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 consensus is that this is a notable subject and that its content covers more than a mere dicdef. Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Natural born citizen of the United States[edit]

Natural born citizen of the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This really is not suitable for an encyclopedia article--it's more suitable for Wiktionary. In English the phrase "natural born citizen" simply means 'citizen at birth.' The OED defines "natural born" as "having a specified position or character by birth." Thus a 'natural born citizen' is simply a citizen at birth. All the court cases cited in this article were about the question of citizenship from birth. Yet the article consistently implies that "natural born citizen" refers to some special other kind of citizenship. There is no foundation for that implication, which violates WP:OR. This needs to be deleted or at least seriously rewritten to remove that completely unfounded implication. Mystylplx (talk) 22:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further note: There seems to be quite a bit of confusion between the definition of the phrase "natural born citizen' and 19th century debate over what the requirements were to be a citizen from birth. All the court cases cited were about whether someone was or was not a U.S. citizen from birth. None of them support the contention that "natural born citizen" might refer to some third, other, type of citizenship. Indeed, such a suggestion would have been counterproductive to their cause, as in all cases they were attempting to argue that some person was not a citizen at all, not merely that they were ineligible to run for President. Mystylplx (talk) 23:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I placed the AFD tag onto the article, and added this debate to the master AFD list for March 24. No opinion on deletion, really, except that this is absolutely going to be a useful search term due to the ambiguity over the definition. If it can be properly sourced, as it appears to be, and if it can be sufficiently separate from Citizenship in the United States, for example, then a keep wouldn't be out of the question. My concern is that I can't figure out whether a merge would be of benefit here. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose In the US, a natural born citizen is eligible to run for President while a naturalized citizen cannot. There is some disagreement on what exactly NBC is - the Constitution uses the term but does not define it. There are some cases (as you can see in the article) the cover parts of the debate. So is NBC a special type of citizen? Yes. It's the only type of citizenship that can run for the President of the United States. Ravensfire (talk) 14:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There has never been disagreement on what an NBC is until 2008. Prior to that, in the 19th century, there was disagreement on what the requirements were to be a citizen from birth, but that is quite distinct from debate over the meaning of the phrase. The framers never defined it because there was no need to. It was a well understood phrase in the English language. The Oxford English dictionary is the internationally recognized authority on the language and lists the definition of natural born as going back to the 1500's. There is no basis upon which to assert that natural born means something different when put in front of the word "citizen" than it does when put in front of any other word. Mystylplx (talk) 16:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep This article covers a highly notable topic – a clause of the United States Constitution; reading the article makes it apparent that this goes far, far beyond a simple dictionary definition. I believe this is outside the scope of Wiktionary, in any case. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 14:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - this is a textbook case of a legal article that is much more than a dicdef. Clauses of the United States Constitution are almost always kept at AfD. Bearian (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the point is there is no court case nor any reliable source that has ever said that "natural born citizen" means anything other than what it means in English. There are lots of words and phrases in the Constitution that have never had any court ruling on a special legal meaning for them. In such cases they simply mean what they mean in English. The idea that "natural born citizen" refers to some special third kind of citizenship rather than it's English meaning of "citizen at birth" was essentially invented by "birthers" in 2008 and I don't think birthers count as reliable sources. Perhaps the article should be merged with birthright citizen.

The Wall Street Journal put it like this--" Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning."

• Can you provide a complete cite for that Wall Street Journal article? It should be in the article as well. bd2412 T 22:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Mystylplx (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. The very fact that we can write an article on the subject with 60+ references, including newspaper articles referring to the dispute over the meaning, is indication that there is more to this subject than a dictionary definition, whatever thenominator's beliefs to the contrary. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there was never dispute over the meaning. There was dispute over what the requirements were to be a citizen from birth. All the court cases and all the arguments were over what the requirements were to be a citizen from birth. This very misunderstanding seems to be the real problem with the article, which confuses debate over the requirements as if that was debate over the meaning. Each of those cases and newspaper articles were arguing about who was and was not entitled to citizenship from birth at all. None of them were saying that a "natural born citizen" was anything other than someone who was born a citizen. Mystylplx (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, naturally. If there was never dispute over the meaning, well, clearly the requirement to be a natural born citizen is simply that one be included in what is covered by that undisputed meaning, so any dispute over what the requirement is, is pointless. But, as the article and the sources referenced therein show, there are and have been non-trivial issues concerning the interpretation of the concept.  --Lambiam 20:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on whether there has ever been any credible dispute. In this case there has not. Gotta love the whole section Presidential candidates whose eligibility was questioned. "Was questioned?" And this is an encyclopedia? None of them were ever credibly questioned. Dispute does not equal credible dispute. Mystylplx (talk) 02:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The question of what a "natural born citizen" is, and whether it is or is not simply the same as someone who has been a citizen since birth, is not a brand-new, 2008 "birther" invention — it's been raised several times in the past, regarding the presidential eligibility of people such as George W. Romney and Barry Goldwater. Although the majority consensus view through the years (and, for what little it's worth, my own personal view) has been that "natural born citizen" is, by definition, identical in meaning to "citizen since birth" (or, possibly, "citizen since birth according to US law in effect at the time of the person's birth") — and though it may possibly be true that many/most people challenging this view in recent years have been wacko nut jobs — that is not enough to support a conclusion that "natural born citizen" is no more than a dictionary synonym for "citizen since birth". Also, my impression is that a large segment of the American population tacitly assumes that "natural born" must obviously mean "born on US soil"; and while I personally don't agree with this, I assume there are probably enough secondary sources reporting this as one possible mainstream position to make it appropriate for inclusion in WP. I do agree, in any case, that the article ought to be edited so as to focus specifically on the historical question of what a "natural born citizen" is — acknowledging views that say it means the same as "citizen since birth", as well as other positions — but I assume it is feasible to do such a thing within the context of an article bearing this title. So I believe it ought to be kept. Richwales (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because an issue has been "raised several times" doesn't mean it is credible. You mentionGeorge W. Romney and Barry Goldwater, and yes there were some minor controversies in those cases, but nothing of any significance. Certainly not enough to use as an excuse to claim the phrase means something other than what it means in the English language. Then we have a NY Times article which uses some rather extreme language to write about a proposed bill which essentially would merely have clarified that anyone who is born a citizen is eligible to be President. And then several Law review articles written by students... There is simply nothing significant or credible in any insinuations that NBC means something other than citizen at birth. Yet the article as written certainly implies that this is so. There's a whole bunch of SCOTUS cases, ALL of which were about citizenship at birth, but the way that section is written implies disagreement over the meaning of the phrase rather than disagreement over the requirements to be a citizen at birth, which is actually what was happening. Then the section "Presidential candidates whose eligibility was questioned" ... "Was questioned?" Questioned by whom? Just because a minor political confusion happened a few times but never amounted to anything is not an excuse to promote conspiracy theories. Mystylplx (talk) 02:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the "natural born citizen" controversies were nothing more than conspiracy theories — a suggestion, BTW, with which I do not agree — that would not necessarily mean the article should be deleted. (See, for example, Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories.) Not everyone bringing up the "natural born citizen" question is an obvious fringe wacko, though, so we would be on thin ice if we were to summarily dismiss all such suggestions as obviously groundless and unworthy of any mention. The consensus right now appears to be almost unanimously in favour of keeping the article; but if it does end up being deleted, I would certainly say that most of the material here would need to be re-added to Citizenship in the United States, President of the United States, and/or several other articles — and the fact that the material probably would end up being scattered or duplicated in so many other places is probably, in and of itself, a strong argument for keeping it where it is. Richwales (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Well sourced article on a legal topic that (for some reason) has generated controversy. Article isn't perfect in current form, but does meet notability standards. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong and speedy keep. This is definately deserving of an encyclopedia entry. It has an extensive history, including legislative and legal. It needs work to make it a better article, to be sure, and perhaps I can add to it in the summer during my editing season. It is topical, historic, and legal. Definately deserving of an entry. ludahai 魯大海 (talk) 12:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep: Regardless of whether article needs improvement, this is not a dictionary-level issue, but one which has been the subject of much analysis and controversy, just like many other phrases in the U.S. Constitution.--Milowent (talk) 12:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. This article documents an important provision of the Constitution and the various controversies about it that have arisen in American history. I have heard that perhaps this provision was written (in part) to keep Alexander Hamilton from becoming president, because he was born in the British West Indies. --DThomsen8 (talk) 11:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Hamilton would, as far as I'm aware, have been covered by the grandfather clause allowing citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution to be President. Richwales (talk) 16:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Obviously notable and well-sourced subject that has been a source of controversy for a significant period of time. Edward321 (talk) 14:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Mystylplx may have a point, in that the existing article could and should be improved to focus more closely on the question of whether there is a difference between "natural born citizen" and "citizen since birth". I don't believe by any means that this justifies deleting the article — I absolutely believe the article ought to be kept — but I do think there should probably be a section (near the start) summarizing the main arguments for and against a distinction between these two phrases. Richwales (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It seems to me that the distinction is between natural born citizens and naturalized citizens. Arnold Schwarzenegger is a naturalized citizen, and not eligible to be president or vice president, but he is eligible for any other office, state or federal. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. This page is indicative of the controversy. Mystylplx mentioned that the OED defines "natural born" as "having a specified position or character by birth," and later claimed "the Oxford English dictionary is the internationally recognized authority on the language." The OED is a fine dictionary, but it does not make US law. Its prominence in the article is unwarranted. US courts tend to like Webster's when looking for the way a term is used in everyday use, but that's not a firm law, just a tendency. Black's Law Dictionary is a common legal dictionary in the US, and it describes the Natural Born Citizen Clause as "the clause of the U.S. Constitution barring persons not born in the United States from the presidency. U.S. Const. art. II, §1, cl. 5," but under "natural-born citizen," it says "a person born within the jurisdiction of a national government." At first, these seem similar but subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and within the United States mean different things in law. I would certainly prefer that it mean a person conferred that status at birth, but it does seem that, by the law at the time of framing that jus soli was the norm, except for children of diplomats, so children born in the U.S. would be the only ones conferred citizenship at birth, in the minds of the framers. Considering the controversies with three presidential campaigns in the last three presidential elections, it is definitely notable. mcornelius (talk) 07:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename This is a valid, referenced topic. It should be titled differently so readers know what it is really about. Dew Kane (talk) 03:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 17:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Makmende[edit]

