correct at all. We don't need to speculate about anything. The subject is already dead, and the event is over. News organizations, journalists and journalism socieites will continue covering the event, and the footage shot by Muramoto is already part of the historical record. He's notable as a cameraman who worked for Reuters covering the Thai protests, and his footage is important to the historical record. It's as far from "non-notable" as you can get on the spectrum of notability. Viriditas (talk) 01:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reuters, and other news agencies, will have many journalists and photographers covering events just as important as the Thailand protests. Would you support an article for all of them too? You note that his footage is part of the "historical record", but that's insufficient according to Wikipedia guidelines. Check the notability guidelines for creative professionals. If Muramoto and his work become a significant monument, like for instance Daniel Pearl, then he might deserve an article. At the moment he doesn't - when you say "the event is over", it sums things up. Currently Muramoto's body of work doesn't pass notability guidelines, and so his death is the only thing he is "notable" for. Which fails him on notable for one event grounds. EJBH (talk) 02:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - See below: He's already notable for filming the footage for two viral videos (Kayabukiya Tavern monkey waiters and Loveplus marriage) and footage for the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. So yes, his body of work does pass notability guidelines, and his current work on the Thai protests has reached an historic level of exposure. That's four notable events, not one. Viriditas (talk) 02:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        My taking on that is that, after his death, those paying tribute to him documented his career. This is true of anyone who dies, notable or not - tributes will remember the deceased's life and career. If there are contemporary sources documenting the importance of his work - rather than just obituaries - I'll acknowledge the notability of the work. (Also, it might help to reference the career section). EJBH (talk) 00:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for exactly the reasons specified. Being killed doesn't give him or anyone else notability. EJBH (talk) 15:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sad to say, but its a topical event that will be forgotten in a few days time. No notability here. FellGleaming (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Cameraman who worked at Reuters in Tokyo for 15 years whose death may have provided evidence related to the ongoing 2010 Thai political protests, specifically the violence of April 10. Contrary to what is claimed above, neither himself or his footage will be forgotten anytime soon, and it is speculated by official sources that Muramoto was the victim of neither red shirt protesters or government soldiers, but unknown gunmen associated with another group, and this footage was captured by other sources. Regret over his death was expressed by Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama and Muramoto was recognized by Reuters for his work on the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. Rodney Joyce at Reuters has just announced that Muramoto was also the cameraman for two popular viral videos, the Kayabukiya Tavern monkey waiter video and the Loveplus marriage video between Nene Anegasaki and "SAL9000".[13] Viriditas (talk) 02:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When something else notable arises, perhaps as alluded to by Viriditas, then let's have an article. So far, I see no reason to use a Wikipedia article as an obituary. Taquito1 (talk) 01:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Strong keep'There is a good chance that someone will expand this article. There should be an expand template, not an impatient "speedy deletion" template. This man's life's work has yet to have a chance to be illuminated and Japanese entries on the English Wikipedia site deserve extra time. Look at Kurt Schork's page! It's a stub, but there's no stub or expand template! Why the exception for an American that died in 2000 who's career still hasn't proven all that important by 2010??? - Also, most of the votes to delete come from people that don't even have user pages.Paradise coyote (talk) 02:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. I don't tend to use Wikipedia as a social networking site. I, you know, edit things and stuff. Apologies if that makes my opinion less valid. EJBH (talk) 00:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keepandycjp (talk) 10:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC) RIP[reply]
Keep Refs have been added. Lugnuts (talk) 17:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Muramoto's bio article is now cited and expanded, with additional sources/readings listed on the bottom which can be used to expand again in the future. Another user has also archived the articles. Scanlan (talk) 15:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per those above. Changes since nomination seem to have dramatically improved sourcing. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close because the article in question was speedy deleted by Nyttend (non-admin closure). DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Giantess[edit]

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

Unsourced and do not look notable per WP:BAND. Nsaa (talk) 10:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The reliable sources just aren't out there; fails the general notability guide. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 10:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BAND. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I fact I have restored the speedy delete tag removed by the author, since, despite some rewording, it is still clearly a copyright infringement. However, even if it were rewritten to deal with that issue it would still qualify for deletion. There is no evidence of notability at all. The only "references" given were to Wikipedia articles (and even those confirmed only tiny details of the content of the article). JamesBWatson (talk) 13:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted as copyvio. Nyttend (talk) 15:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP Thanks for a comprehensive and civil discussion. Keeping for two reasons: 1) There's been substantially no change in policy since the 2nd AfD that would support deletion of the current article. Additionally, both keeps and deletes made cogent arguments, but IMHO and those promoting keeping think this article complies with WP:Lists, it has clear inclusion criteria and it is sufficiently well sourced so that individual entries may be challenged, but the list as a whole is encyclopedic and should stay. Mike Cline (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of LGBT Jews[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Random intersection of unconnected categories. No evidence is presented that there is any special significance to being both Jewish and LGBT. Even the existence of gay Rabbis is not considered shocking or unusual, and long may it remain the case. Guy (Help!) 09:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete Unless someone has evidence that this group exists as a community (as opposed to two communities that overlap). BCoates (talk) 11:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What do you mean by community? http://www.glbtjews.org/ ? http://www.gayjewishportland.com/ ? http://www.nehirim.org/ ? I recognize these aren't geographically distinct communities in the sense of small towns, but... --Joe Decker (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A pointless collection, since very few of the people on the list are primarily notable for being Jewish or LGBT. Warrah (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question - This has already been ruled keep in two previous AfDs in 2006 and 2009. Unless a rule has changed in the meantime, why nominate again? DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first AfD was closed as no consensus and consensus can change. — Rankiri (talk) 16:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, you are correct about the first AfD. The result of the second and more recent AfD was definitely keep. But should an AfD be used because the nominator thinks a new consensus is necessary? If the nominator thinks so, it should be discussed in the nomination. Also, the article is very active so perhaps a discussion of "random intersection" and [lack of] "significance" as raised by the nominator should take place at the article's talk page. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (procedural) - given the comment thread above. I am not interested in this topic one way or the other, but I find this AfD to be off base because the previous AfD in 2009 resulted in keep and the article has an active history, many participants, and very extensive list of references. Yes consensus can change but the nominator does not have a convincing case that it should change in this case. I assume good faith form the nominator and other voters, but suggest a consideration of guidelines on forum shopping too. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look WP:NOTAGAIN. The first AfD was closed without consensus. The second AfD contained some strong arguments for deletion, particularly User:Pastor Theo's argument that [a] considerable number of people on this list never emphasized their religion and/or their sexuality as part of their careers, so the argument for the list's notability would appear to be very weak. Besides, the third AfD is already in progress and the above recommendations make ineligible for speedy keep. — Rankiri (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was seriously considering nominating this for deletion myself, then saw that Guy beat me to it. This list seems very odd to me. What is the point? This particular intersection (that of someone's being both Jewish and LGBT) does not appear to have any particular notability. Given that that is all the information in the list, it can easily be accomplished through just the use of the category system. LadyofShalott 17:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I honestly don't see what one has to do with the other. I'm neither LGBT nor Jewish, but I can't see how sexuality affects one's choice of worship, or how one's religion affects their sexual preferences. There are anti-Semites and there are homophobes, but I don't know of anything that could be called "anti-Semitic homophobia". Mandsford (talk) 17:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and the comments of LadyofShalott, the intersection of the two does not make any sense to me. Having said that, if this sticks, can we have black disabled lesbians in wheelchairs just to piss off the Sun? --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 17:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 17:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 17:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable topic.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Clearly not notable. Outback the koala (talk) 21:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep per WP:SALAT. It's not overly specific, as the length of the list demonstrates. Every entry on the list needs to comply with the WP:BLP policies on sourcing, and every entry needs to be notable BOTH for being Jewish AND for being LGBT, but those are both issues for regular editing. There's no inherent problem with the topic itself, other than it creates an article that's going to be a b***h to maintain and protect from vandalism, and sadly that's not a policy-supported reason to delete. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also because there hasn't been any relevant change to the article or to policy that would give us reason to revisit the Keep result from the last AfD. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Why is this any different than LGBT people from England or English Jews? Being Jewish is not just a religion, it's a culture and identity. I have been working on Obama appointee Chai Feldblum's bio and being both Jewish and lesbian definitely factored into making her who she is today. It's a quirky, anecdotal and conversational list, but I like those three things. I don't understand the motivation behind wanting to delete such a list. There's certainly no reason the list is offensive.--DCX (talk) 01:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Being Jewish is not just restricted to religion, but also a culture, identity and ethnicity. But that is beside the point, its sourced and is just as relevant as List of nontheists or List of LGBT writers. It also is complimentary to other articles like LGBT topics and Judaism. However, I think the best reasoning for keeping it is to quote DHowell's comment in the last AfD[14] "Entire books exist covering this intersection". --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 04:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is clear, abundant evidence that people who are both lgbt and jewish are discussed, as a group. these are nontrivial qualities that identify people as members of two significant social groups. regardless of whether people feel either identity is chosen or something one is born as, the identities are both exceedingly complex and the subject of many books and discussions. i would probably support any list that combines ones religion/ethnicity and lgbt identity, as long as its carefully sourced This is an extremely important intersection. inclusion criteria can be easily defined and maintained. The subject of being both jewish and lgbt is a huge issue within judaism, considering the range of attitudes within this religion towards nontraditional sexualities. Anyone who says they dont see how the two are connected has not done any minimal, cursory research. "lgbt jewish" gets 9000 ghits, while jewish +lgbt gets 4 million. see [15],[16],[17],[18],[19],[20],[21],[22],[23],[24]Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SALAT. Postoak (talk) 05:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DustFormsWords and others. Seems like a non-trivial intersection. Hobit (talk) 06:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Guy. - Schrandit (talk) 13:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have not changed my mind since I nominated this for deletion myself. I present the same rationale: Lists like this one present very similar issues. This list is a peculiar intersection of Jewishness and homosexuality. It is not notable to be Jewish. It is not notable to be homosexual (nor lesbian, bisexual or transgendered, but I will use the term "homosexual" in this nomination as a shorthand of convenience, not to attempt to classify those who do not wish to be thus classified)). And the intersection of Jewishness and homosexuality is also not notable.

I have no doubt that it is interesting, but we are not about creating interesting items if that is all that they are.

I feel that it is reasonably well referenced. With such a list it would be most unwise for it not to be well referenced.