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

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

Non-notable lyric from a song? It's hard to tell just what it is. I've tried a db, I've tried a redirect to the band article, but I keep getting reverted. It was also PRODded by another editor, but the prod tag removed by an SPA with no other edits. No reliable sources, and no claims of notability. Woogee (talk) 23:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There's an article by the WSJ about Makmende, so the argument "no reliable sources" is invalid. The WSJ's article also clearly underscores the phenomenon's claim of notability. --Simon Columbus (talk) 03:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I removed the redirect to the band and added another reference, one which should be "reliable". It is a linguistic site that has been referenced in Wikipedia before. That combined with the WSJ article should give it enough strength to stand as its own article. Categories were also added, Kenya Culture and Names by Culture, both of which should apply here. What more is needed? I'm confused. -- Rob Rooker(talk) 08:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the reasons that the above have noted, this is a topic of significance because it has acted as the first kenyan "viral" video. The video is notable independent of its song and so it should merit a separate article as opposed to a merge to the Just a Band article Ajbpearce (talk) 09:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this character is the first online viral success seen in Kenya and most of Africa at large he is based on a phrase used in the 90's by children to denote someone who was a bully knowledgeable and who regularly tried to impress his peers with the latest Chuck Norris, Kung Fu styles. The phenomenon has just started and has just emerged from the collective psyches of the kenyan generation growing up in the 80's and 90's more references will be added to support him. The problem is that there is hardly any content on African influences in the 90's and 80's which may make it hard to make the connections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cicinne (talk • contribs) 11:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think its worth keeping but it needs to be brushed up a bit. Creeddd —Preceding undated comment added 12:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The "speakeasy" is the cultural blog of the WSJ, which I think is reliable. There are also three other sources, which cover 3 decades. Needs copyediting. Bearian (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - if your changes keep on getting reverted by different editors, that may be an indication that others consider the subject notable. As it stands now, the article certainly makes a couple of clear claims to notability. –SJ+ 22:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:CIV. Woogee (talk) 01:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article needs to be expanded, but that's no reason to delete it. Rjhatl (talk) 11:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Agreed that article could use a bit of expansion, but beyond being just a cultural reference, it marks a historical point in time for internet in Kenya as well as Africa in general. Deletion of this article would require deletion of countless other articles on Wikipedia. Just because admins are unfamiliar with the cultural context is not justification for removal. Primecoordinator 13:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Phillip Harley[edit]

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

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

Nicely written article, but so far as I can tell, subject is completely non-notable per WP:NOTE Rnickel (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete He doesn't play at the fully professional level, so does not pass WP:ATHLETE. I also could not find significant coverage of him. Public Juju ^T · C 17:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:ATH. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling Hills Prep School[edit]

Rolling Hills Prep School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Fails: WP:ORG with no independent sources. Was created by the school itself (user is now blocked) potently as an advertisement. Wintonian (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Arxiloxos (talk) 00:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Despite the COI, that doesn't make it a bad topic. News articles are easily found, this book mention is not insignificant, the school is accredited, and the profile at National Center for Education Statistics indicates it isn't exactly a tiny school. (note the "enrollment by grade" is obviously shifted by several grades; NCES isn't always accurate with that). I haven't researched things from ca.gov, but I'm sure it's all there too. While Wikipedia:Notability (schools) is a failed proposal, it's a fairly universal consensus, especially when information about the school is easy to find. tedder (talk) 00:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per tedder. Plenty of coverage backs up the usual "keep" presumption per the criteria and reasoning stated at WP:HS/N.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - not only contains a high school, but there are sufficient sources to allow the page to be nicely expanded. TerriersFan (talk) 03:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - many reliable sources available as shown by tedder. --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 21:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erevanski[edit]

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

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

This article makes an attempt at establishing notability, so I don't think CSD A7 applies. Still, though, subject appears to fail WP:BAND ("the band is in its early stagges of what is going to become a musical phenomenon"). Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 23:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-Dvobgo92 Hello Nick, I have made the necessary changes. if there is anything else I need to edit to avoid a deletion, please let me know. Dvobgo92 (talk) 23:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)March 24, 2010[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Self-releasing some tracks on the Internet doesn't come close to meeting WP:BAND. — Gwalla | Talk 16:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article shows limited interest and an uneven popularity. Brand[t] 15:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Deadline (split album). (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 01:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baby-Punchers[edit]

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

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

Non-notable song, a lot of WP:OR. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Redirect - fails WP:NSONG; appears to be notable enough only for a mention in the album's article. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 23:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Deadline (split album), the album on which the song was released. This article fails WP:NSONG; a Google Search for "Baby-Punchers" mostly just turns up listings of the song's lyrics, and no coverage from reliable sources. Searches on GNews and GBooks don't turn up any results at all.--Unscented (talk) 23:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - per aboce. No individual notability fort he song. -- Whpq (talk) 15:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. In coming to this decision I considered the following points:

• New editors, or those unfamiliar with procedure in deletion debates, can perceive themselves to be at a disadvantage during such debates. There could be a feeling that they are being outmanoeuvred by not knowing how to best frame their arguments or which policies they should be referring to. While there may be some truth to this, there is no 'magic formula' to guarantee one outcome or another. Deletion debates stand or fall on the merits of the article under discussion; policy-based arguments (including those from new or unfamiliar editors that, while not perhaps explicitly referencing policy, are nevertheless in line with it) are the main consideration in judging consensus.
• The arguments of editors who appear to have joined Wikipedia solely for the purpose of participating in a deletion debate are treated on their own merits, bearing in mind that such arguments are almost invariably not policy-based and therefore carry little weight, and that the recruitment of individuals as proxies to attempt to sway consensus is severely frowned upon. However, it's true that such individuals may arrive at a debate purely by chance or via the AfD notice on the article, so traditionally more leeway is given here than in other areas of Wikipedia.
• While deletion debates can become acrimonious (and this one is very far from the worst), the perception that there are two 'sides' is often mistaken. Most experienced editors will view AfD as an opportunity to ask the question "Is there any way we can keep this article?", and many articles are made policy compliant and hence kept during their time here. Where the combined efforts of multiple editors have failed to significantly improve an article, this is a strong indication that the article cannot readily be made policy compliant.

Conclusion: The weight of argument has demonstrated in my view that the article does not contain sufficient significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject to establish the notability of its subject. The appropriate guideline states: "In order to meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true. It is not enough to make vague claims in the article or assert a band's importance on a talk page or AfD page – the article itself must document notability." While a number of claims to notability have been made about the band itself and its individual members, these do not seem to be supported by the sources given either singly or in their entirety. This may be a fault of Wikipedia's system for establishing notability in non-mainstream genres and a manifestation of systemic bias, but AfD is not the place to establish precedents against consensus or to challenge current Wikipedia policy. If any editors disagree with my decision, you can request a deletion review. EyeSerene^talk 10:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Traveler's Dream[edit]

Traveler's Dream (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This group and these artists fail notability. The only prong of WP:MUSIC they possibly meet is prong 1 (and I see no other basis for meeting general notability). Their self-released CDs have been reviewed a couple of times. One member was also the subject of a blurb in the college magazine (which does not qualify for prong 1) of the school at which she works as an administrative assistant. The only profile of the group that is listed in the article (or that I could find searching) is in a local magazine not available online and only available at several locations in and around Lafayette, Indiana. While they have played some apparently large fairs and historical music festivals, their past performance listing on their website does not indicate any sort of a tour (let alone a tour that was covered by RSs). I've cleaned up some of the cites and language on the page, but in doing so I have not been convinced they are notable for wikipedia purposes. They might be a great group, but I don't see the notability to justify an article. Novaseminary (talk) 22:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Novaseminary (talk) 22:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Novaseminary (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree. They are very notable. I'm new at Wikipedia lingo, but even the material already in the article establishes at ;least two of the prongs, with only one being needed. I only recently discovered this article, and see my notes regarding additional material. Also it appears that the person who mentioned possible deletion removed substantial notability related material from the article. I tried looking at their user page...it is hard to look at due to them immediately erasing everything (substantial material) from their user page and discussion page. Further, as I noted, there are other substantial elements to them and this article (particularly historical, academic) that give it excellent and useful content.DougT1235 (talk) 01:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I just checked further and the same person who put this here in this deletion discussion just made a huge round of changes and also deleted important notability-related references. Something is not right here. DougT1235 (talk) 01:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Doug, you can click on the "history" link next to the article's name above to see all of the edits I--and every other editor--have made to the article; nothing is being hidden. In the interest of full disclosure, here is a link to the last version before I made my first edit to the article two weeks ago (edits which, I would note, even the article's creator appreciated as mentioned on the talk page). And here is the composite diff of all of my last round of edits (before you jumped in). You will note that some of the cites that appear to be removed were cites that were improperly added to the references section by hand (without the ref tag) and which I replaced with proper ref tagged notes. One should always assume good faith. Other than removing playlists that do not support the assertion made (and as explained, one reference that I again removed, doesn't even mention the group at all), I mostly cleaned up existing references using the cite template. I also added URLs, authors, and other info to the existing cites. I did this so editors who want to participate in this AfD won’t have to try to figure out what has been cited and in the hopes that I would be able to confirm notability.

But to the point of whether they are notable for Wikipedia purposes or not, which two prongs of WP:MUSIC do you think the group meets? You did make some mention of notability with comments on the talk page. In a difficult to follow way because of how you interspersed your thoughts throughout the talk page, you mentioned something about somebody named "Reid Lewis" and an historic canoe trip with this comment. That does not appear to be the Michael Lewis the article describes. But if it is, please put in a citation. If he is notable, that would go a long way to making the group notable. And, I wonder if you have the right person in the Newsweek article from 1976 that with this edit you just added as a source regarding Denise Wilson’s participation in a group called Bon Jolais. According to the Wikipedia article we are discussing, she toured with the group Bon Jolais from 1987 onward. It would be odd if she were written about in 1976, eleven years before she toured with them. Perhaps an article title and author would help clear things up. Novaseminary (talk) 03:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was not the one who put in the content about the Midnight Special broadcasts and so I do not know the specifics. But in a note about both "good faith" and an example of what you have been doing to this article, you essentially said you only checked (the three months of) 2010, and because you didn't see them there you deleted the notability-related reference a second time. All in the middle of deletion discussion that you started! How can you come to that conclusion about the other years? While one could argue that the reference needs to be more specific, imperfection is not grounds for deletion of a reference, doubly so (both times) without prior discussion. And then, based on you not finding it in the 5% of that reference that you checked, you make the statement above that "one reference that I again removed, doesn't even mention the group at all" which, to put it very kindly, is putting an unsupported statement into this discussion.

The cited 3 pages in Newsweek magazine were photos of Denise Wilson performing. The first one was on the "table of contents" page of the magazine rather than in the article. The is certainly relevant cite to establishing the beginning of her performances in the USA, although the wording might need to be changed to reflect that rather than Bon Jolais.

In my discussion section notes on the LaSalle Expedition re-creation. I didn't write or imply anything about Reid Lewis being Michael Lewis. What I wrote about was Denise Wilson participating in the European and Egypt tour associated with that expedition / re-creation. DougT1235 (talk) 11:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Folks, this isn't a general discussion board. So I will try to keep this to a minimum. We should focus on what WP guidelines this article could be notable under. Doug, please do put in a specific link to whatever playlists this group has appeared on. The link I removed itself was labeled as the 2010 playlists with links to each playlist from this year (each of which I clicked on and checked) and additional links to similar pages of links to playlists from other years (therefore indirectly pointing to over ten years of individual playlists on individual pages). It would be like putting a link to time.com as a reference to somebody having appeared in Time magazine. As for the Newsweek magazine, as I requested before, what was the title of the article? Was it about her or just a photo that included her (in high school or maybe junior high school, I presume). Please do correct the citation to reflect what it is actually supporting or correct or add text that the citation does support. That is perfectly appropriate (and good!) during an AfD. I realize you are both new, and that is just fine, so for more on how to comment on AfDs like this, please see WP:AFDEQ and the section below that one. Novaseminary (talk) 14:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "one reference that I again removed, doesn't even mention the group at all" I looked back just 1 1/2 months into 2009 in that reference and they were mentioned (broadcast) 4 times in that nationally syndicated radio program. I added exact links to the exact pages. North8000 (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great, and I've now fixed and fleshed out those the references. The playlists you added, though, are not to "national" XM radio version of the show, only to the local version. All these are is proof that 4 times this group's music has played on local radio stations. Novaseminary (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that calling th largest market classical and folk station in Chicago (with listening area in at least 3 states) and Wisconsin Public Radio (which broadcasts simultaneously on WPR stations across the state "local" is spin at best. North8000 (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm the original creator and most frequent editor of this article. On March 111th I made my FIRST edit on a different article (Carrie Newcomer), which reverted a large deletion by Novaseminary and I made the following comment. "Undid prior revision (which) deleted 4 external links with no specific reason cited, only a vague reference to a policy. Policies are to improve articles, not to detract from them". Within a few days Novoaseminary placed on-article top of article issue tags on every (or nearly every) article that I recently edited. And on this article they placed 5 top-of-main article issue templates, including a nomination for deletion, plus a 6th on the image used, plus about 20 "reference needed" tags within the article itself. And, just before and after nominating it for deletion they removed large amounts of notability related material. The "Midnight Special" broadcast note by DougT is typical of this. Essentially large deletions of notabiliity related material and references for minor or not established reasons, with no prior discussion. While even without this the article indicates notability, but trying to recover it from this barrage, plus make additions plus dealing with the deletion nomination is a huge burden for a volunteer to handle quickly in available free time. It is much easier to destroy than to build. Due to all of this it will take a few weeks to get the article with material added and in good shape for a discussion such as this. This is not how Wikipedia is supposed to be. North8000 (talk) 14:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While not terribly relevant, I would note that I deleted a handful of ELs that violated various specific parts of WP:ELNO from Carrie Newcomer with an edit history noting why. North8000 reverted, as he mentioned. I then re-removed each of the offending links as a separate edit with a specific pointer to the guideline prong each violated. It struck me that the editor was unfamiliar with Wikipedia, yet bold (which is, of course, generally good), so I followed his edit history and saw the scores of edits to this article and took a look. The article, as it existed then was in rough shape. As one can see, the references were added by superscripting numbers to point to hand numbered references. The page also read like an advertisement for the group and I suspected a COI. In fact, the group's home page has a prominent link back to this article ("Learn more at Wikipedia!"). So I reworked the text, added fact tags (only after it became clear that the primary editor did not seem to understand the problems). On the talk page I asked for the primary editor (or anybody) to explain why the group meets WP:MUSIC. I was not convinced, so I made the nomination here.

Back to the reasons for deletion, it doesn't matter which version of the page one looks at, it is only the group's inherent notability that matters. I suggest that the group does not even possibly meet any prong of WP:MUSIC other than prong #1. They have not been on a covered, national tour, their CDs are self-released, etc. When looking at the references provided, I saw that one was from a college magazine (which are explicitly mentioned in prong #1 as not fulfilling it) and another seemed to be a local free magazine that did not have a link. The rest were reviews, or even less relevant, playlists from local historical music programs. Taken together, I think these do not come even close (assuming the articles say what they are purported to say since they are not widely available to verify) to meeting prong #1 (or any of general notability criteria). The Newsweek article that this other new editor happened to have lying around from 1976 is a possibility for a RS, but we don't know even the title of the article is or what it dealt with. The individual it supposedly mentions, Denise Wilson of this group, did not graduate from college until 1981 (per the article, which does not cite anything for that proposition, so it may not be true). It is not clear what this potential source refers to or why she is in it. So, even if it is a valid RS dealing with the right person, we don't know if its coverage was non-trivial to meet prong 1 (and it is still only one, not multiple, as required by prong #1, but I admit it would go a long way toward prong #1 if Newsweek writes about somebody).

Novaseminary (talk) 14:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I don't think this article is well-matched to the "academics" AfD forum. (I guess the connection is that the wife has a PhD, but she evidently works as an administrative assistant, according to one of the Purdue alumni newsletters.) What I do see is that the sources here are really poor. Article is filled with "fact" tags and most of the references seem to be nothing more than websites. A few point to what seem to be pretty obscure publications, e.g. "Muzzle Blasts", although I admit that this may reflect my own biases (glad to be corrected). The scouting magazine ref is probably reliable, but when you check the text, it's only a trivial mention, "...and attending a campfire featuring folk-music duo Traveler’s Dream and professional storyteller Bob Valentine" – hardly substantive coverage. I think with the fascinating breaching experiment pointed out to us recently by BrownHairedGirl in another AfD, there's absolutely no justification for keeping BLPs without WP:RS. This article seems to have a really long way to go. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 19:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

This article seems to be double posted in both musical groups and academic. I did not put i there. I'm assuming that you are responding under academic. I think that their notability is 2/3 as a musical group and 1/3 as historical/teaching/academic. This posting would make it appear to be evaluating / standing alone as if it were just academic, which is certainly not the case. Notability should be evaluated as a musical group but with some extra consideration for the academic/ teaching/ historical component. Any support regarding that aspect would be appreciated. Otherwise Britney Spears and Lady Ga Ga could beat them hands down.  :-) North8000 (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I get what you are saying, but I can tell you that there's no provision in WP for "splitting" notability as you want to do, e.g. 2/3 music and 1/3 academic. Rather, they must exclusively pass at least (any) one of the standard notability tests, e.g. WP:PROF, WP:MUSIC, etc. (There are lots of them.) A quick glance confirms that they do not pass WP:PROF (hence my comment above). My main point is that the references here are really thin and this could also kill the article, as it discusses living individuals. For example, this article was deleted just yesterday for precisely this reason. It would probably be good to review WP:BLP for anyone who's not already familiar with it. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete. Clear failure of WP:Prof, looks too thin for WP:Music but I am open to correction. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Comment - DougT1235 has been trying to improve the article and there is now a source listed as the Niles (Michigan) Gazette. (How he has Newsweek articles from 1976 and local Michigan newspapers from 1991 around is anyone's guess.) Unfortunately, all I can find about the Niles Gazette publication is this Library of Congress listing. So even if it is real in more recent history, it would appear to be a minor publication at best. And the Newsweek article still strikes me as doubtful. I wonder if the article isn't photos of the bicentennial in which Ms. Wilson happens to appear as a member of a local fife band, rather than an article about her or her old fife band. All in all, even with the new sources, I still think the group and its member fail WP:MUSIC #1. Novaseminary (talk) 02:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting Statements Regarding Removal of the Tag/Template

The WP instructions say that the way to object to the proposed deletion is to remove the proposed deletion notice, (I object to the proposed removal) But the notice placed on this article says "do not delete". Does anybody know which it is? North8000 (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:PROD and WP:AFD are two different animals. This article is now being debated in Afd and the tag must stay on the article. In Prod, there is no debate and the article is deleted after the waiting period if there are no objections raised (like deleting the tag). In practical terms, this means that an admin will examine the debate once it's concluded and either retain or delete this article on that basis. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for the explanation and clarification! North8000 (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have my main comments and response in a couple of days

I was the originator or the article and am it's more frequent editor. I think that it is clear that they at least triply fulfill the requirements for notability. For the reasons above, it will take me 2-3 days to provide a thorough answer. Since today is only the third day of it's AFD nomination, I assume that I will have provided that sufficiently early. North8000 (talk) 19:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• FWIW I would concentrate on establishing that the newsweek source gives substantive coverage of these folks (not just a brief mention, or appearing accidentally in a picture), otherwise I'd say there's not much of a case for notability. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I'm the one that put that in. And reiterating and clarifying what I said above, these are three pages in the bi-centennial issues showing Wilson performing. Theses are her specificialy, not her in a group or crowd. And no, it is not a three page article about her specifically in the bi-centennial edition of Newsweek. DougT1235 (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is a KEEP paragraph inserted by 99.142.29.115 North8000 (talk) 03:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without a doubt all of the turmoil and blatant attacks that have been imbued on Traveler's Dream is something more than nothing of a parasitic direct attack. I am a HUGE fan of Traveler's Dream and this article I have read about them is ALL FACTUAL. Their are no misleadings or corners cut about them, infact I know that this article is FACTUAL WITHOUT A DOUBT. They are a very inspiring music group as well as a book of knowledge on how the voyageurs lived and traveled. I would like it if we all got to vote instead of just having some angry person trying to be powerful and get their own way. Why not and vote and I know for sure that Wikipedia will KEEP this page. God bless all who speak the truth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.142.29.115 (talk) 23:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend Keeping the article. The musical group Traveler's Dream is unique with it's historic music from of early American songs and tunes from the Celtic lands, Quebec, and America. They play a wide array of instruments and have good mix of traditional and original songs, with Irish and French-Canadian and folk music from the British Isles. They have impressive skills as multi-instrumentalists. The group is notible and the article should be kept. Karle10 (talk) 12:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Main Presentation on Established Traveler's Dream Notability by North8000

(Please put any comments after, i.e. not have them split up my presentation)

I was the originator of this article, and am one of its more frequent editors. This article has been through a lot within the last two weeks. I won’t repeat my previous concerns regarding the sequence that culminated in the AFD nomination, sufficed to say that I don’t believe that weight should be given to the mere fact that it was nominated. It IS important to understand the recent sequent of events for this article. Within a span of a few days, this sleepy little ½ year old article, was hit with (all from the same person) five top level issue tags, about 20 “citation needed” tags on an article that was already reasonably well referenced, and had its image tagged for deletion in 7 days for me not having proven the obtained and clearly stated permission. Also, immediately after nominating it for deletion, the same person who nominated it deleted large amounts of notability related material for secondary reasons (e.g. for being referenced from the lead, links not being deep enough etc.). Subsequently I resolved the secondary issues to get most of the deleted notability related material and references restored, and much new material and many new references have been added. The comments already in the AFD page were made prior to this restoration and expansion.