This is not a "Category vs List" debate. I am perfectly content for lists and categories to co-exist. Each adds different value. This discussion is solely about whether this list, which seems to be more of prurient interest than anything else, has a true place here. The nomination is categorically not anti-Semitic nor anti-homosexual. It is purely for the enhancement of the encyclopaedia by discussing and potentially reaching a consensus to prune an interesting but non notable intersection Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand how you can say its not notable to be jewish? i understand if someone is highly notable for, say waterskiing, and never talks about their jewishness, but how about jewish religious reformers, or activists who publicly state that they draw on their jewish faith for their actions? are you saying there are no jews in history who had any recognizable notability connected to their religion? and no LGBT people who have absolutely any notability for this aspect of their being? that doesnt make sense to me. would you then propose we delete all articles and lists about notable christians, muslims, celibates (including saints), etc?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, how clear can I possibly be? It is not notable to be Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Buddhits, 27th Day Adventist, Member of the Westboro Baptist Church, married, single, white, male, female. As for the other lists, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS refers. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. you have made your position perfectly clear. and yes, from your perspective, those other lists and articles dont justify this one for the precise reason you give. however, I will point out that there appears to be consensus at WP that ones religion or sexual identity can be notable. not always, but often enough to allow thousands of articles and lists built around these ideas. to argue for deletion of this article based on the inherent nonotability of jewishness and lgbt identity may be arguing against a well formed consensus. by the way, i do agree that this list would have to be carefully patrolled and sourced. and i would actually not support all such intersections, as some, say transgendered zoroastrians, have not been written about and probably have no notable members.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per nsaum75. A subject extensively covered in scholarly and popular literature. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm also convinced by nsaum75's (and previously DHowell's) point that this intersection of categories is itself the subject of published works. Gonzonoir (talk) 15:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nsaum75.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this non-notable intersection and inevitably non-maintainable BLP-violating mess. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As other have said, neither thing alone is notable, and neither is the intersection. If there are published works on the subject, then write an article. Kevin (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may be confusing the policies on articles with the policies on lists; they're quite different and have significantly different standards involved. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm missing your point - could you clarify? Kevin (talk) 02:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The notability requirements for lists are not that the list topic is notable, but that each entry on the list is notable. (See WP:LSC). Lists are (with some exceptions) essentially a navigation aid to existing, notable articles. Whether a possible topic for a list is an appropriate topic for a list is covered by WP:SALAT, which in essence requires only that lists have definable scope, be verifiable, neither too short nor too long, and not inherently unencyclopedic. Explanation of the reasoning behind this different approach to lists can be found at WP:CLN and WP:LISTPURP, being that as opposed to traditional articles, lists serve additional purposes on Wikipedia, being useful as navigation aids and as meta-data. An example of why this article is useful can be seen by examining the length of List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people (currently stretching to a ridiculous number of alphabetical sub-articles) and seeing this as a useful alternative method of sorting that content. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK. I disagree with that guideline, for this kind of list at least. Neutral lists like List of rivers by age I agree with, but putting sexuality and religion into a list of people I find not to be useful. Kevin (talk) 05:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't find it useful, but then I'm not a researcher into changing attitudes in Judaism, or LGBT cultural studies, who could conceivably find it a very useful navigation aid. And yes, it's going to be an incredibly difficult list to maintain and protect against vandalism, hence my "reluctant keep" above, but "difficult to maintain" isn't of itself a reason to delete. Which is a shame, because if it was we could get rid of a whole HEAP of troublesome articles about nationality and religion. (I jest.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a list of living people, which to me is an excellent reason to delete if it is difficult to maintain. I'm speaking from the position that our responsibility to the (living) subject is more important than our responsibilities to either the readers or ourselves. Kevin (talk) 06:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTCASE. This is just that, a case study of Factor A (religion) to Factor B (sexual orientation). Try putting together lists of every religion in the world to every sexual orientation, and see what you get. Dew Kane (talk) 04:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a misunderstanding of WP:NOTCASE which can be corrected by refreshing your memory on what case studies are. WP:NOTCASE is, I admit, poorly phrased, but is trying to say that the existence of the general doesn't give you permission to create articles about the specific. For instance, having this article (List of LGBT Jews) doesn't give you licence to create an article about an otherwise unnotable LGBT Jew just because he or she may happen to be an exemplary or typical example of the category. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per nsaum75. Clearly this intersection has received substantial coverage. In any case, clearly this list is an appropriate navigational aid. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per consensus on both first and second deletion nominations. Also because neither being GLBT nor being Jewish is derogatory, so why would some people think that the combination could have BLP issues? Atom (talk) 20:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree that this is a notable intersection, based on the books mentioned by User:nsaum75 above, but let's not pretend that there's no BLP issue. Any mention of a living person is a BLP issue, which we have to decide how to handle, especially so in this case where many people in living memory have been murdered for belonging to just one of these groups, let alone both. I disagree with the current moral panic that mandates article deletion as the solution to BLP issues, as I think there is a much greater problem with innacurate information in articles whose existence is unquestioned, and that concentrating on deleting articles that nobody ever reads anyway shifts our efforts away from the greater problem, but, please, let's not forget that WP:BLP applies everywhere. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you are not suggesting that all who view this article as suitable for deletion are afflicted with some sort of moral panic? I see this article simply as a wholly non notable intersection of two non notable attributes of a person. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not suggesting that. I'm referring to a more general moral panic, which I probably shouldn't have brought up because it's not strictly relevant to this discussion. If you think that this intersection is wholly non-notable then how do you account for the books about this precise intersection referenced above by User:nsaum75? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nature abhors a vacuum, it seems. I'm sure people will soon write books that let someone create List of Gay Black Dentists against nuclear proliferation. The writing of a book does not of itself create notability. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, oddly it does. WP:N defines notability by there being reliable sources. Two books (independent etc.) on the topic would, by the Wikipedia definition of the term, make it notable. Hobit (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this list topic fails WP:NOT#DIR as it does not have a definition in accordance WP:LISTS#List content without which it is just listcruft without any externally validated rationale for inclusion in Wikipedia. A list needs some form of external validation in accordance with WP:BURDEN to demonstrate that it is not entirely novel or the product of synthesis, and looking at the content of this list, its lack of souring that suggest it is entirely made up of unrelated topics stitched together to create an entirely novel list topic that has never been published before. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you notice the book sources provided above on this topic? Hobit (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have you ever read WP:SYNTHESIS? This list is Primary (original) research, pure and simple. Its never been published as single list, nor has it a definition that has been published. Just like "List of LGBT Dungeons & Dragons", its a list topic that does not exist in the real world; rather it is a list topic been made up to satisfy editorial whim, a practise that is strictly forbidden in Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've read your arguments at the talk page for WP:N and must say that your view of what makes for synthesis in this context is pretty much solely your own. WP:LISTS provides no such limitation, nor even hints in that direction. Hobit (talk) 13:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The key issue is that the list has not been published in its own right. Many other contributors to this debate have noticed that: simply mixing LGBT with Jewish topics to create an enitirely novel and original topic that is simply an intersection of the two is synthesis. There needs to some form of external validation, otherwise how can tell if the topic exists in the real world? I think Hobit needs to rethink his views to be clear on this issue. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, it's the crucial issue: here's what's unclear to me. As you say, the list itself does not appear to have been previously published. But it's not true to say that the topic is "entirely novel and original": as the Keep voters have been showing with reference to publications, the intersection of Judaism and homosexuality (the topic) has been the subject of published works (that is, the intersection itself is notable). So the list is novel, but the organizing criterion for list inclusion is not novel (viz. all these publications). What I'm not quite clear about, being quite unfamiliar with lists, is whether that makes the list defensible. I would have thought it does. Gonzonoir (talk) 13:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having read up at WP:LIST and WP:SALAT, I can't really see anything to indicate that a list in Wikipedia is suitable only in cases where a list on the same subject has been independently published. Was there something specific you were thinking of Gavin Collins? Gonzonoir (talk) 14:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you look at WP:LIST#List content, you will see that a list topic requires an externally validated definition, and this list does not have one. In the absence of a published definiton, the list title is the definition. Since the defintion has not sourced, nor the list title, then it has no rationale for inclusion, as there is no evidence to suggest that this list topic exists in the real world, with or without a defintion. The same applies to "List of LGBT Dungeons & Dragons": how do you know if the list topic exists if it has not been published, or if the definiton of the list has not been published? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: But to me, all those books nsaum75 cites above (comment at 04:17, 13 April 2010) are proof that the list topic has been the subject of publications. They show that the list topic does exist in the real world, in a way that "LGBT Dungeons & Dragons" doesn't (assuming there aren't published books about that). I don't know what other indication of the list topic's reality and notability there could be. Gonzonoir (talk) 20:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The verifiability of the list topic and verifiability of the list elements are two distinct issues, because you can slice and dice the elements of a list in a large number of permutations and combinations, so some form of external validation is needed. E.g. perhaps a more concise title for for this topic would be "List of LGBT Ashkenazi Jews"? I might be way out line on this, but without any external source of validation, who could object if I changed the title of this list? I would expect at least one editor to say "you can't create/amend the title of a list just to satisfy your personal whim". Once we start throwing labels around without having to provide justification, we can pin any number of them on any topic we like. I can't prove that this list is a synthesis, but the absence of at least one single source to show that a list of this title or with a similar definition has been published elsewhere suggests to me that it is a novel and original creation created on a whim. If you look at the history of the list, I think you will see that it was [created] on a whim as a platform for soap boxing. If you can provide evidence that this is not the case, then good for you. However, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I don't think it has a rationale for inclusion in Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The reason you couldn't simply change the title to "List of LGBT Ashkenazi Jews" is that some of the list members aren't Ashkenazim, not that the renaming would be a personal whim. Are you saying that such a renaming would be acceptable because there's no way to establish that each list member belongs under the current list heading? I don't agree that that's the case. I think it's quite possible to provide sources establishing that a person is LGBT and that s/he is Jewish. (That doesn't mean that I necessarily think everyone on the list currently should really be there - I haven't reviewed each in detail and would support aggressively deleting any list members inadequately sourced.) It seems to me like a perfectly clear list membership criterion, and one that satisfies a manifest definition that exists out in the real world (I think this because of the published sources dedicated to the circumstance of being gay and Jewish). Yes, of course there is then an onus to add reliable sources for each list member identifying them as LGBT and Jewish, but that in itself I don't see as cause to delete the list.