The Wikipedia notability standards for bands essentially require that one of the listed criteria be met, with allowance exception in either direction. I submit that, based on material and reference in the article, that Traveler’s Dream meets seven (7) thus based on those alone, meets the notability requirements seven (7) times over. Moreover, they have substantial historical, academic notability outside of music, which, their notability on all of the other 7 categories disappeared, such other considerations are in the intent of the header wording of the policy.

Most importantly, PLEASE read the article. It is not long! And please peruse the references. Statements in here are from (not repetitions) the article and references.

Criteria within the First Group of 12

This first section refers to and is numbered by the 12 points in the top section in the policy.

Keep, based on meeting Criteria #1 The article alone cites seven (7) publishings by 6 different magazine s and one municipal newspaper that meet the criteria for item #1. One is the leading folk music publication of England, two are the leading the leading folk music publications of the USA, one is one of the two leading national (USA) historical re-enactment publications, one (albeit only a photo, caption and brief mention) is of the national adult leader magazine of the Boy Scouts of America, one is a prominent specialty magazine of Lafayette, IN, and the other was an in-depth article by a municipal newspaper.

These 7 do NOT include the cited Newsweek Magazine with pictures on three pages specifically of Denise Wilson performing (excluded from #1 because it was prior to Traveler’s Dream). And they do NOT include the article in the Purdue Krannert School of Business Magazine, excluded per the item 1 criteria because it is a university magazine.

Keep, based on meeting Criteria #6 Without repeating the entire sections on Wilson and Lewis, they show that Both Wilson and Lewis are independently notable from prior work.

Keep, based on meeting Criteria #7 In the area of historical folk music they not only fulfill the “prominent representative” require for their city as required,, but do so for the entire central USA. In addition to what is cited in the articles of the above publication, cites also include theme being a lead performer at the 50,000+ person Feast of the Hunter’s moon, arguably the largest of its type in the country. Cites also include broadcast on the “The Midnight Special” (4 times in a search of a mere 6 weeks of play lists ) arguably the most noteworthy USA folk music radio program, and one cite is for broadcast statewide on the Wisconsin Public Radio Network stations.

As a sidebar, under #12, one of Lewis’s previous bands was the subject of an hour long PBS television special, but that was not with Traveler’s Dream.

Criteria within the 5 criteria for "composers and performers outside mass media traditions"

Now on to the next group, which is the 5 criteria for inclusion under “composers and performers outside mass media traditions:” I don’t think that there would be any argument that folk music and historical-heavy folk music meets this criteria.

Keep, based on meeting Criteria #1. Several of the cited sources have said this about them.

Keep based on meeting criteria #3 “Has established a tradition or school in a particular genre” One that I would cite most specifically is French-American based historical music from the period 350 years ago until about 175 years ago including Voyageur Music. I have watched / sought that field extensively…….hey have not only established, I have never seen an equal despite having sought and searched extensively.

Keep based on criteria #4. Has composed a number of melodies, tunes or standards used in a notable genre, or tradition or school within a notable genre. Previous deleters have chided me for even listing their songs much less the writing credits. I have reviewed them, and at least half of the songs on their 4 CD’s were written by them, most of the other half being significant arrangements (by them) of historic songs.

Keep based on Criteria #5 Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture. Without repeating all of them, I think that cites in the article clearly establish this.

Overview under policy header criteria and Closing

So, the above established that Traveler’s dream meets SEVEN of the criteria, and they are only required to meet one of them. If we were to imagine that eligibility under each and every one of the seven were to magically vanish, there would be a case fulfillment under an 8th criteria which is that if anything met the criteria of the intent of the “normally” wording header of the policy, the other academic and historical dimensions of Traveler’s dream would be it.

From someone who has searched two of the genres for decades, since Stan Rogers died, there has been no one in public light that does the seafaring genre of that style as well as Lewis. And, even from a simply musical performance standpoint, I’ve not seen anyone attempt what they do with Voyageur Music and early French-American Music, much less have a vocalist (Wilson) who is a PhD historian in the same field as the music, and, on a related note, can and does switch concerts all in French for such occasions. It also establishes her as havign performed publicly in this genre for 39 years, and, though a wide array of items in the time line, a prominent and active person in this genre for over 30 years. This adds a whole dimension not only to their notability, but also to what the article offers the readers in this dimension.

I submit that the article and it’s references, summarized above, establish that Traveler's Dream, meets WP notabilty criteria 8 times over vs. the requirement for meeting just one of them. North8000 (talk) 11:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - End of North800's presentation - - - - —Preceding unsigned comment added by North8000 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't see that many of the above claims are borne-out by the references. The latter fall basically into 4 categories: (1) sources that are from publications of various levels of obscurity (e.g. Niles Gazette, Muzzle Blasts, the Purdue PR/alum publication "Krannert Magazine", Wilson's thesis, etc.) that don't seem, by themselves, to satisfy "multiple non-trivial published works", for example Helen Magazine appears to be a local "what's happening"-type of PR-glossy that the merchants of Lafayette Indiana furnish for free, (2) sources that very plainly are trivial coverage according to WP:MUSIC, e.g. playlists like this one, the article in Scouting Magazine, the sum-total of coverage here being "The course’s first day included ... attending a campfire featuring folk-music duo Traveler’s Dream and professional storyteller Bob Valentine", the ArtistDirect webpage of Carrie Newcomer's CD, etc., (3) hits to their own website, which are clearly not subject independent, and (4) the Newsweek source. In my view, the whole case hinges on the Newsweek source, in particular what the nature of the coverage is. I've asked about this above, to which DougT1235 replied "these are three pages in the bi-centennial issues showing Wilson performing. Theses are her specificialy, not her in a group or crowd. And no, it is not a three page article about her specifically in the bi-centennial edition of Newsweek". Glad to be corrected if I'm wrong, but this sounds like a case where her likeness appears incidentally as part of a larger event that was actually the focus of the coverage. If that source doesn't actually mention her by name and say something substantive specifically about her, then this may be nothing more than a case of being in the right place at the right time to have your picture taken. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 18:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Hello Agricola44. Of the 22 references at the end of the article, there were 15 that I did NOT use (and were not in my description of those used) and you just listed 14 of the 15 as if I HAD used them. You are also making up different criteria for some of the others which is not in the WP standard. And on the one of the 7 that was borderline (small amount of coverage and a photo but in a magazine with 1,000,000 circulation and 3,100,000 readers) I specifically mentioned the small amount of coverage and you repeated what I said. Respectfully North8000 (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I discussed the refs that are in the article as it currently stands – those are the ones (and the only ones) that matter. If you feel that 15 of them don't have a place there, then please feel free to remove them. I'm not an expert on this particular musical group, but I do know what constitutes WP:RS and what the closing admin will look for in order to make a decision. FWIW, I'm not making up criteria. The admin will indeed consider whether coverage is "trivial" or "non-trivial" and, moreover, a subject's own website typically does not pass for WP:RS. I'm telling you the way to save your article here, which is to focus on the Newsweek piece. Substantive coverage here could clinch it and some of the panelists seem to know a lot about it and could probably give a precise description very easily. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Just to clarify, I did not say that the "15" of the 22 were not good as references, I said that I did not use them in the 7 I used for criteria #1. And that you went through 14 of the 15 as if I had used them in the 7 for criteria #1. And to clarify, I was talking about you "making up criteria" with respect to the sources (not the coverage)for the purposes of fufilling #1. This baffling recurring Newsweek tangent essentially repeating that this band's notability hinges on 3 pages of Wilson in the bi-centiennial edition of Newsweek Magazine being (unrealistically and contrary to what DougT said) an article about her seems to me to be a back door way to attempt to disparage the extensive and relevant notability related references and material. And, as I clearly stated, it was not used as one of the 7 cited publishings for fufillment of #1. North8000 (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Having read the material that has appeared on this page subsequent to my previous vote, my recommendation to delete is strengthened. The vast amount written here is quite out of relation to the trivial nature of the article and suggests obsessive COI. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