I think we're reaching the point where you and I just fundamentally disagree about this, so I'm not trying to grind you down, I just wanted to show that I (think I!) understand what you're saying but disagree that it renders this particular list unjustifiable. Gonzonoir (talk) 07:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Forgive me if I say I find your thinking a bit woolly, but providing a "clear" or "truthful" defintion does not compensate for the lack of external validation. Finding sources about different topics and using them to create an entirely new topic is synthesis in my book, and the fact that this list has not been published anywhere else except Wikipedia indicates that it is an entirely novel and original topic that does not exist in the real world, let alone notable in any way. That is why I think this list contravenes WP:NOT#OR and should be deleted or broken up into list topics which are externally verifiable. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Forgive me for butting in, but I'm really having trouble seeing any sort of logical argument from you here, I expect I'm misunderstanding you, so ... let me ask a few questions if I might. You make at least three different arguments here, so let me address them in turn. With respect to synthesis, can you say whether you'd also suggest the deletion of List of British actors and actresses and if not, why that's different? With respect to your argument that this is an "entirely new topic" and non-notable, what say you to the offered (elsewhere here) list of books on LGBT Jews? With respect to the "fact that this list has not been published", well, that's true of nearly every single list in Wikipedia as I read your words, so I'm likely misunderstanding what you actually mean, would you be so kind to clarify? I look forward to and appreciate your clarifications. --Joe Decker (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Check out the article Standing on the shoulders of giants to find out why verifiability is so important. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your response does not appear, to me, to attempt to address any of my three questions. --Joe Decker (talk) 15:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If there was an indication that LGBT Jews in itself was a topic of note (due to, (I dunno if this is true) a former taboo in Judaism but has become a significant fact in recent history to warrant more discussion), I could see this as a supporting article, but there's no indication that it is anything special about the interaction for this. This is an indiscriminate definition of a list that support no other article. Better served by categories. --MASEM (t) 13:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to Keep, but there needs to be stronger lede to this article, because as it is it is not clear it is coming from an existence and established topic. (which is what I was looking for in the struckthrough section above - that topic is buried in the See Also links.) And given that topic is well-sourced, then this is fine as an extension of it. My confusion was from the fact that lede links to the two separate terms "lgbt" and "jews" as opposed to the article that discusses this matter in detail. --MASEM (t) 20:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For now I've changed the lead to link directly to Homosexuality and Judaism. Gonzonoir (talk) 14:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a further suggestion (based on this being kept as it looks like it would be) I would suggest a brief summary of that article to lead into this - as I read that article (so I may be grossing misstaking things), an explanation of the conflict within Judiasm' holy books and between different groups of the religion would be appropriate. Also a brief discussion (if possible) of when, historically, it became "acceptable" (in certain aspects) to identify oneself as a LGBT Jew without fear or consequence of persecution, etc. That would strengthen the article alot (possibly to the point of being featured?) --MASEM (t) 14:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As an LGBT Jew, I find it of phenomenal interest to find out what public figures share my circumstances. I don't suppose that I am the only one, and therefore this list is certainly worthy of inclusion. Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 15:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the multiple sources, both in scholarly and popular press, this is a notable intersection. It's reasonable to have this companion list to go along with LGBT topics and Judaism. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as illogical because, according to Judaism (that actually opposes homosexuality from the Hebrew Bible) there is no connection between being Jewish and being LGBT. Also violates Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference. IZAK (talk) 05:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A) That's for Categories, not lists. B) In any case, quoting from it: "...if a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created" There are several articles solely on the topic Homosexuality and Judaism being the most obvious, but Homosexuality in the Hebrew Bible and Keshet Rabbis also are primarily focused on this topic. Hobit (talk) 05:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hobit: A. This particular policy used in categories is frequently used and cited with regard to lists as well, simply because lists and categories are interchangeable and serve the same purposes and functions on Wikipedia. It's a case of six of one and half a dozen of the other. B. It is illogical to cite ARTICLES as disproofs simply because while articles discuss valid subjects in the proper context, such as what the Bible has to say about it or what Judaism, meaning rabbis have to say about it, yet an article does not mean that somehow a "new species" of Human or Jew has been "created" -- never sanctioned or conceived by the Bible or by the Judaism of the classical rabbis -- because there are articles about topics. IZAK (talk) 08:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Erb? You say we should use that guideline, and then when it says that we _should_ check to see if an article can be written on the topic, you claim that it's illogical to check to see if such articles exist? Further, the Bible isn't an inclusion guideline. It's darn important to me, but isn't relevant to this discussion. Hobit (talk) 10:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Hebrew bible opposes men laying with men like women. That is (arguably), homosexual behavior, and not homosexuality. That is not relevant anyway, we are discussing notability of the topic on Wikipedia. Even if it were relevant, it would be like you were saying that an article or category on Category:Biblical_murderers should not exist because the bible was opposed to murder. Atom (talk) 15:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Atom: Not sure where you studied Hebrew Bible or with whom, but classical Judaism opposes homosexuality and does not condone it while recognizing that the flesh is weak and that people do sin (to use the correct religious parlance and phraseology). It is also totally illogical to cite "Biblical murderers" as a "proof" because the list in question here is not about Biblical personalities and while it would be valid to create Category:Biblical sexual deviants because the Hebrew Bible has many examples of such persons, this would not be the same as creating tendentious and titillating lists of people who practice homosexuality as if so, then go ahead and let's have List of masturbating Jews or List of spouse swapping Jews or List of nudist Jews (all of which classical Judaism and its morality forbid, hence it would be illogical to create lists that unite such absurd subjects into an "organic whole") which would be highly offensive, inappropriate, prurient, and silly for a serious encyclopedia as is the list under discussion. Somewhere good sense must kick in. IZAK (talk) 08:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment neither Reconstructionist Judaism nor Reformed Judaism condemn same-sex relationships, there's no consensus on the subject among Conservatives, so I don't think you speak for all Jews everywhere...especially not Harvey Fierstein... --DCX (talk) 10:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey: I did not claim to speak for any group. What I was pointing out is that classical Judaism per se is opposed to homosexuality and homosexual acts of any sort as indicated in the Bible and rabbinic literature. The case of Reform, Conservative and Reconstructionism is that of very recent modern breakaway movements from the historical millenia old mainstream that deny and dump most of classical Judaism as it has been known since Biblical times. But be that as it may, there is no such animal as "LGBT Jews" because being LGBT is not part of either classical Judaism or of Jewish ethnicity. One may as well create self-contradictory and illogical categories of List of pork eating Jews or List of sexually perverted Jews and no sane person would stoop to create such absurd categories. IZAK (talk) 23:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you really just state there there is no such thing as an LGBT Jew? Really???? LadyofShalott 03:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In addition, many self-identified members of darn near any religion have some place where they personally disagree with a specific interpretation or tenet. It's my understanding that Wikipedia policy on such things relies, in the end, on self-identification. As a matter of policy, then, whether or not an LGBT person of self-described Jewish faith is not our question to answer, and is entirely irrelevant to this AfD. --Joe Decker (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. such discussion is irrelevant to this afd. actually, if there is a large body of commentary on judaism not accepting homosexuality (which there is), and if there is any significant number of individuals who have criticized this as lgbt jews (which there is), and if this has gotten any coverage (which it has, per my book/mag refs above), then that controversy makes this a notable list and subject. QED.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mercury but one has to draw the line somewhere or else such lists and categories become ridiculous. How about List of Jews with amputated limbs or List of Jews shot dead etc etc etc. One must use common sense and see that these absurdities do not become the rule. IZAK (talk) 23:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would draw the line at list of jewish pokemons:) (just added Allen Ginsberg, highly notable gay jew, utterly controversial on both fronts. There are dozens of names on this list who were, or are, absolutely outspoken on this intersection, and who have gotten extensive coverage.) no one who has offered arguments to delete here has addressed the FACT that there are numerous books and articles which address the linking of jewishness and lgbt identity, that there are numerous notable organizations which support lgbt identity within judaism, and that there are many notable jewish religious leaders on both sides of this subject, both condemning homosexuality and embracing it, and their arguments are well covered. the debate occuring here points to a large debate in society. If someone can show that none of these phenomena have notability within either the lgbt community, the jewish community, or any other community (conservative punditry, progressive punditry, ecumenical movements, etc), bring it on. i dont believe its possible.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So where would you draw the line, IZAK? I see you have an opinion piece here, which I believe states you would advocate for the elimination of most lists of jews. I disagree with your arguments, (acknowledging you do make points necessary to consider when creating lists, esp. around ethnicity and religion vis a vis problems like stereotyping and harassment, and acknowledging that many of the lists you mention ARE likely nonnotable, like my humorous example), but regardless of my opinion on it, your position is likely to be far from WP consensus on lists like this. I would like to see more specific arguments for why this list is not notable, otherwise your advocacy for deletion gives the appearance of a strong POV contrary to consensus against this and similar lists.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is clearly a cross categorisation. --Ktlynch (talk) 13:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per arguments of User:Phil Bridger, notable intersection as evidenced by books on topic. I symapthize with the potential for maintanence mayhem, but don't find that an overriding issue for a deletion discussion. --Joe Decker (talk) 17:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 17:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This list emphasizes the intersections of sexuality, culture, ethnicity, religion and status. I imagine that there are people who might find this resource to be very useful for identifying and learning about individuals who identify as LGBT and Jewish. Joy299 (talk) 00:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To cite another user on a similar AfD discussion: I also would like to get rid of the categorizations based on ethnicity or religion, but Wikipedia is a also a reflection of our fragmented society. I would like to say delete but it is pointless. Nageh (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Alright, that was a quick shot before. While I do not agree with such lists in general, at least this one does touch a notable intersection with religion. And given that we even keep lists based on religion/ethnicity/etc. where this is absolutely not the case, based on non-discriminatory arguments I am inclined to vote keeping this list. Nageh (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Per nsaum75, there are plenty of sources that attest to this being a notable intersection. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per my arguments above. I just noticed that I didn't give a !vote above, so here it is. In the spirit of WP:BLP the list should be confined to notable people who verifiably identify themselves as both Jewish and LGBT, but that is a content, rather than an existential issue. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, with a merge discussion highly encouraged on the article's talk page. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rashad Hussain's comments on Sami Al-Arian[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

It's not appropriate for Wikipedia to have an article on this transient and relatively minor controversy. We're giving readers the impression that this story was much more important than it actually was. Prezbo (talk) 09:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A good case for a merge to Rashad Hussain, assuming there is information that is not yet present. —siroχo 12:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think there's really a case for merging. If a large portion of the article was merged then serious undue weight problems would be raised. Actually I think those problems are there even if the content is split between two articles. Since both articles were written by the same person I assume the section on this issue in the Rashad Hussain article is a good summary that contains all the important information.Prezbo (talk) 13:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- too big to merge too. It is not necessarily a bio article but can be a sub-section there as well. Wikid ^as© 13:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: merge a few sentences and sources into main article. If the editors think the minor details of this minor issue is such an important issue, they should write an article, get it published and use that as a reference in the Rashad Hussain article. Just not at all encyclopedic and seems like a POV attempt to discredit all involved over a minor incident. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Judging by the refs, the suggestion that his is a relative minor controversy is an exaggeration. Meets wiki notability standards, as reflected in RS refs.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine, let's look at the references in detail. Six of them are news articles about Sami al-Arian which don't have anything to do with Hussain. 14 of them are conservative news and opinion sites like Cybercast News Service and Power Line. These aren't necessarily reliable, and I don't think their presence indicates notability--the political blogosphere produces vast quantities of text on trivial issues all the time. Incidentally all of those sources are from between February 15 and March 4, which shows this controversy's staying power. Four sources are other opinion pieces: Marc Lynch, Claudia Rosett, Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, Josh Goldberg. Three sources are blog entries from Politico and Jake Tapper; these are reliable, but since these bloggers' mission is to cover political minutiae they don't really demonstrate notability. Two of the references are news stories that are actually about this controversy--one in Politico[25] and one from Fox News[26]. The article also cites a profile of Hussain from the Washington Post[27] which devotes two paragraphs to this controversy--that's probably a good indication of the weight it should have in Wikipedia's coverage of Hussain. The best measure of notability is the amount of attention the mainstream media has paid to this controversy, and that isn't very much. Compare the Google news results for this story[28] to those for another Obama administration controversy, Van Jones' 9/11 truth petition.[29] That story was a much bigger deal but Wikipedia has gotten by fine without having an article on it.Prezbo (talk) 19:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent analysis of sources. Thanks for doing it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which of those refs are not RSs? I note your analysis mentions that some are "conservative" -- The point is made time and time again at the RS noticeboard that the political leaning of a source is not reason to denigrate its use as an RS. You also look into the mind of those who write on other sources; if they are RSs, its really not noteworthy what writers' "mission" is in your opinion.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In general editorials and blogs (Marc Lynch, Power Line) aren't reliable sources--and they aren't used as reliable sources in this article, they're used to say "Marc Lynch wrote X". CNS is straight news but I don't know Wikipedia's verdict on its reliability. It doesn't require clairvoyance to say that Politico's bloggers often write on very minor events, and I'd say that fact is relevant in deciding how important this controversy was. Since it isn't Wikipedia's job to cover the news, just the presence of reliable sources isn't sufficient.Prezbo (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The presence of RS coverage is what suggests notability for the purposes of WP. Politico is an RS, for example, as I believe is CNS.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it actually necessary to quote a guideline on this? WP:N says that "significant 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." I"m saying that this article violates WP:NOTNEWS. It's about an unexceptional controversy that attracted attention from conservative online media for a few weeks, but very little attention from the mainstream press.Prezbo (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is significant coverage by many clearly RS sources in the article that you completely ignore in your analysis. Including Fox News, ABC News, Forbes, National Review, Foreign Policy, The Washington Post. Those RSs are precisely the type that are considered RSs for purposes of the notability requirement, and I find your having avoided mention of them to make your analysis something less than complete. The article clearly has the appropriate RS coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned all of those, usually by author rather than title. Foreign Policy is Marc Lynch's blog, ABC News is Jake Tapper's blog, etc. Forbes, NR, and FP are all opinion pieces and/or blog entries. I don't consider a Daniel Pipes post on The Corner to be a reliable source.Prezbo (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs come in different flavors. Fox News, ABC News, Forbes, National Review, Foreign Policy, and The Washington Post are all undoubtedly RSs. RS blogs such as the above are certainly RSs.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I already said this but NR and FP are opinion pieces being cited to attribute commentary quoted in the article, not to verify facts, so the reliability of those publications isn't really relevant. It's still ridiculous to consider a blog entry by Daniel Pipes to be an RS for this though. The others I've already addressed.Prezbo (talk) 21:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Let's just ask ourselves whether a similar incident in, say, Japan, Germany or Brazil, which attracted the same brief flurry of news reports in its country, would even be considered for a moment to be a suitable subject for an article here. Of course it wouldn't. So why should this be so considered? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Germany yes, Brazil no, Japan maybe. Just kidding. Yes, I can think of an incident in Germany that I discussed recently at an AfD. We needed help translating some sources, so for that purpose I noticed some of our German speaking colleagues. There was sufficient interest that it was kept. In any event, we don't delete the information on the NCAA basketball tournament, even though there may be little interest in the Japanese college basketball tournament ... I don't see that as the applicable standard. With all due respect.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikidas and Epeefleche. In addition, I would like to add that a significant portion of this article (and the second controversy) is the section "Controversy over deleted comments." There are multiple reliable sources for which this is the subject. This section would be Undue in any bio article as it involves multiple persons, so its proper place is in this article. Per Epeefleche, I couldn't agree more with your comments above. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editors on web sites are known to delete comments which later are found to be inaccurate, as Rashad Hussain claimed they were, or against some editorial policy. This isn't Nixon's secretary deleting the 18 minutes - and that does not have it's own article only Watergate_tapes#18.C2.BD_minute_gap_tape. I haven't read the article itself for accuracy, since the topic is so unencyclopedic, but the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs article does accurately describe the whole content of the debate as: Editor Delinda Hanley told Fox News she believed the change was made in February 2009, because the comments attributed to Hussain were actually made by Sami al-Arian's daughter, Laila, who also attended the event. But article's author, Shereen Kandil, told Fox News that she did not confuse the two people. The White House also attributed the comments to Al-Arian's daughter. In other words it's a minor squabble about who said what, evidently with no audio recording. Under the article's authors' logic quoted at length above, we also need an article on Huffington.com deleting Jesse Ventura's 9/11 conspiracy article recently and one about what Ariel Sharon meant when he allegedly said on radio - often quoted by numerous Arab and Muslim WP:RS - that Israel controlled America?? Just a bad precedent to let this article survive. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not correct. While at first there was no audio recording provided, see CNS News article on the WRMEA, Publication Denies Cover-Up on OIC Envoy, Implies Anti-Muslim Bias Lies Behind Story, later a journalist from Politico obtained a recording; see Islam envoy retreats on terror talk, where the audio is provided. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good! that recording surfaced. It proves how silly the debate and this article are. All he really said was: "The case that Laila just reminded us of is truly a sad commentary on our legal system. It is a travesty of justice, not just from the perspective of the allegations that are made against Dr. Al-Arian. Without passing any comment on those specific allegations or the statements [that] have been made against him, the process that has been used has been atrocious,” Hussain said, according to the recording. In his presentation, Hussain, then a student at Yale Law School, was careful to insist that he was not offering a view on Al-Arian’s innocence or guilt on charges that he served as a top leader of Palestinian Islamic Jihad in the U.S. But, Hussain said, the treatment of Al-Arian fit a “common pattern ... of politically-motivated prosecutions where you have huge Justice Department press conferences announcing that a certain person is a grave threat to American security.” Any number of civil liberties attorneys could have said the same. As Politico says his "comments touched off criticism from conservative commentators." The article is a POV attempt to undermine and drive a political appointee from office for an incident of his expressing civil liberties concerns. Such political gamesmanship is NOT the purpose of wikipedia. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not correct. Ad hominem arguments such as stating that the "article is a POV attempt to undermine and drive a political appointee from office," and that it is "political gamesmanship," are neither correct, nor are they constructive. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Much of the sources are unreliable (for example, FrontPage magazine). Others are from biased commentators (such as Daniel Pipes).Bless sins (talk) 05:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. There is material that is reliably sourced and should be merged into Rashad Hussain.Bless sins (talk) 05:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nominator has withdrawn but this discussion has been open long enough and has enough participation for a "keep" close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Native Friendship Center of Montreal[edit]

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

Not notable according to WP:ORG. Most references provided are to the org's own web site, others to *.blogspot.com. One points to a news article, but the organisation is mentioned as the workplace of a commenter exactly once. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 08:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added several references, including one from Al-Jazeera, which discusses the friendship center in an article about food in Montreal. This article from the Gazette represents extensive coverage all by itself. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [30] listed in a government site, [31] Quebec tourism site (listing only); from a blog relating to an anthropology class at the Université Laval [32] - discussion of the centre; [33] page 5 talks about their HepC/AIDS work; [34] patrol work. Since it's Montreal, a lot of the references are in French --David V Houston (talk) 02:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retracting nomination due to most excellent addition of references by User:Eastmain. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 09:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 23:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hoshin Budo Ryu[edit]

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

Non-notable school of martial arts, poorly formatted article, no sources, and ther maybe copyright issues.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still unclear as to why a legitimate Martial Art with members all over the US should be considered for deletion on Wikipedia. The article is currently in the process of being developed, so formatting is being taken care of. Sources are listed, there will be more as the article fleshes out. Ryulong please share your thoughts for the betterment of this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Whiteeagle71 (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only "references" given in the article are to works by Rob Williams, founder of Hoshin Budo Ryu, and Glenn Morris, founder of Hoshin Roshi Ryu, and my searches have produced no evidence of independent coverage at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a new article that is currently being built. I assure you these problems will be fixed in the near future as more people assist in its development. Personally I am new to Wikipedia and don't know all the rules, but does an article need to be complete in its entirety before posting to avoid deletion? I thought the goal was to encourage community support. This is a relatively new and growing American martial art with many members across the country and abroad who would benefit greatly from it being here. If this isn't enough for Wikipedia then I am sorely disappointed in what it stands for.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Whiteeagle71 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a method for members of an organization to benefit from inclusion on a website that is free to access. Wikipedia is not your advertiser. Some martial arts styles are notable. Hoshin Budo Ryu is not one of them.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you think this is an advertisement you are mislead. By that logic you could say everything on Wikipedia is an advertisement. It appears from your history, besides being way too involved with cartoons and video games, that you are just out to get American martial arts systems. What happened to you my friend? Just go ahead and delete the article. You can delete my account as well. All the best ryulong, you might find pride in this website but you can't take it with you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Whiteeagle71 (talk • contribs)

This has nothing to do with what I normally contribute to on Wikipedia. You do not use Wikipedia to get more people to know about your martial arts school. That is what you want done. The fact that I most often find these schools in my normal editing does not mean anything. If any martial arts style, be it American, Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Australian, etc., if it's not notable it's going to be deleted.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 17:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. No independent coverage. --DAJF (talk) 23:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is my ryu and I don't want to be listed here it appears there are certain parties who have a vested interest in keeping a new article from being developed— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoshinka (talk • contribs)

That is not the case.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hoshinka, I can quite understand your concerns, as I have had a somewhat similar experience myself. When I was new to editing Wikipedia I found that edits I made were being reverted for no reason I could see, and I thought at the time this was being done by an editor with a conflict of interest. However, I have now been here to realise that this was not so. "Anyone can edit Wikipedia" does not mean "anyone can put anything they like into Wikipedia". We have certain standards which subjects must satisfy if they are to be covered in articles. If an article does not appear to satisfy those standards then it is likely to be proposed for deletion. If you think the article should be kept then the things to do are (1) find out what those standards are, and (2) provide evidence that the article does satisfy those standards. If you can successfully do that then the article will be kept. Accusing other editors of having a secret ulterior motive for supporting deletion is not likely to persuade the administrator who adjudicates this discussion to support your case and keep the article, so, even if you believe you are right, doing so will not help your cause. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears I have been blocked from editing the Hoshin Budo Ryu page. Can you explain how I am can "fix" an article I cant access. I see that your policies say an article cannot be about a person, band, club, etc. There are thousands of articles about these subjects. PLease explain Hoshinka (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing preventing anyone from editing the Hoshin Budo Ryu page. And the policies say nothing about forbidding articles on people, bands, clubs, etc. What you are reading about are processes put in place to remove these articles faster, should they fail our inclusion criteria.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 14:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. Initally, I saw that when Hoshin was searched, my art was listed but no article existed. The Hoshin Roshi Ryu article was not a neutral article. My intent was to create an article that explained what the art is, not the political bickering that ensued after the death of the founder of Hoshin. I am in no way trying to used this service as an advertising tool. I would be happy to remove any links that lead to our website, etc.I am new to all of this so any suggetions would be very helpful. I am looking for outside sources. I thought the quotes from Dr. Morris' book Quantum Crawfish would be notable. I am working on understanding what notable references are. Thank you for commenting.Hoshinka (talk) 14:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Links to your website are not the issue. The fact that it is your art and that you are trying to keep it retained on Wikipedia is the issue. Wikipedia is not a platform to gain visibility. And particularly not one for creators of subjects or the subjects themselves to be involved with in any stage.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 14:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you JamesBWatson for your constructive criticism. Can you please provide a link to the standards you mention in your first point and so that I can satisfy the second?Whiteeagle71 (talk) 14:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Again, i was already listed on your Hoshin page. I am happy to allow outside editors to create/edit this article. Thank you for the clarification again. I will not contribute to this article if it is in violation of your rules. Again, I am new to all of this. Hoshinka (talk) 15:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is no independent sourcing Dwanyewest (talk) 01:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all, I've cited references throughout the article and added a couple more sources, please let me know if I'm headed in the right direction... Thanks muchWhiteeagle71 (talk) 03:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No consensus to delete. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page or someone can be bold and redirect it to the existing section in the episodes article. Transwiki to the wikia site is not really an option since the article there exist and is farely comprehensive. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ice (The X-Files)[edit]

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

This article is about a single episode from season one of The X-Files but fails to show why the episode is notable, either with regards to importance in the "real world", or as an important episode of The X Files franchise, and thus fails to show why the article should exist.