All are urged read this and the article time line closely, (including / especially how starting around March 11 to see how this all started) and all will see that there is certainly obsessionism and veiled animosity in play here, and it it not myself. It started with my gently criticizing a summary undiscussed bulk deletion on another article (not mine) , and now that person and the twin have made a life out of trying to kill this article. For example, spending huge amounts of time on every reference trying to find hairs to split and ways to "spin" it negative. It is a question of principle. right and wrong, and mental investment due to time and effort invested. North8000 (talk) 01:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I may reiterate, the Newsletter article is photos on three pages of Wilson performing, not an article about her. DougT1235 (talk) 01:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I may also reiterate, the academic references I added were to support historical statements and to support a statement about Wilson's focus. DougT1235 (talk) 01:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Despite the rather pointed personal criticism directed at me by DougT1235 and North8000, I likely would have changed to a weak keep if the Newsweek article had been about Wilson. DougT1235 just confirmed that it is not. I think Agricola44 and Xxanthippe have hit the nail on the head. There are only a couple of articles actually about the group or its members--where a summary of the article would even mention their name-- and those are in sources insufficient to get the group over the WP:MUSIC #1 hump (or general notability). All of the work done the last week by North8000 and DougT1235 and the significant personal interest they have taken in the article leads me to believe no better sources are to be found. Therefore, I am even more strongly of the opinion that the group fails notability. Novaseminary (talk) 02:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was about the fifth time that I said it.....for you to feign "discovery" at this point is indicative of the cleverness of your and Agricola44's assault on this article. It's clear that the two of you have each spent a huge amount of time going through the article and its references; and thus could not have missed what I said all of the other times. My compliments to both of you for your cleverness in making your passionate and on-objective assault on this article appear to be the opposite. DougT1235 (talk) 09:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how experienced you are personally with WP, but your account exists largely to promote/defend this article. (This is easy to check and I have done so.) The "huge amount of time going through the article and its references" is actually an unwitting compliment – If the collective effort were available, all WP:BLPs would get this level of scrutiny. Such care/accuracy/thoroughness is what characterizes any first-rate reference work, which I'm sure is what we all desire WP to be. (This is quite obvious when you stop to think about it for a moment.) This whole thread gives the perception of canvassing and/or puppetry, but what is more clear here is that several parties do not understand the well-established notability guidelines by which AfD (and WP itself more broadly) operate. Instead, we're treated to the usual accusations and innuendos of those who have, at the very least, a strong emotional sense of ownership/entitlement in a particular article. Closing admin shall please note these points in the decision process. I think it's clear now that there's nothing substantive in the Newsweek source and, consequently, nothing substantive overall with respect to non-trivial WP:RS. This points squarely to a delete. Thanks and over-and-out. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 13:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Keep this article. I am a friend of North8000's, and so I am not going to repeat a lot of stuff. The ad hominem points in both directions are probably slightly needed, as they establish that that there are no objective parties amongst the major participants here, just some that hide it and some that don't. In my biased opinion, North's main presentation seems to most thoroughly and directly deal with the question. I actually am more concerned about addressing the COI ineundo. North is an affectionado of all things Voyageur and many things Folk. About a year ago he started talking about these folks as being a rare find covering both, his wife having spotted them (for him) in a newspaper article saying that they were coming to town and play Voyageur music. Then he got into Wikipedia editing and put a lot into this article creating the second level of mental investment. Finally, I can tell you that what he has written about what some folks have been doing to this article in the last couple weeks is the mild version of what I have been hearing....basically that it is a skillfully camoflaged "revenge" situation. Which his his third motivation. I know what he does for a living and know that he has absolutely no conflict of interest. Well, there's my two cents, with all of my biases which I admit. 75.24.138.102 (talk) 12:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" statement follows: North8000 (talk) 22:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should keep this article. Just because a genre is narrow does not mean its frontrunners are not notable. As an avid conoeist and visitor of the Boundary Waters, I can personally attest to the importance and reach of Traveler's Dream's voyageur folk music. Their contributions--if not outright definition of the genre--merit recognition. 174.51.139.196 (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Would you care to tell us how it is that your only WP edit ever is so highly targeted and specific to this debate? You might also forgive us if we don't take your personal testimonial as WP:RS. BTW, folk music is anything but a narrow genre. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Agricola, you're getting a little over the top on this. None of us (not me, not you) would meet requirements as a WP:RS nor it is a requirement for participating in a discussion page. So you are incorrectly telling a newbie that what they did was wrong. North8000 (talk) 17:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Please do not confuse the entirely legitimate observations that I made above with telling someone "what they did was wrong" by giving a red-herring argument that those comments are somehow connected to permission to participate in a discussion. That's nonsense. The whole discussion seems rife with WP:COI and WP:CANVAS, which was my point. I agree with you that none of us: myself, you, nor our apparently canvassed friend qualify as WP:RS. You've just condensed this entire, long-winded thread down to its one salient point: there's not a single non-trivial source for this article. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 18:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I think that you clearly implied that to the poster. Since most Wikipedia users are viewers, not editors, I'm not sure who you think is worthy of participating. I would think that people who went to the article and saw the deletion notice would be the best possibility outside of of the short list of the main attackers and defenders. You have gone further over the top, saying so many baseless and clearly wrong things that I don't want to continue the length and pain of addressing them. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Please stop the patronizing "participation" argument – this is entirely irrelevant to notability issue. I'm not even going to address your continued attempts to dress me down with statements like "baseless and clearly wrong things". I get that you and DougT1235 have strong vested interests in this article's continued presence on WP. In fact, the DougT1235 account and your own North8000 account (this is your first user page) apear to both have been created specifically in the service of the Traveler's Dream article. I think we're all tired of belaboring this subject. I do not know what the ultimate verdict on this case will be, but I think what we now agree upon is that there's little likelihood of any new substantive details on Traveler's Dream surfacing and that there's not much point in this discussion continuing. Perhaps an admin could put us all out of our misery here. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I submit that this is more of the same, but how 'bout right here right now EVERYBODY just end making characterizations and mis-characterizations of people and their actions. I think that a little of that (at least items partially supported by the facts) needed to be said in order to provide context, but that point has long since been exceeded and it is degenerating. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The additional material that has been added does nothing to establish notability. Would those editors who have argued with such vehemence and prolixity for the retention of the article be able to say if they have any conflict of interest from connections with the subject? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Regarding your question, I already answered that directly on the article's talk page, as describing my roots of knowledge and materials (or lack thereof) but the short answer is NO, even if I accepted your misstatement which essentially claimed that any "connection" is WP:COI.

I found the post about 50 lines up by 75.24.138.102, self-stated as a friend of North's to be very informative regarding this. DougT1235 (talk) 00:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Main Comments by DougT

I think that I might be the #2 most frequent editor of this article, at least with respect to additions, and I have commented but not "weighed in" yet.

Please keep this article. They pass notability. My thoughts are as follows.

Regarding directly addressing the WP:Music notability criteria, I don't think that I could take the time to address it as thoroughly as North did, but my thoughts follow that. They essentially said that the article and it's references shows that the band meets 7 of the enumerated criteria (and only needs to meet one) plus argued that there it meets an 8th under the intent and wording under the preface. I "agree with knowledge" on most of those and agree on the few where I don't have the "with knowledge." The persons wanting this article gone really didn't even make an attempt to specifically refute any of them except for #1 of the the firstgroup of 12, and that attempt was quite weak. The key requirements of #1 are having the sources sources meeting the delineated, and having the content being "non-trivial" and not falling under the other exclusions. North described 7 referenced "publishings" (actually technically 6) as meeting this criteria, including describing the 7 publications (all from the 22 references) as meeting the criteria, and 6 of those meeting the coverage criteria, most notably "non-trivial". North mentioned they included the 7th despite minimal coverage due to its 1,000,000 / 3,000.000 circulation. The main attempt to refute this misfired, as it basically attacked the 15 references which were not used for this as being unsuitable for that which they were not used for. So, basically, there was only one "misfire" attempt to refute only one of the 7 criteria asserted by North, and the band would need to meet only one of them to qualify under WP:Band.

My second thread relates more to what I know best, which is about 2001 and older with respect to Wilson and her previous history, bands and performances. Someone with only half of her stature, credentials, history, depth of knowledge would be more than notable and a leader and extremely prominent in the genre. Please read that section of the article which established this to a degree that I've never seen. And please see historical depth arising from their historical depth (I mean, a PhD historian in the very area of their historical music!), and the article, even though only 1/2 year old, is starting to develop in. If would be a travesty (plus contrary to to both WP's intent and specific standards) f this article were lost to Wikipedia readers. 02:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

End of DougT's main comments. - - - - - - - - DougT1235 (talk) 03:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You honestly have no idea what constitutes notability here, but (laughing) I really really admire your stamina and ability to tune out what you don't want to hear. Thanks :) Agricola44 (talk) 03:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

WP notability for this is well defined defined in WP:Music. North's main presentation was very focused on that, established it thoroughly using exactly those definitions and that standard. My main paragraph also exactly on that standard and definitions. My second paragraph was a sidebar, mostly focused on the area that I know best. If you would honestly review what you wrote in this AFD discussion, I think you would find that you have basically gone 90% off of that, consisting mostly of generalized swipes in all kinds of other directions and people. DougT1235 (talk) 11:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep comment follows by 76.217.90.208 which I am moving from the main article DougT1235 (talk) 10:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Traveler's Dream is a very influential group, and from time to time I have LEARNED many facts about what they had to say. I believe that one should attend atleast one concert/performance and feel the knowledge that comes out of not only of their instruments but their mouths. When i can't have this pleasure I seek the internet and this website was the 1st that I went to. I can tell you that all of this is CREDIBLE and people like Traveler's Dream SHOULD be KEPT on this site for others that are or will be inspired. For all of these FACTS to be in one place it is exciting to see and show others that are fans.

I recommend Keeping the article. The musical group Traveler's Dream is unique with it's historic music from of early American songs and tunes from the Celtic lands, Quebec, and America. They play a wide array of instruments and have good mix of traditional and original songs, with Irish and French-Canadian and folk music from the British Isles. They have impressive skills as multi-instrumentalists. The group is notible and the article should be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karle10 (talk • contribs) 11:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Admin please note that this account, Karle10, is another WP:SPA created to push this debate. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Update by North8000

I don't know when the discussion on this closes, but, after all of the subsequent posts, my main addressing of the core question would remain 98% as my original main presentation. In there I established that the group meets 7 of the enumerated criteria, where it only needs to meet one to need wp:notability. I submitted an unneeded "eighth" (for their extra historical and educational dimensions) under the header wording.

The opponents of the article really only talked about 1 of my 7 or 8 (Criteria #1 of the 12) I utilized 7 publishings (of the 22 references) said that 7 of the 7 met the WP:Music Source criteria, and that 6 of the 7 met the coverage criteria, noted the issue with the 7th regarding coverage, and described the reason (1,000,000/3,100,000 circulation) for still mentioning it in the seven. The respondent basically discussed 14 of the 15 references that I did NOT use, and only three that I did use, and (as I detaile already) tried a doubly wrong statement on them. The main point being that I think that my main presentation remains "standing", having establised meeting 7 of the WP:Music notability points, where they would need to meet only one to be considered WP notable. My (unneeded) eight point based on historical and educational is, of course, a matter of a judgementcall.

If there is one thing in the subsequent comments that would call for an update is something that I am so immersed in (Voyageur everything) that I did not really see it until pointed out by others. They are certainly one of the national leaders (if not the leader) in the performance of Voyageur music, doubled by their extensive historical knowledge behind that, and educational programs in that area. This goes to further reinforcing what I said under 5 of the seven criteria.

Finally, I would ask the closing administrator to look closely at the statement by the opponents. Swaddled in Wikipedia Acronyms and superficially polite wording is a lot of nasty, unsupported and off-topic stuff. The fact that in all of that going through the article and it's references with a fine toothed comb, everything that they said was negative proves that they had a vehemently held "mission" to kill this article, and that everything else was merely a means to an end rather than exploration of this question. The only "positive" thing said was about something that they already knew was non-existent.....that the three pages in Newsweek with Wilson's performances, 24 years before that band's existence would be the only thing relevant to notability, IF it was an article ABOUT her. This baffling red herring statement was bafflingly made by two of the opponents. It could also be said that I am similarly biased on this question, but I make no pretense otherwise.