Looking at the structure of the article, there is too much reliance on what is basically a scene-by-scene WP:PLOT recap rather than a short episode summary. There are two other moderately sized paragraphs about the production and reception, and that is it. In the reception section, it says "This episode was highly praised as one of the best episodes of the first season by its creators." Wow. The creators liked it. What about anyone else? What about "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."? That's not reception. That's just the production team practicing WP:PUFFERY. The article does mention that the episode earned a Nielsen household rating of 6.6 with an 11 share, and that 6.2 million US households watched the episode, but those are not notable figures.

I've looked in Google, and a few other places, and can find nothing to indicate that the episode ever received any third-party coverage or anything to establish Real-world notability. There are seven references in the article, and they point to three different books written about the overall X-Files franchise, but not the episode. Because they are written about the entire franchise, and all include episode guides, none can be used to establish significant coverage. One, by the way, is an Officially licenced guidebook.

Because The X-Files (season 1) exists, which has an adequately sized plot summary, there is only one outcome for this article, and that is to delete. Matthewedwards : Chat 07:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki merge is a worthwhile option: http://x-files.wikia.com/wiki/Ice —siro χ o 12:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All episodes of this show are notable. Without the episodes, there would be no X Files. Ditto The Simpsons, Southpark, etc, etc. Lugnuts (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's from 1993, so the presence of online sources will be somewhat limited. If you look at much more current episodes of the X-files, there's sufficient reviews and coverage for later season episodes, so the question remains: are there extant offline sources for the first seasons? This is a major show, spanning numerous seasons, spawning at least one spinoff and two movies (that's from memory), so individual episode articles may be in order. Jclemens (talk) 18:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. From Google Books: [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], etc. See also: Category:The X-Files episodes. — Rankiri (talk) 01:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per book sources identified above. Hobit (talk) 03:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Episode fits notability requirements as referenced by other users; will see what I can do about adding more sources, hopefully by the weekend. Third party coverage already identified by non-official sources already listed, books linked to, and should be able to find at least a few more. Quiddity99 (talk) 03:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Quiddity99[reply]

Additional Comment It doesn't take long to find several episode pages from several other series with very similarly structured articles. For example, Bart Star from the Simpsons is rated as a good article, and is pretty much the exact same format at this article. A summary of the episode, followed by a discussion of production and a reception section consisting of a comment from the authors of a book dedicated to being an episode guide for a particular season of the Simpsons and a comment from a person involved with production of the episode, providing praise for the episode. That article uses as its sources the official Simpsons web site, the director's commentary for the episode, an episode summary from the BBC web site, and an episode guide book for the season. It is wildly inconsistent to award the Simpsons article in question good article status and single out this article for deletion. Quiddity99 (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Quiddity99[reply]

Keep Every minute we waste on notability challenges is one less minute we have for producing content. This is not Encyclopedia Britannica, there is no limit to the available space, realistically speaking. If someone felt this subject was important enough to do a (very nice) page of, chances are there are users out there who will be glad it is here. It makes no sense to waste time and air on this. If you want an example of what is WRONG with WP, just pay a little visit to SPECIAL PAGES>NEW PAGES and get a load of the waves and waves and waves of CRAP being chucked this way. This article is fine. There are hundreds and probably thousands of articles dedicated to crappy bands that no one has ever heard of, crappy albums that they've made, crappy artists that no one cares about, and on and on. All of that is substantially less "notable" than an episode summary of the X-Files, for example. Stop being so anal retentive and micromanaging, people. Get out there and get doing real work, cleaning up the SPECIAL PAGES>NEW PAGES crap funnel. Carrite (talk) 05:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to an episode list for The X-Files. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 05:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Marriage in the Bible (disambiguation). Tone 21:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage in the Bible[edit]

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

article previously blanked by a single user. I don't care to keep or delete, but the debate should happen here. UtherSRG (talk) 07:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Christian views on marriage. I'm mischievously tempted to label this a "plot-only description of a fictional work", but more to the point it's a content fork from Christian views on marriage, plus it's light on reliable independent sources and has more than a hint of WP:OR original research going on. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with most of the above comment. However, it is not a content fork of Christian views on marriage. Certainly the titles of the two articles suggest that they should be on the same topic, but in fact they aren't: Christian views on marriage is on what its title says, but Marriage in the Bible, despite its title, is in fact on one editor's personal reading of Jewish views on marriage, and does not so much as touch on Christian views of marriage. It could better be viewed as a content fork of Jewish views on marriage, but I do not think that a redirect to either Christian views or Jewish views is appropriate, as "Marriage in the Bible" is not restricted to either. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to accept from an expert that Jewish views on marriage is the right article for the redirect. But clearly it's a content fork from something. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue at stake about whether to redirect or not isn't whether the present content of the article is a content fork, but whether searching for the title should be viewed as an attempt to find the contents of another article. Since there are two different equally relevant articles I don't see that redirecting to one or the other would be a good idea. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The whole thing is WP:OR. There are references to support minor textual details and particular translations of terms (e.g. this link to support a comment about an expression translated sometimes as "marriage tent" and sometimes as "booth", and no less than four citations to support the assertion that "mishk'vei ishah" literally means "the bed(chambers) of a woman"). There are also numerous references to various verses of the bible. However, there is a striking lack of references to any sources giving the particular synthesis and commentary made from these biblical quotes. In short, the article is essentially its creator's personal research, and subsequent editing has made only very minor changes. Furthermore, the article, despite its title, is in fact on Jewish views of marriage, with the new testament not involved. The creator of the article has been banned from editing Judaism related articles (see here). We already have Jewish views on marriage. If any of the content of Marriage in the Bible is well-sourced, not original research, and worth keeping it could be moved to Jewish views on marriage, but I cannot see that any is. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article was created by someone topic-banned from Judaism-related articles. As it stands now, it is a hideous mess of synthesis and OR. Either redirect it somewhere reasonable or delete the mess. -- Avi (talk) 08:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Avi (talk) 08:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure WP:OR, WP:POVFORK. What little material might be salvaged from this could be used in other articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:SYNTH-heavy essay. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsalvageable, highly POV, essentially original research, and if its from a user banned from judaism related articles, a truly bad faith attempt to evade a ban. the title may one day be a subject, until it can be rewritten entirely, maybe a redirect as appropriate. I DONT like having to ask that someones hard work to be deleted, but the work is absolutely not appropriate for WP. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete CONTENT but REDIRECT name to Marriage in the Bible (disambiguation) that has links to BOTH Christian views on marriage and Jewish views on marriage as a start. IZAK (talk) 08:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that redlink links to both of those. Shadowjams (talk) 08:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC) - Oh, I see you just created it. Shadowjams (talk) 08:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now it does. It was a Solomonic solution in the making.IZAK (talk) 08:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with that resolution. (that's a well crafted subtle joke by the way) Shadowjams (talk) 08:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite. There seem to be content concerns here, but the topic (Marriage in the Hebrew Bible and in the New Testament) is a notable one. A redirect to Jewish views on marriage or Christian views on marriage isn't really appropriate, since they are subtly different: they both incorporate centuries of Biblical scholarship, and extra-Biblical sources such as the Talmud and the Church Fathers. In addition, use of marriage as a metaphor (for example, as a metaphor for God's relationship with His people) is an important aspect of marriage in the Bible, but not appropriate in the articles Christian views on marriage or Jewish views on marriage. -- Radagast3 (talk) 04:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 16:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Akeem Ayayi-Taiwo[edit]

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

Football player who does not meet WP:ATHLETE or WP:N guidelines. PROD was removed with the rational that he has professional caps, but these appearances were for a club that plays in amateur leagues in Ireland. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 06:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 06:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ATH and not otherwise notable. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I declined the prod just to be safe — I can't understand how you could earn professional caps to play with a club that plays in amateur leagues, but I'm not surprised that I misunderstood. My primary rationale for declining was to ensure discussion on this deletion. Nyttend (talk) 11:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject played only for amateur clubs, and is not notable under WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per Sir Sputnik's comments Steve-Ho (talk) 08:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thirty Four[edit]

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

Disputed prod. Non-notable book by non-notable author. Does not meet any element of the notability guideline for books. Only non-local/mainstream source is the Daily Mail article but that is a retelling of the story rather than a critique/review of the book which is only mentioned once in passing. Also appears to be the only title in the publishers catalogue[40] which doesn't speak to the notability of either the book or the publisher. Nancy ^talk 06:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note The creator of the article has removed the AfD notice from the article, and moved the article to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Thirty Four, leaving a redirect from Thirty Four. The "article incubator" is somewhat controversial, but even on the most positive view of it, the "incubator" is not intended to be used in this way, leaving a cross-namespace redirect to a copy of the article without notification anywhere of the AfD. I have replaced the redirect with a note of this AfD discussion. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks James. I have moved it back in to mainspace and move protected it for a fortnight. The article has already spent 3 months in the incubator and as you say, the incubator should not be used for gaming the system. Nancy ^talk 08:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. In addition to the Daily Mail article, there is also this article from The Guardian which is written by Burke himself about his book, so is not independent coverage but The Guardian asking Burke to write an article about the book should carry some weight. The Wandsworth Guardian is again an interview so technically not wholly independent. I also found this from Israel National News, which looks like a reliable source. Not totally convincing but I would give it the benefit of the doubt.--Michig (talk) 11:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Guardian & Wandsworth pieces, WP:BK specifically excludes works "where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book". Additionally neither the Mail nor the Israeli piece (both used as sources in the article) are reviews of the book, rather they are about the story, the book gets no more than a single casual mention in each. Nancy ^talk 12:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To begin with I was unsure about this, which is why I did not say either "delete" or "keep" above. However, a careful look at the sources given supports Nancy's view: there is no evidence of significant coverage of the book, as opposed to coverage of matters which are also covered in the book. Also, in answer to Michig's points, it is important to distinguish between use of a source to confirm facts and use of a source to establish notability. Certainly The Guardian is a reliable source, and therefore would be acceptable for confirming facts if it actually mentioned significant facts about the book. However, no matter how reliable a source is, if it is not independent of the subject it is of no value in establishing notability. Of course, this is of limited relevance in this case since, as already said, both sources given by Michig make only brief passing mention of the book. Thus they do not give evidence of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have not been able to find significant coverage of this book in independent, reliable sources. Per James, using sources that are not independent of the subject to establish notability is contrary to WP:NRVE. If there are no objective, neutral sources, we cannot write an objective, neutral article. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Chengdu Blades F.C.. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sheffield United (Hong Kong)[edit]

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

First of all, to be clear, this nomination is for the Hong Kong football (soccer) club, not the similarly named Sheffield United F.C. in England. Second, this nomination arose after I saw the statement "According to your reasoning we should delete Sheffield United (Hong Kong) as that is just a branch of Chengdu Blades" in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Irish Amateur (2nd nomination) with the implication that such a nomination would be a bad idea. Nevertheless, I do have some concerns about this article, which may be resolvable, but if they are not resolvable, the article ought to be deleted.

The only source provided is a link to the page about this club's senior affiliate, Chengdu Blades F.C., on the web site of the English Sheffield United -- but it does not feature information about Sheffield United Hong Kong. Furthermore, this article claims that this club plays in the Hong Kong First Division League, the top level of Hong Kong football -- however, this club isn't mentioned in Hong Kong First Division League, or Hong Kong Second Division League, or Hong Kong Third Division "A" League, or Hong Kong Third Division "District" League. And those are all of the levels in the Hong Kong football league system. Nor is this club mentioned in the Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation archive page for Hong Kong. I realize that some of the sources about this club may be in Chinese, a language I can't read. Nevertheless, if this article can't even clearly establish what league this club plays in, and no relevant sources are provided, it ought to be deleted. Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 06:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - based on the nominator's impressive research, this club doesn't seem to exist; if it does, then it is of such low notability that it doesn't merit an article in my view. GiantSnowman 06:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would note that I found a small number of Google News hits that refer to this team, which suggest that it does exist. The problem is the lack of evidence as to them playing in the league they are claimed to play in. If a team is alleged to play in a certain league, one ought to be able to look in the article about the league, or any league table printed elsewhere, and see the team listed there. If the team isn't listed, that discrepancy calls into question anything else that has been written about the team. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I suspect that this club does exist but clearly is not playing at anywhere near the level required to meet WP:ORG. Nancy ^talk 06:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chengdu Blades F.C.. The team does exist, but it is not a club in its own right, merely a a name used for advertising reasons by a reserve team of the Chengdu club. The reserve team does not seem to have anywhere near enough notability for an article of its own, but someone might search for it under the name "Sheffield United (Hong Kong)", so I have added a brief mention of this name to Chengdu Blades F.C., and a redirect seems appropriate. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the clarification. Does this reserve team play in some league competition? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chengdu Blades F.C. - it seems like this club's the youth team of this who play in the Hong Kong league (if I remember correctly, they're a playable team in Football Manager 2009), so a redirect would probably be the best idea in this case. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 13:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your comment raises what is really the key question in my mind. Does this team in fact play in the Hong Kong league, and how can we be sure of that? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment according to Wikipedia ([41]) the team played in the top level of the Hong Kong league in 2008-09 so certainly a straight delete would not be appropriate. If they are simply a youth team of Chengdu Blades then a redirect may be in order, but if someone was looking at the 08/09 HK table and clicked on their name and redirected to Chengdu Blades, would there be anything there to make it clear who the actual team were playing in the HK league? Eldumpo (talk) 09:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After checking RSSSF which has substantially the same information, I am willing to withdraw this nomination but only if the article is edited to explain what happened to the team in 2009-10. Since the team did not get relegated after the 2008-09 season, they ought to still be in the First Division, but they apparently are not, according to 2009–10 Hong Kong First Division League. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Katie DeCubellis Memorial Foundation[edit]

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

This foundation is for a good cause (the victim of a fatal car accident), but the foundation seems to fail WP:ORG, and the person fails WP:ONEEVENT. Her name results in no Gnews hits, and the only regular hits I can find about the foundation is the foundation's own website. Erpert (let's talk about it) 05:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was originally going to suggest Weak Keep, but yeah, all the references but one are to the organisation's own web site, and the remainder is about the crash itself, which fails WP:ONEEVENT. Not a notable organisation. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 06:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No WP:RS found to assert any organisational notability. Otherwise per nom and also WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Plutonium27 (talk) 06:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete, looks too promotional, not independently sourced. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It's definitely too promotional in tone, but I think that it can be rewritten into an encyclopedic article. I found a few newspaper articles covering the foundation, though I'm not sure they would be enough to change the minds of those seeking deletion. This article is from the Providence Journal; this is from the Cranston Herald, and this article is from the Block Island Times. In addition, the foundation received a grant from the state of Rhode Island (see this press release) in 2005. These all support the notability of the foundation; I think the account of the crash should be culled down or removed from the article. However, I should not fail to mention that the crash appears to have been the subject of an educational film called The Deadly Consequences of Drunk Driving. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SNOW redirect Jclemens (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gummiberry Juice[edit]

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

Undeleted as a contested prod there nevertheless is no evidence of independant notability. I did Google, googlebooks and scholar checks and while there were a few passing mentions in books there was nothing in depth or specifically about the subject to show it passes N. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable indeeeeeed. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 04:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gummi Bears. One of the main concepts in the entire show, so worth mentioning, but not really worth its own article. JIP | Talk 04:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per JIP. Recurs often enough to be kept as a redirect, according to the episode list, however not notable enough for a separate article. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Gummi Bears. I would have thought this was notable - and indeed, Google searches return plenty of hits sufficient to establish a common sense definition of notability. Unfortunately none of those hits constitute significant coverage in reliable independent sources, so it fails the Wikipedia notability test at WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just redirect to Disney's Adventures of the Gummi Bears. Already described in detail in Disney's Adventures of the Gummi Bears#Premise, so no need for further merging. —Korath (Talk) 07:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Korath. JohnCD (talk) 09:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Disney's Adventures of the Gummi Bears. No claim or evidence of notability separate from the overall subject; doesn't warrant independent coverage. --EEMIV (talk) 13:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Merge/redirect possibilities may be further discussed on the article's talk page. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mortgage risk[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced WP:OR in the form of an essay. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 04:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Financial risk. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per WP:OR. Warrah (talk) 16:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC) Striking vote by sockpuppet of banned user. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rescue This is a valid topic. It just needs some sourcing. Dew Kane (talk) 04:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google book search shows plenty of books talking about this. Some surely define what it is, so the information in the article can be verified. Dream Focus 07:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable topic. I have added a citation to a good source, which was easy. Please see WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. This topic has been covered in many sources; the article can be rewritten and sourced, so it should be edited in order to improve it, not deleted. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge as per Blanchardb, no real differences from the existing article on financial risks. Cathardic (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, per WP:CRYSTAL. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carnival Dream 3[edit]

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

Disputed PROD: This article is on a planned cruise ship which is not under construction, nor is even named. Therefore the title itself is WP:SYN, but the whole article is WP:CRYSTAL. There is also the issue that all of this can be better presented in the ship class article: Dream class cruise ship. It is also the desire/unwritten policy of WP:SHIPS that vessels are not notable enough for their own articles until they are named and under construction. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I realize that since this vessel will eventually be built this is all pedantic due to the fact that the vessel will then receive dedicated article, but I'll point you towards a recent AFD on a cruise ship under-construction (where I believe the line is drawn for ship notability): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AIDAsol. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A notice has been made to the associated WikiProject at WT:SHIPS#More cruise ships per WP:AFD#Notifying interested people. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The rationale behind WP:CRYSTAL is that if it's in the future there's unlikely to be sufficient reliable information about it create a substantive article, and that rumour and speculation isn't encyclopedic content. In this case there's suficient reliable information, at least to create a stub, such as here, here and here. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dream class cruise ship. Unless there is something truly exceptional about it, I agree that civilian ships prior to launching don't automatically merit their own pages. - The Bushranger (talk) 06:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

It has been suggested in wiki guidelines that articles about ships that do not yet exist should therefore not exist also. I am against that guideline since design and development of a ship is as worthy as its physical existance as it is one of the many stages in the creation of a ship. As stated in my reason for leaving the article in place, based on the production timeline of Carnival Dream class ships at Fincantieri, it takes 2 years to create a cruise ship top to bottom, as is the case with the Dream and the soon to be released Magic. So if Carnival Dream 3 is to come out in spring of 2012, it can only be assume that construction will begin in 2010 if it has not already. I am in communication with Carnival and Wartsila to track development of the Magic and will be requesting more info on the 3. I will also try to reach Fincantieri about their estimates of constructions shortly.

Keep in mind, the article of Carnival Magic has been around since March of 2007 but only on January 12, 2010 did the first parts get assembled in Italy. So if the Magic's article was created a full 3 years before the first pieces were assembled I think we could tolerate the Carnival Dream 3 article since that ship will start construction in the upcoming months...