I would be happy to go into more detail on any of the above. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep comment follows: North8000 (talk) 14:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to weigh in on this discussion. I am an Anthropologist who specializes in the Great Lakes Fur Trade Culture/Archeology field, and am a professional living history event coordinator. I have been familiar with Denise Wilson for 30 years. Denise and her groups, including Travelers Dream, are featured performers at an event I coordinate, the Feast of the Hunters' Moon, now in its 43rd year (www.tippecanoehistory.org) and have been for many years. We average 50,000 in public attendance at this two day event, so I would not consider this exposure "trivial." I coordinate the living history programming for the National Muzzle Loading Rifle Association's National Shoots and the Lore of the Laughery, their 18th century event. Denise and Travelers Dream are hired for both National Shoots and the Lore of the Laughery. Playing these three events brings them exposure to an audience of over 40,000 annually through the National Muzzle Loading Rifle Association's venues. The magazine that was mentioned as "obsecure," Muzzle Blasts, is the internationally distributed monthly publication of the National Muzzle Loading Rifle Association (www.nmlra.org). Denise and Co. have been playing at these three "NMLRA" venues for the last six years. I coordinate the Kalamazoo Living History Show, now in its 35th year, and Denise and Co. were featured performers at this venue, which attracts 10,000+. In the living history/museum community, Denise and her music are highly respected, and without peer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.95.62.123 (talk) 14:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC) — 69.95.62.123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Thanks for your personal testimonial. Given that the above is your only WP edit ever, might you kindly advise the group here how it was that you found this discussion? Thanks very much. Agricola44 (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

So Agricola44, how are people who are viewers (not editors) of Wikpedia to weigh in? They either don't get an account and called a mysterious IP, or do get an account in which case you call them an SPA? (as you did this one below) And all, of course you only jump them if they have a viewpoint different than yours. North8000 (talk) 17:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend Keeping the article. The musical group Traveler's Dream is unique with it's historic music from of early American songs and tunes from the Celtic lands, Quebec, and America. They play a wide array of instruments and have good mix of traditional and original songs, with Irish and French-Canadian and folk music from the British Isles. They have impressive skills as multi-instrumentalists. The group is notible and the article should be kept. Karle10 (talk) 15:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)— Karle10 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• This is again a WP:SPA entry, identical to the one above. I think it's probably time for a sock investigation. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

So Agricola44, how are people who are viewers (not editors) of Wikpedia to weigh in? They either don't get an account and called a mysterious IP, or do get an account in which case you call them an SPA or a sock? And all, of course you only jump them if they have a viewpoint different than yours. I think that the first one has already told us exactly who they are....forget the "sock investigation" inuendo, 3 minutes on Google would probably get you their name. North8000 (talk) 17:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I urge Wikipedia to KEEP the existing entry concerning Traveler's Dream. As an individual who has had a long-time interest in midwestern history and traditional music, I have enjoyed hearing Denise Wilson for nearly twenty years and Traveler's Dream for the past ten years or so. I have seen them perform at some of the most important state and nationally-organized historical events in several midwestern states. One example was the national signature event in St. Louis which kicked off the bicentennial celebration of the Lewis and Clark Expedition. This was attended by many thousands of people as well as important government dignitaries. Though performers of various kinds of historical music were flown in to participate, Traveler's Dream was the main, featured group. I have also heard them perform at historical conferences (state and national) and at some of the midwest's largest living history events (Fort de Chartres Rendezvous, Mississinewa 1812, and the Feast of the Hunter's Moon are some examples). It seems obvious to me, especially after reading the previous posting, that Traveler's Dream has earned a widespread reputation for the quality and historical accuracy of its musical performances and for its ability to research and play 18th century French music as well as the popular music of English-speaking peoples. I know of no other musicians (in the Midwest or elsewhere) who are as knowledgeable about the history surrounding the music they play and who have performed at so many varied kinds of historical, cultural, and educational events for over 20 years. With the unique contributions that Traveler's Dream has made towards preserving America's musical heritage through its live performances and recordings, the group clearly is "notable" and deserving of an entry in WP. Bluebell26 (talk) 16:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)— Bluebell26 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Admin please note that this account, Bluebell26, is yet another WP:SPA created to push this debate. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

So Agricola44, how are people who are viewers (not editors) of Wikpedia to weigh in? They either don't get an account and called a mysterious IP, or do get an account in which case you call them an SPA? And, of course you only jump them if they have a viewpoint different than yours. North8000 (talk) 17:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Plenty of information but nothing that I can see that meets the very specific requirements of WP:MUSIC. Wishful thinking about what those requirements might mean if they were stretched beyond usefulness doesn't add to a discussion about policy. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Enormous number of sources, virtually none of which have anything to do with this band. They support information related to prior performances by its members, cursory descriptive or playlist information (as opposed to actual reviews) or info on the genre, but they're basically a bunch of external links unrelated to the band. The few that do, as noted previously, appear to be college publications which are generally ignored for the purposes of WP:MUSIC. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 17:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone reverted the closure on this?

What is going on? 75.24.138.102 (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closure was non-admin and premature. Due to the involvement of numerous sock- and/or meat- puppets, waiting for admin closure is probably the best course. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 19:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) A non-admin closed the debate as "no consensus", which is in general not supported by WP:NAC, and the closure was reverted. I agree an admin should close this. Jujutacular ^T · C 19:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The same person who made their first appearance seconds before the close is also saying the unfounded ineundo, and also reverted the close. North8000 (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"seconds before the close" is misleading -- it's not like he knew I was going to close the debate slightly early. Speaking of "unfounded innuendo"... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you're right. The "deleters" have been the champions on this of trying to persuade by inuendo, but I think that I just did it too. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 20:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, does anybody know, if someone who is not an editor looks at an article, sees a AFD notice, sees the "Please share your thoughts on the matter at...." clicks and does so, ( I would think that that happens a lot) how do they go about not getting immediately beat up and called lots of bad names as new folks have been in this discussion? (other than agree with the nastiest people in the room). They're always encouragement to log in etc., but if they get an account just to to do so, is that first use automatically a "Single Purpose Account" and if so, is a SPA considered a bad thing? Or should they just participate with just their IP? Also, it it discouraged for a non-editor to participate in these? DougT1235 (talk) 00:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who can make a contribution rooted in policy is theoretically welcome to. But when it's clear that people are WP:CANVASSing (on or off wiki) or WP:SOCKing, and the contributors make keep or delete votes with no basis in policy, we can't treat them equally simply because it makes it too easy to game the system. Frankly, new editors are usually better off sticking to editing articles and vandal fighting. With experience, they move on to article creation and policy debates (e.g. AfD discussions). It's not that they're "lesser" it's that learning the policies and guidelines is as much a matter of osmosis as study. While AfD's aren't a vote in theory, it can be hard for a closing admin to determine the consensus (rooted in WP policy) when there appears to be a tide of keeps, so noting that the editors in question are too new to have a firm grasp of policy is a necessary evil. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 00:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. The "has made few or no other edits outside this topic." tag seems very factual and not beating them up. And I could see a reason for discounting them, particularly when there is little content. But personally I find them easier to read. There some really nasty people swathed in high edit counts and Wiki-talking and acronyms, and they are much harder to read. Maybe this particular AFD is particularly nasty. Instant accusation to score points. Looks like a very prominent person in that field wrote something, and basically even said who they are (took me just a few minutes of research to figure it out) and got very rude treatment in two comments (the reverse-referring next comment said they needed to get investigated as a sock.) I'm used to having heated debates even with good friends, but this place is nasty! DougT1235 (talk) 01:13, 1 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) 00:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stone Sour's third studio album[edit]

Stone Sour's third studio album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Unreleased unnammed album. Fails WP:CRYSTAL and falls foul of TenPoundHammer's Law. Duplicates material on the main article Stone Sour and no pressing reason why it needs a stand-alone article. Also WP:N concerns as the only independent source in the article which actually talks about this album is the Iconovision one. DustFormsWords (talk) 22:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - concur with nom. (GregJackP (talk) 22:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep - This does not fail WP:CRYSTAL:

  "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented." from WP:CRYSTAL

  It's notable because it's an album by a popular band, the release is almost certain to happen because sources verify that they've been writing and are now working in the studio on it.

  Nor have WP:N concerns:

  All the information provided is backed up with reliable third party sources, including interviews with the band members themselves despite the comments above. See Blabbermouth.net, Rock Sound and Noisecreep. REZTER ^TALK ø 23:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Not reliable sources. Woogee (talk) 00:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  How/why are they not reliable sources? They are all established, third-party websites/magazines in their respectful field (hard-rock music). REZTER ^TALK ø 16:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Let me summarise the sources:

1. [1] ""Our tentative plan is to start rehearsals for the new album in the fall of 2009, hit the studio at the beginning of 2010, and release around summer time."
2. [2] No mention of new album.
3. [3] "Stone Sour will probably go into the studio in January "for two or three months" to record its third album for a late spring/early summer."
4. [4] "They'll probably go into the studio in January for two or three months to get the record together."
5. [5] "Stone Sour has scrapped its previously announced plans to work with producer Rob Cavallo on the band's forthcoming third album. The group will now record the new CD in Nashville at Blackbird Studio with Grammy Award-winning producer Nick Raskulinecz. A summer release via Roadrunner Records is expected."
6. [6] "The band is currently aiming for an August 2010 release date."