Again, I must stress the importance of the design as a significant part of any timeline. Fincantieri already signed the agreement with Carnival to build the ship. In brief, let the article stand. It would be a waste of time to delete this article only to have to redo it within a few months. I am working at improving the sources, but some sources take time, especially the good ones! CDN Traveller (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

I agree with MBK, this article is WP:CRYSTAL and purely speculative until construction begins (even once construction begins, most of the details currently stated as fact on the article could be subject to change) Not until she is completed does the majority of the data contained become fact. Currently the article reads like an advertising brochure and not like an encyclopaedia article. I'd suggest merging the content into Dream class cruise ship until such time as the ship becomes notable enough for its own page. (ie when construction begins) JonEastham (talk) 11:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~

Last no name user...Ship designs and plans that are approved and put on order can be considered as fact. Take fore example the Dream. Once the ship was ordered, the ship was built to specification and that data is as advertised. All wikipedia articles sound like advertising brochures when you think about it, so should we delete wikipedia? As I said before, the ship is fact already as it has been ordered and plans sent. Of course there might be minor changes to some data along the way but this can all be adjusted in the article as more information comes in. In fact every wikipedia article gets updated regularly when an new piece of information changes so why should this article be any different? CDN Traveller (talk) 11:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC) Strikethrough added as CDN Traveller has already !voted. Peridon (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never read a wikipedia article that sounds like and advertising brochure (with the exception of this one.) You are confusing 'fact' with 'proposed.' You've filled out the infobox with proposed data, therefore citing them as fact. Until they become fact, they are WP:Crystal entries. It is fact for the Dream class, it is not fact for this ship. There is always the potential for this ship to be completed differently and the plans being changed before construction begins, therefore your rationale for citing approved designs/plans relating to what is just a name at the moment is incorrect. JonEastham (talk) 12:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When the numbers change, we update it. Nothing is meant to be permanent. Today a guy is alive, tomorrow he's dead; you update it. Today a boat is afloat, tomorrow it sinks; you update it. That's what wikipedia is all about. CDN Traveller (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Ship designs and plans that are approved and put on order can be considered as fact." No. There is always the possibility that the ship WON'T be built yet, given the financial state of the world. It costs a lot of money to build a ship of this sort, and it takes a lot of cruising to get that back. The company would probably be well-advised to go ahead - but there's always the accountants and banks to reckon with. They can kill a project stone dead. Peridon (talk) 14:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CommentOk then, remove the article but then we'll have to remove alot of other Wikipedia articles such as Carnival Magic and Royal Caribbean's MS Allure of the Seas since these ships are not entirely completed and thus also subject to change or cancellation. If we use this rationale (presented by above comment) alot of Wikipedia would not exist. Life is unpredicable. So if the boat gets cancelled then we scrap it (article), if the stats or characteristic change then we update them. Keep in mind that wikipedia is not meant to be the perfect 100% 24/7 accurate encyclopedia. After all, anyone can post anything here. Facts and figures are known to fluctuate and as long as they are updated as soon as possible I see no harm to it. My rationale behind this was that my own google search for the next carnival cruise boat drew a blank i decided to create a wiki page that would cover what little is known about it so that whoever made a similiar search next would be presented with that bit of information as well as track the sources for future update. That is the true purpose of wikipedia. CDN Traveller (talk) 20:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the other articles shouldn't be there either.... I would have thought people going cruising would be interested in the ships already working rather than one not even started. Or are they going to stay at home and wait for it? "my own google search for the next carnival cruise boat drew a blank" - does that mean this is Original Research? There certainly are no references to back the article up. (The one given gives some figures about the Carnival Corp which are irrelevant.) Peridon (talk) 21:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References were listed as external links. PS I've gone on 9 cruises with 4 different companies and am very much interested in the next boats coming out. CDN Traveller (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The 'Comment' immediately above makes little to no sense to me. There is a HUGE difference between a ship that is mostly completed on one hand, and one that hasn't started construction on the other. A ship that is only in the planning stages seems un-notable to me. David V Houston (talk) 12:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article makes no claim of notability for this unbuilt ship. It just lists its specs, and given that the ship doesn't exist and the name of the article may not be the name of the ship, deletion is the best option. Abductive (reasoning) 15:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, my comment above and David V Houston and Abductive. Peridon (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EAthena (software)[edit]

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

Contested prod. Software with no assertion of notability, referenced only by primary sources. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Plenty of people seem to think EAthena is notable, but sadly none of them are prepared to say it by way of significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Therefore fails WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability, and almost no context to identify the subject, though I gather this has something to do with unofficial server for the Ragnarok Online video game. Eathena is a Private Ragnrok Online Emulator that was designed for a KRO (Korean Ragnarok Online) Client. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. David V Houston (talk) 21:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to James Mitose. Ged UK 09:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kosho Shorei Ryu Kempo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Another non-notable/barely notable American martial arts school plagued with poor sourcing and poor formatting.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google returns only primary sources and websites that accept user-created content (that is, forums). Additionally, the top ghit is summarized by Google in the following words: The information published herein is authorized by Bruce Juchnik Hanshi, the one and only student to be taught the full art of Kosho Shorei Ryu Kempo, ... (emphasis mine). -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that the reason the previous AfD was closed as no consensus was not so much a lack of consensus as it was a lack of quorum. The nominator forgot to list it in the discussion log. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. insufficient sources to justify notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why not redirect then? Rlendog (talk) 16:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, interesting in how much space it takes to say so little, but no reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to James Mitose. Lack of sources alone nor a badly written article are justification for deletion. jmcw (talk) 14:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to James Mitose. As long as James Mitose is notable enough to have an article, there seems to be no reason not to redirect this item there. Rlendog (talk) 16:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mitose is claimed to be the originator of several forms of karate.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Consensus was to delete Rlendog (talk) 16:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Anvil of God: A Spiritual Reformation[edit]

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

This is an article about a self-published book with no media attention that fails WP:N and WP:BK. Prod removed by creator. Them From Space 02:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ no indication of notability given in article (no refs, no info in body of article to point to notability, such as a notable publisher, etc).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "No indication of notability in article" is only relevant to articles that fall within the A7 Speedy Deletion criterion, which this article (about a book) does not. If we're not talking A7 then you're obliged to do your own searches to establish not whether the article establishes notability, but whether it could. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

gotcha, i think i knew that but forgot it. ive stricken my vote until i do some research.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete did my research. google books: nada. google: nada, except our article and a listing at amazon.com. no prejudice against recreation if this self published book (or the author) achieve notability.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am unable to find significant coverage for this self-published book. (One reading of the "reception" section of the article suggests that the entire criticial reception has consisted of personal comments sent directly to the author.) I've left the article in its current state for the purposes of discussion but I note that were it to be kept the majority of it would need to be cut as being essay-like in layout and fundamentally unencyclopedic. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 23:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistanis in Belgium[edit]

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

Another migrant group which has not been written about at length by any scholars or journalists. This book mentions them briefly on p255. That's all the information I could find --- not enough basis to write an article. Similar content was previously deleted by WP:PROD about a year ago [42]. Thanks, cab (talk) 02:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 02:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 02:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 02:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I will abstain from voting here, for being of Pakistani origin, there will be obvious bias. I would like to however point out that 14,500 is a significant population to warrant an article. Lyk4 (talk) 07:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're welcome to participate here regardless of your national origin, but see WP:BIGNUMBER. Population size isn't what warrants an article; coverage by reliable, independent sources is. Small groups may get scholarly attention (especially when the host society is especially interested in immigrants --- like Koreans in Chile; or alternatively when the worldwide ethnic group is especially interested in its diaspora --- like History of the Jews in Mongolia). And conversely large groups might get passed over for such attention, when it's hard to study them, or when they're overshadowed in the public imagination by another larger group, or when the society isn't all that proactive in investigating immigration, or any other number of reasons. I don't know why exactly scholars haven't written more about 15,000 Pakistanis in Belgium, or 25,000 Koreans in Thailand, or many other groups I'd like to write an article about. cab (talk) 08:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTCASE. This is an unsourced cross-reference of A to B. Dew Kane (talk) 04:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Turks in India[edit]

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

Nominated per the suggestion of User:Lyk4 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Italians in Pakistan.

The topic of this article, the Turkish diaspora (emigrants from the Ottoman Empire or the modern Republic of Turkey) in India, has not been written about at length by any scholars or journalists.

This article is part of a mass-produced boilerplate series of stubs about "Turks in Xyzland" which were created on the basis of a table of population statistics a year ago. Since then, no one has been able to find any real sources to improve most of them. The book that's been placed in the "Further reading" section to puff up the article, Keene's 1879 The Turks in India (reprinted in 2001), does not discuss the above topic --- instead it describes the Mughal conquest of South Asia. This is like trying to claim that "Icelanders in India" is a notable topic on the basis that the British once ruled India and Icelanders and Britons both have Viking ancestry. Modern scholarship doesn't continue Keene's practice of referring to them generically as "Turks" --- instead they're identified as Chagatays, etc. Thanks, cab (talk) 02:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 02:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 02:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 02:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Most of the nomination reasons I don't think are relevant. The questions are: (1) Is the topic "Turks in India" notable? Yes, it must be; there is plenty of significant coverage in independent reliable sources of people of Turkish descent living in India, and their lives and experiences. (2) Is the topic "Turks in India" capable of containing encyclopedic content? Yes, it must be, as similar articles on racial/national pairings have demonstrated. (3) Does it duplicate or represent a content fork from an existing article? Not as far as I can tell. (4) Does any other reason for deletion apply? Not as far as I can see. So the result must be keep. If the article needs a rename, that's a matter for discussion at the talk page, and isn't to be solved through AfD. Any issues with this article can be solved through normal editing. - 06:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Also see WP:ALLORNOTHING. When someone says, "If you delete X you will also need to delete Y", using that as a basis to take Y to AfD leads to madness, and the eventual collapse of human civilisation. Humanoid cockroaches running naked in the street, dogs married to cats, rains of Pokemon, etc. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Failure of WP:N is quite a pertinent reason to delete an article and you have not offered any real solutions to address this problem.

(1) Then please point to such coverage. As I have stated above, Keene's book is not useful for expanding this article --- it does not cover the "Turks" who this article is supposed to be about.

(2) Wrong. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It does not matter that other groups have sources about them; what matters is whether THIS GROUP have sources about them, something you have not demonstrated at all. Your argument basically boils down to "We can write an encyclopedic article about Turks in India because there are lots of books about Italian Americans." Regards, cab (talk) 06:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's an inherent difficulty in providing sources, in that they're likely to be in non-English languages; see WP:BIAS. However we can establish their existence as a logical proposition, because the contrary would be that, of every person of Turkish descent who does now or ever has lived in India, none of them have ever received significant coverage. We know that's false as a logical proposition from the material contained in articles such as Hassan Ali Effendi and Malik Altunia. There are notable people of Turkish descent who have lived in India; therefore there must be sufficient sources to write an encyclopedic article about the topic Turks in India that passes WP:N. The only bar to that would be if it represented a content fork, a duplication of material presented elsewhere, or was covered by one of the other reasons for deletion, none of which I'd argue apply here (although I'm open to being directed to another article that covers the material). There's obviously LESS to write about this than there is for Italian American but short length is generally no barrier to the existence of an article providing that there is sufficient substantive relevant information to justify the topic as encyclopedic content; that's why we have stubs. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited either upwards or downwards. A non-notable collectivity may have notable-members; conversely, a collectivity may be notable even though none of its individual members are. The existence of a few notable individuals does not magically cause there to be anything to say in general about the whole community; an attempt by Wikipedians to make generalisations based on alleged commonalities between a few people would be original research.