Emphasis in all quotes is mine. Refer to the following quote from WP:CRYSTAL: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." "Almost certain" is a pretty high standard and is reserved for things like "the next US Presidential election" and "the next Olympic games". This speculation doesn't reach that standard. There's also still the issue that the article duplicates material at Stone Sour and no argument has been made as to why the material can't be appropriately covered in the existing article. Finally, the album is to be released on the Roadrunner label so I can't see how Blabbermouth.net - hosted on the Roadrunner servers - can possibly be considered an independent source for this news. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are used for more than just saying "this album is coming out on", they source information regarding writing and what the material they've been working on is like. Blabbermouth is only hosted by Roadrunner, not moderated. At the bottom it says "BLABBERMOUTH.NET is run and operated independently of Roadrunner Records. The accuracy of the information contained herein is neither confirmed nor guaranteed by Roadrunner Records, and the views and opinions of authors expressed on these pages do not necessarily state or reflect those of Roadrunner Records or its employees." [7]. I know this isn't used in the article but here's a video of the band talking about the album: [8] REZTER ^TALK ø 09:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blabbermouth may or may be independent, but if you go to a site hosted on the Roadrunner website and it has an article talking about when a new Roadrunner product is coming out you'd be pretty naive to believe that that was an independent editorial decision completely unaffected by where their servers were hosted. Or to put it another way; does it not strike you as odd that the majority of the coverage for this album emanates from a site hosted by the album's label? Regarding the sources, inasmuch as they talk about new music the band's working on, they're irrelevant, in that none of them say that material is going to be on the forthcoming album. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Gene93k. Also, not every future album is deleted, but we have been picky. Bearian (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to assume you mean per Rezter? Gen93k did not !vote. Public Juju ^T · C 17:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I see that the discussion is mixed. I retract my "keep". Bearian (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, standard WP:HAMMER/WP:CRYSTAL violation. If so little is known about an album that we can't even give its title, it is by definition not appropriate for an article. Filest (aktl) 08:56, 1 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Alfonso[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:N. No independent WP:RS sources found. Apparent vanity page. Company (and claim to fame) The Power of Information deleted 25 Jan 2010. Plutonium27 (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator; borderline candidate for CSD A7. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 23:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – I was also not able to find any reliable sources that would support WP:GNG notability, neither in Google News archives [9] nor elsewhere. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:32, 1 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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Control (music company)[edit]

Creative Control (music company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Delete as a non-notable company. The company is not listed in either Hoover's or Dun & Bradstreet. There is no coverage in secondary sources. The claimed notability is from work done by the partners at Lionsgate, and even then credit appears to be claimed for more than their work. There is no basis for notability. Bejnar (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 01:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete This was a clear hoax/nonsense and should have been listed at CSD. Rje (talk) 00:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zaheer ahmed sattar[edit]

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

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

obvious hoax Ssmcmahon9 (talk) 21:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete While not patent nonsense, it certainly is unsubstantiated and most likely unsubstantiatable. Vanity probably. Vandalism possibly. Lack of notability certainly. --Bejnar (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, nonsense. Woogee (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ramsgate Neighborhood[edit]

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

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

Non-notable neighborhood. Contested PROD. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 21:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Lacks notability, which it doesn't even attempt to assert. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete based on eye-witness accounts not sources. The neighborhood is Mandarin, Jacksonville, Florida. No merge necessary as aside from a homeowner's association, Ramsgate doesn't exist. --Bejnar (talk) 03:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Appears to be a sub-neighborhood of Mandarin with no special notability of its own. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 19:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deletion by Nyttend (talk · contribs) pursuant to CSD G7. (non-admin closure) --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 23:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Server Meltdown[edit]

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

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

Appreciate the Wikipedia interest, but every server issue is not notable event. Shadowjams (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I suppose you're right. --Iidan i (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per CSD G7 and so tagged - author has conceded to deletion (above). --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 23:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Deleted per G7. Nyttend (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Henderson[edit]

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

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

I went to try to add references to this BLP, I'm not an expert in the area but couldn't find any reliable sources - which makes me worry about notability. — Rod ^talk 20:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete although the article appears sourced, the items linked do not stand for the propositions asserted. For example, for the 2007 award at the Surrey Film Festival it links to a Surrey Film Festival website that doesn't have 2007 festival information. Surely if he is notable there should be coverage in reliable secondary sources. The Moth (band) article that is linked is not Henderson's band, but an American one. Nothing found linking Ben Henderson with Moth or Boa in Lexis/Nexis news search. --Bejnar (talk) 03:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Benjar. I went in to the article and checked the references, with the same result. Evalpor (talk) 01:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I have corrected the surrey film festival award link now. Its here. Close the Door has indeed won the best animation award in the festival. But i am not able to tell how Henderson is connected with the film as the award winner is listed as "Sean Phelan".--Sodabottle (talk) 05:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Thank you for correcting the link, Sodabottle. According to Henderson's myspace blog, Tuesday, May 29, 2007 Sean Phelan was enlisted to help make the Close the Door music video by Ben Henderson who scripted the video, and created the animation and models and the music for the video along with Tina Henderson. There is an inactive USA band called Moth that are not to be confused with the working UK band Moth. I have created a basic Moth uk page to avoid ambiguity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cubinoid (talk • contribs) 20:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless some sources are found that demonstrate notability. I can't see any independent reliable coverage or any evidence that he meets WP:MUSIC. Even if there's a reliable source that he won the award, I'm not sure that it counts as a major award. Also, looks like User:Cubinoid has a conflict of interest based on Henderson's myspace address and the Youtube channel.--BelovedFreak 23:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Re: above. Apologies, I was merely thanking Sodabottle for verifying and fixing the link. I didn't realize that making a comment would be a conflict of interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.213.178 (talk) 00:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're perfectly free to comment here and can argue for the article to be kept if you want. I was referring to the fact that you seem to be connected to the subject of the article, and therefore have a conflict of interest in creating the article.--BelovedFreak 10:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COMP8440 Free and Open Source Software Development[edit]

COMP8440 Free and Open Source Software Development (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Contested Prod and Prod2. Not notable. GregJackP (talk) 20:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no sign at all this is notable, despite claims to the contrary. Hairhorn (talk) 22:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The course is notable. It is one of the first courses in the world to successfully teach and initiate students in to open source and free software. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.166.22.97 (talk) 00:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The course was first taught in 2009, so it is not even close to being the first to teach and introduce students to FOSS. The article needs references to establish WP:N --Nuujinn (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What does "one of the first" mean exactly? Second? Tenth? Let's see some refs that say one or the other, notability needs references to back it up. And even if it were one of the first, I'm still not convinced that would make it notable. I once took an entire philosophy seminar course on split-brain phenomena, I doubt there have been more than 3 or 4 courses like this ever, but that doesn't mean it merits an encyclopedia entry. Hairhorn (talk) 00:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately "It is one of the first courses in the world to successfully teach and initiate students in to open source and free software" does not relate at all to Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I strongly recommend the editor who wrote that to read those guidelines and try to find evidence of satisfying them, if they want the article to be kept. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete --Nuujinn (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No independent sources have been provided about this course. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Independent sources have now been added Abartlet (talk) 00:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no sign of usefulness. 76.66.194.32 (talk) 04:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is a total lack of any evidence of notability. Also, even if notability were established, the article in its present form is nothing more than a quotation from a course prospectus, and not suitable as an encyclopedia article. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not windows related, but yet meets the pokemon test so please delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.37.97 (talk) 11:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just because this cause was not taught in the USA does not mean its notable. It appears that the english version has been developing a severe bias towards the USA recently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.37.97 (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What does the location of the course have to do with it? A course taught in the US would have problems with notability also. (GregJackP (talk) 01:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I must disagree if, it was a course offered by an american university and not relating to open source software it would be notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.166.22.97 (talk) 02:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Just because it is a course does not mean it's notable.  fetchcomms☛ 21:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted at author's request. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The European Drawer Rack (EDR)[edit]

The European Drawer Rack (EDR) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

I put 'The' at the beginning of title, looks very bad in category listing, made a new article, without the 'The', this article is obsolete duplicate. Sorry, will not happen again. ThorX (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted (G7, author's request) by Nyttend. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 14:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shaheed Mohammed (Entrepreneur)[edit]

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

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

No evidence of notability in this article, most of the links/citations are irrelevant. Doesn't seem to be any secondary coverage available. Cassandra 73 (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleted under G7. Nyttend (talk) 13:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transforming Teacher Education[edit]

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

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

Contested prod. Article is an OR essay. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. (GregJackP (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEPThe article is a valid Wikipedia topic, and is a discussed topic in the field of education. Referencing of materials needs to be moved from the end of the article to proper citation form (which it seems is being done). Much of the information in the article has now been cited, and does reflect the material presented in the sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.85.67.183 (talk) 18:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as origional research and pov fork. any contributors which feel any content is sourced and important and not already mentioned on WP, can add it to the article on teacher education, possibly in a new subsection. "Transforming" is a dead giveaway for deletion, unless there is a book by this title, which then started a whole school of thought using this specific phrase. too general a name and subject, though of course the subject is obviously important and notable (again, belonging in the main article).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This rambling, semicoherent essay doesn't seem to have a single central encyclopedic topic at all. In the best case, it might eventually be cleaned up enough to become OR-by-synthesis. Wikipedia is not at all the place for this kind of material. -- Rbellin|Talk 01:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Agree with Rbellin. The title and contents of *this* article as it stands now conflicts with WP:SOAP by WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV. There is a field of study called Transformative Teacher Education and some of the citations referenced in this article do fit into that article.  kgrr ^talk 13:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There's still a decent consensus that this material may well belong on Wikipedia and that it can be sufficiently sourced. I would suggest that if a transwikied version on Wiktionary could be shown to be performing a similar function in a more appropriate place, people may be more amenable to deleting this article in future - as it is, many participants aren't convinced that that's the case, and hence this article is staying. Demonstrate how this material can be better integrated into Wiktionary, and the desire to preserve the material on Wikipedia may change. ~ mazca ^talk 20:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of names in English with counterintuitive pronunciations[edit]

List of names in English with counterintuitive pronunciations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Definitely interesting, but with completely arbitrary inclusion criteria and an essentially WP:OR bias. Virtually impossible to source or maintain all entries. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The "arbitrary inclusion" complaint of the nominator is valid as things stand, given the number of unsourced contributions from "drive-by" editors. But, since when is the hope of pre-empting bad editing a reason for deletion? Definitive sources, such as The Oxford BBC Guide to Pronunciation ISBN 9780192807106 and The Cambridge English Pronouncing Dictionary ISBN 9780521680882 are available. Applying the WP:VERIFY principle more strictly would be an answer. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per arguments advanced by and sources noted by User:S Marshall in the second AFD. Books aplenty have discussed names and words in English with counterintuitive pronunciations. Edison (talk) 21:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Considering this the third deletion request, there are plenty of arguments for "keep" in the first two requests. My fear is that the process eventually will lead to a delete vote, which, unlike the multiple keep decisions, is "for keeps". Faulty system. At any rate, improvement is necessary (weeding, better defining what is counterintuitive, and in-line referencing), but it can be done. We've discussed the use of pronunciation dictionaries like the Cambridge and Longman Pronunciation Dictionaries (ISBN 0582364671) once to define "counterintuitive". Afasmit (talk) 21:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would repeated attempts to secure a "delete" result be a form of the deprecated forum shopping, or is it valid to see whether the consensus has changed?--Old Moonraker (talk) 21:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's always valid to see whether consensus has changed. On the other hand, deletion of an article is strongly unidirectional wrt consensus, since once it is gone (and assuming no deletion review), there's not really a forum for assessing consensus to bring it back. If it is re-created, it could be nixed by a single new article patroller, with no chance for discussion.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I wonder if the format of this list makes it difficult to supply appropriate references and encourages unsourced drive-by additions etc. Assuming suitable references can be found, would something like the following make it easier to keep the list focused, robust and verifiable?... Just a thought, with no keep/delete rationale – sorry if that's not very helpful! (Note the inclusion of sound clips, which would make the list more useful in the event of its being kept.) Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name	Location	IPA	US Notation	Sound Clip	Notes	Refs
Aigburth	Liverpool	/ˈɛɡbərθ/	ĕg′·bûrth	Aigburthⓘ		[1]
Cuckfield	West Sussex	/ˈkʊkfiːld/	kŏŏk′·fēld		Compare nearby Uckfield, pronounced /ˈʌkfiːld/	[2]
Happisburgh	Norfolk	/ˈheɪzbrə/	hāz′·brə	Happisburghⓘ		[3]