Furthermore regarding your WP:BIAS argument: I searched in Turkish. Your theorising about the existence of foreign language sources doesn't match what I actually found on Google. My reading knowledge of Turkish has declined a lot over the years, but I can still tell the difference between reliable and unreliable sources, or on-topic and off-topic ones. The Turkish language makes it hard to distinguish between Turkish ("of the Republic of Turkey") and Turkic (relating to the peoples who speak one of the Turkic languages) --- both get called Türkler, and some authors take advantage of this to conflate the two topics ... and anyway, all I found was material similar to Keene's book (information about Chagatay conquerors and the like, not Republic of Turkey expatriates), or information about investments by Turkish companies or tourists from Turkey e.g. [43][44], which again can't be generalised to the topic of this article, which is supposed to be the history and characteristics of Turkish expatriates in India as a whole. cab (talk) 07:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't called "The Turkish community in India". It's called "Turks in India". There's no necessity for it to be about modern day Turks, a community, or character. It can be a historical article, provided there's no content fork involved. It's a topic of such surpassing width that it would be incredibly unlikely to NOT find Indian or Turkish sources supporting it. The reason notability isn't inherited upwards is because you can discuss the singular without discussing the general; speak about, for example, Michael Jackson without mentioning The Jackson Five. That's not the case here; if there is information about more than one person who can be described as a "Turk", that talks about their experience in India, then there is, by definition, notability for the concept "Turks in India". And, given the history between Turkic peoples and India, (such as here), it seems futile to argue that there could not be content under this header. I think the mistake you're making is confusing the content that currently IS in the article with the content that COULD be in the article. If notability is found for the topic - and given the history of control of India over the last thousand years, then you have to admit that there is such notability - then the inadequacy of the current content can be fixed through normal editing. More to the point - are you sure there isn't another article already dealing with the histories of Turkish (or Turkic) people in India? (BTW part of the point of WP:BIAS is that not only will we have difficulty finding non-English sources but outside of western Europe the chances of those sources being accessible through Google decrease dramatically, both due to the way Google works and due to lowered internet access rates in the relevant countries.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not confusing the content that is in the article with the content that might be in the article, I am stating that there is no encyclopedic content which belongs at this title at all. The use of this title to discuss Mughal rule in India strikes me as bordering on historical revisionism, which is why I would so strongly object to it being used/redirected for that purpose. Especially when every other instance of this title pattern is used to refer to Republic of Turkey expatriates. As I alluded to above, since Keene's time Anglophone scholars have stopped lumping together all those mysterious peoples of the Orient into one giant whole and assuming they're all interchangeable. We no longer speak of "Tartars" on the banks of the Amur or "Moors" in Peking either.

And the internet in Turkey is quite well developed; all of the major newspapers have online editions with archives, university professors put their papers on their websites, booksellers give online tables of contents and other previous of book content, Google Books has been busy scanning away, etc. cab (talk) 08:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. A small yet notable group may be kept, as shown by the information in the article and searches online. For example, see [45]. Bearian (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC) I added that source; many more can be found at Bing and Google. Typing in the phrase history of turks in india into the Google search bar gets 27 million Ghits. There are plenty of possible sources out there. Bearian (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC) By the way, I don't think that all such "Xes in Ystan" are notable; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Italians in Pakistan. Bearian (talk) 20:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We already have a perfectly good article on the topic which is covered by those misleading hits: Mughal Empire. As I already explained above, modern scholars have moved away from the "Turks in India" and towards far more precise ethnic labelling. Note the actual content of the Google search: ethnonationalist polemics (e.g. "ISLAM WAS THE CULPRIT"), copies of Keene's book or other outdated scholarship, and mishits ("Buy History of the Ottoman Turks in India!"). cab (talk) 00:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I see what you mean. I still think the first part of my statement is correct, so I am changing that to "weak keep". Bearian (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Italians in Pakistan is currently in a better condition and more well-sourced compared to this article. If you can justify how this article is more notable than the former, please demonstrate Mar4d (talk) 06:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These types of articles are very encyclopedic. While the number of Turks in India might not be very large, that doesn't make them less notable than other ethnic groups in other nations. And no, you don't need coverage, that's just one of the suggested guidelines, not any binding policy. Those guidelines have been changed constantly over time, and no one writing them had this sort of article in mind. Every ethnic group that is in a country, should have its own article, since this is an encyclopedia, not just coverage of things mainstream media decides to write about. Dream Focus 16:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All ethnic groups may be notable, but Fooians in Barland are not "an ethnic group"; they are an intersection of an ethnic group and a country of residence. You will find no disagreement from me that these types of articles about diaspora/expatriate groups may be very encyclopedic; I've written more than 150 of them, even about small groups like Koreans in Chile, and I have gone far beyond what you deride as "things mainstream media decides to write about" in finding sources for them.

But that's the clincher --- SOURCES --- otherwise what exactly are you supposed to write about? Whatever self-promoting nationalistic group members themselves choose to attach to the article? This is how we got to the poor state of the article in the first place where it tried to pretend in its nationalist-revisionist way that businessmen from Istanbul and centuries-old Persian-speaking conquerors from Central Asia are the same "ethnic group". And when you remove that flight of fancy, you are left with no article and nothing to write about. cab (talk) 01:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fooians in Barland? What is that suppose to mean? And do you see any "self-promoting nationalistic group" bothering any of these articles? I find that unlikely to happen here. Showing how many people from one nation are now living in another, and listing information about them is perfectly legitimate encyclopedic content. You don't need sources for everything. Just like every article for a species doesn't have coverage other than the primary source of the researchers who found it, and a brief mention in an encyclopedia or directory that list everything, but we still consider them notable. The more popular species of course are written about plenty, but we don't just ignore the least popular ones. Is this encyclopedic in value? If so, it should be kept. The suggested guidelines were written for other types of articles, and they aren't binding in anyway, unlikely the policies. Dream Focus 04:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Fooians in Barland" is a generic shorthand title referring to the whole class of articles about people from country X living in country Y. See foo bar. Showing how many people from one nation are now living in another is easily done in a table, like at foreign-born population of the United Kingdom. You don't need a separate lemma for every single intersection of country of origin and country of residence, only the ones where there is something to actually write about the topic. The analogy to species of animals isn't even close --- here we don't even have a scholar who has looked into the topic and produced documentation. We have figures from two censuses, and a disputed list of names.

Furthermore, in response to your question "And do you see any "self-promoting nationalistic group" bothering any of these articles?" --- it's quite a common occurrence to see editors in this topic area who want to puff up the population or perceived importance of their own ethnic group or country, deride the importance of "competing" ethnic groups, delete unfavourable details they dislike, etc. Some of the more egregious examples I'm familiar with include here and here. What's more common is for people to go around creating articles about their own ethnic group in every country on earth without regard for WP:V, WP:RS, etc. What we certainly don't have many of are neutral editors reading the literature about human migration, and then coming to Wikipedia to write about the groups who are most important and best documented in each country regardless of where they come from. Otherwise we'd have articles on Bangladeshis in India (3 million people) or Afghans in Iran (1 million people) or Russians in Kyrgyzstan (500,000 people) long before anyone thought of writing about 126 Turkish expatriates in India and trying to tie them into the glorious imperial past of the Mughal Empire and the Mamluk Sultanate. cab (talk) 05:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concern over some occasional inappropriate editing is no reason to delete an article. Otherwise nothing would be allowed to exist. And where does anyone try to tie them "into glorious imperial past"? That was never in the article at all. The groups mentioned can have their own articles made as well, whenever someone feels like getting around to it. This article isn't just some mindless stub. It list notable Turks living in India, and they have their own Wikipedia articles even. Dream Focus 06:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bearian. Rabbabodrool (talk) 21:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was The consensus was to delete Rlendog (talk) 16:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phyzix[edit]

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

Prod declined; previous version at this name was deleted CSD A7. This article with an abundance of puffery has questionable references (about a third of the links are dead) and not enough evidence of the subject meeting WP:MUSIC. If this is kept, it will need to be scraped clean and started anew. B.Wind (talk) 01:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For "Jack Chikoleka," Google comes up with only two hits: the Wikipedia article, and a MySpace page. For "Phyzix," too many unrelated false positives. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - um, I prodded it, in fact. It's written like an advert. Kayau Voting IS evil 10:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I didn't find any coverage in reliable sources.--Michig (talk) 11:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing but MySpace, last.fm, no reliable sources and also fails WP:NOTABILITY. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 16:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trackmasters Entertainment[edit]

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

Delete - Unsourced, questionable authenticity. Taylor Karras (talk) 01:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google News does come up with reliable sources, but they only qualify as trivial mentions. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject appears to fail the general notability guideline; I was able to find trivial mentions of the company in Rolling Stone, the Herald & Review, and the Hollywood Reporter – but no significant coverage. A redirect to Def Jam may be appropriate. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No clear evidence that MuzeTunes is notable, and as that's the only chart it's charted on, it fails NSONG. Ged UK 09:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Live for the Day[edit]

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

No notable charts, no awards, no cover versions. Fails WP:NSONGS. The only semblance of charting is a listing on MuzeTunes, which is a single-vendor list ("The MuzeTunes top ten streamed samples represent the most popular tracks sampled by consumers using the MuzeTunes streaming service at Muze customer Web sites"). Attempts to redirect have been thwarted by an IP under the misapprehension that WP:BADCHARTS is an exhaustive list of every bad chart. Given that I pretty much compiled that list, I can assure the world that it is far from being a comprehensive list of every bad chart. —Kww(talk) 01:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MuzeTunes is a subsidiary of the Billboard Hot 100, just like the Bubbling Under Hot 100 chart. I guess we'll have to delete every single song that has only charted on the Bubbling Under Hot 100 since MuzeTunes isn't allowed either. The song doesn't need a cover version or awards to be a single. MTV even released a review statement about the song. It even has cover art for the single. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.73.2.125 (talk) 02:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No notable charting. Being a single doesn't make it notable. Fails WP:NSONG. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete - It doesn't fail WP:NSONG. It says to be a notable single, it needs to have charted on a national or a significant chart. It has charted on the MuzeTunes chart, which is, in turn, part of the Billboard Hot 100, a significant chart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.Chicago (talk) 02:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.73.2.125 (talk) [reply]

What support do you have for your belief that MuzeTunes is a part of the Billboard Hot 100? Showing up at Billboard.biz doesn't mean that it's even a Billboard chart: they publish some foreign and proprietary charts in every issue, and MuzeTunes appears to be an extremely minor proprietary chart.—Kww(talk) 02:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - MuzeTunes is a streaming service. The "chart" is a listing of the most streamed songs on that service. Clearly not a "national or significant chart". - SummerPhD (talk) 03:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, given the description I quoted in the nomination, I'm not even sure it's that: it may just count the number of times people listened to a short sample to decide whether to buy the whole song.—Kww(talk) 03:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Instead, some of the information about the single should be redirected to a section about the singles on the A Little More Personal (Raw) page. I'm planning on expanding the page soon.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.73.2.125 (talk • contribs)

Note – For three days, the AfD tag has not been displayed on the article. I restored it just now. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm planning on expanding the A Little More Personal (Raw) page soon. I have done numerous edits and revisions to Lohan's previous album, Speak. I'm going to try and make A Little More Personal look like that page as well. I think that we should remove this delete tag until I edit the A Little More Personal and add some of the information there. Once I've added the information, delete the page.Travismullins1996(talk) 12:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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