• Delete This violates WP:NOT in several ways, being too indiscriminate, dictionary material and wrong. And the counterintuitive concept is too open to debate. For example, consider Angus and Los Angeles. I pronounce one with a hard g and the other with a soft. But what accent are we using to determine pronunciation - American, Scottish, English or what? And is this counterintuitive when my pronunciation of these seems quite intuitive to me? There are just too many open questions. Colonel Warden (talk) 02:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per Colonel Warden above. NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ msg • changes) 02:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's never going to be GA, but Colonel Warden doesn't understand the word "counterintuitive": counterintuitive would be if the 'g' in Angus were pronounced /k/. kwami (talk) 03:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment shouldn't this be on Wiktionary? 76.66.194.32 (talk) 04:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, again. It's been less than a year since the last nomination, and no new arguments have been brought forward. Most entries can be sourced to published dictionaries (this hasn't been done yet, but it could: the Longman Pronunciation Dictionary, Kenyon & Knott, Merriam-Webster Geographical and Biographical Dictionaries, etc., list a lot of these pronunciations), so it's not true that it's "Virtually impossible to source or maintain all entries." And I think we're doing a good job of letting common sense and talk-page discussion decide what is and what isn't counterintuitive. +Angr 08:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this is a topic of potential encyclopedic interest to some people, thus I see no reason to forcibly move it to a dictionary (since this isn't really a series of definitions), or otherwise make our readers jump through hoops to find the information. To argue against the points for deletion so far:
  • Original research should be removed, the article has citations, why delete all of it to remove a small amount of problematic material? Additionally, if you are claiming that the pronounciations are original research, surely not. We could just add any good dictionary to the citation list to arbitarily "prove" they are pronounced in that way if we want to I suppose.
  • Is it really indiscriminate? I think it has a focussed topic which it follows well in an informative and encyclopedic manner. Sure, there are things to improve, but I don't think this fails our inclusion requirements.
  • Is it dictionary material? It isn't a series of definitions, it infact studies the pronounciation of the language which may go against what one would assume. That doesn't strike me as dictionary material, and I feel this would not be suitable for Wiktionary.
  • It's "wrong". I am unsure I follow this point. There are citations, if some of the information is wrong, fix it, don't delete it.
  • No real comment can be made on "per above", other than a reply of see my reasoning above I suppose. Please do remember this is a discussion, not a vote. --Taelus (talk) 08:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete + transwiki Simple surnames or first names in the wikipedia as a subject for an article are off-topic/disamb pages, so I don't see the point of lists of them either. This would be much better as an appendix in Wiktionary because they allow simple names as articles. If it has been placenames, product names or whatever that are specific to one thing that would have been fair enough to have a list of it here, since they're valid topics, but invalid in Wiktionary. So overall although there's AFAIK no specific policy that seems to be the cleanest way to think about it; the topic is much more dictionary-like than encyclopedic.- Wolfkeeper 12:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/split/transwiki Article is mostly about specific placenames, given that placenames are on topic as part of articles on places, it seems OK to keep it. The list of surnames and first names should be transwikied to wiktionary; all of those link to it anyway. Surnames and first names are largely offtopic here. I don't think there's any specific policy though about lists like this.- Wolfkeeper 13:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Better to fix than to delete.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  And how do you propose fixing this list, which has no clear criteria for inclusion, is original research, and lacks secondary sources? Filest (aktl) 08:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per my argument in the previous AfD: if the potential problems those wishing to delete the article foresee were real, they would surely have appeared by now. —Soap— 18:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What makes you think that the problems have not already appeared? The article is largely unsourced and its content is already contentious. It seems to be a prima facie violation of all our core policies: WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV and a bunch of other policies besides like WP:DICDEF and WP:NOT. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The basic concept for this page is sound although I do agree more precise guidelines on what constitutes counterintuitive should be ironed out. The fact that they haven't yet been ironed out is insufficient to be a general condemnation of the article itself. Note: I grow weary of the call for any article with vaguely lexical content to be shunted into Wiktionary. nohat (talk) 00:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there is ample evidence that english is the most inconsistent language regarding spelling and corresponding pronunciation. something like a 60% reliability, which means that spelling bees are really memorization tests, and irrelevant in any other language. thus, this makes this article a potential compendium of nearly half the words in english, esp. most of the borrowed terms. i could see this as a list for words in other languages on other wikipedias. I dont see how this could possible be given reasonable inclusion criteria. "counterintuitive" not appropriate for an article title.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Would it be timely to remind contributors that the point of the article under review is the pronunciation of some unusual proper names and not general lexicography? --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, that is an extremely good point! In fact, this is almost the inverse of general lexicography, because it's not about spelling English (non-name) words, it's about how there are these English names whose whose pronunciations-vs-spellings would be extremely surprising if these were (non-name) words. There is nothing in any of the regularities or subregularities noted in DW Cummings's American English Spelling that would lead one to believe that a (hypothetical) quirpon is a /ˈkɑrpuːn/. Thus, the oddity of Quirpon→/ˈkɑrpuːn/ is a fact worth noting.Sean M. Burke (talk) 11:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• But why would you expect that an American spelling guide will tell you anything relevant to the pronunciation of a place in Canada? Maybe that's your intuition but that tells us nothing about the intuition of a Canadian, a Briton, a Frenchman or whoever. Shall we add an entry for Paris? For some people this is pronounced Parr-iss while for others it is Parr-ee. What one says depends upon whether it is Paris, France or Paris, Texas and who you are trying to communicate with. The essential difficulty here is that the Roman alphabet is not phonetic and so various people pronounce it in various ways. The unit of language is the word not the letter and the pronunciation of a word like lead depends upon accent, context and semantics rather than some simple-minded intuitive phonetics. We see this especially when the same alphabet is used in Pinyin with quite different expectations and outcomes. Shall we have Beijing and Peking too? And then there's placenames in Scotland which are based upon Gaelic such as suidhe and loch; placenames in Wales based upon Welsh such as Llanelly. And on and on. As there's no end to this indiscriminate extension, you can expect this article to keep coming back here regularly as it bloats and generates further conflict. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You point out liminal cases, and liminal cases are worth due consideration. But the presence of liminal cases doesn't invalidate the category "English names", nor does it render it potentially infinite, nor does it render meaningless the distinction "English name" and "non-English name". And crucially, the same is true of the category "counter-intuitive pronunciations". Your linguistic arguments to the contrary are fallacious hyperbole and without merit. (That is my view of them, in light of my two degrees in linguistics, one of them with an emphasis on lexicography, which in fact has led to me being a published author in the field.)
  The fact that an article can "bloat" apparently now means simply that you don't like how big you can catastrophize that it could get. (But in fact, this article is more self-limiting than, say "Economics", about which one can always always write more. That doesn't diminish the value of the article.)
  The only thing that truly can extend into infinity is the number of AFDs you say you wish for. I will not accuse bad faith, but your behavior is badgering, and I can imagine no greater basic abuse of the AFD process.
  Your badgering is intolerable, and I will not distinguish this discussion with further participation, neither in this third AFD of yours, nor in a seventh AFD that you feel entitled to call for, nor in a seventieth. Sean M. Burke (talk) 04:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• To avoid misunderstanding, it should be noted that neither Sean nor myself participated in the last AFD. Further information about Sean's authority on this topic may be found at Sean M. Burke. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Moreover... having a third RFD!? This is pestering. Sean M. Burke (talk) 11:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a list might be worth it as an explanation with a few examples but an endless list does not add any value. Particular cases can be mentioned in the relevant articles. Also agree with some of the colonel's points, prounication can change in the same location between individuals so it is all a bit subjective. MilborneOne (talk) 10:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (trivial) colonel warden and myself often disagree, and both put in too much time here, so if we agree here (i said delete earlier), we must be either extremely right or extremely wrong.im biased, so i wont vote on that issue.:)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Transwiki. There are no secondary sources on the topic of weird pronunciations in English that can guide the contents of the article. Therefore the list is indiscriminate. Also, this sort of thing belongs on Wiktionary. Abductive (reasoning) 05:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, list with entirely arbitrary inclusion criteria. Filest (aktl) 08:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – I find S Marshall's arguments at the previous AfD convincing enough, and he cited some secondary sources that do cover the topic. The list is still a work in progress but has improved since previous nominations for deletion. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki - That's the best option, as delete will be too harsh, and keep will be where it was in the first place. As well somebody has already started transwiking on the article. Whenaxis (talk) 11:25, 1 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. Filest (aktl) 08:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Petrolsoft Corporation[edit]

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

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

Contested speedy deletion. This is a non-notable business. While it appears to have a large number of references, the vast majority of them are unreliable, self-published internal links or press releases (e.g. [10]). The best of them is a paragraph of coverage from a list of "Brief Profiles of Inc. 500 Companies"[11], and inclusion on that sort of list does not confer notability on each business included. One reference is apparently an unreferenced personal comment from the founder, suggesting further conflict of interest issues.

• Note : The preceding comment no longer applies. The article has removed the suspect link and additional references have been added to support the reliability of the information presented. Mathteacher69 (talk) 23:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)Mathteacher69[reply]

• Note - Just for the record this isn't a contested speedy deletion. I was the nominator for CSD but removed the nomination after sources were provided. - Stillwaterising (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google News Search finds only press releases and acquisition or hiring announcements. This business was a supply chain management software company with a focus on the petroleum industry; in other words, a non-consumer business that's unlikely to receive notice in sources with a sufficiently broad or general interest audience. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Response: This company changed the way a major industry (Petroleum) runs its business operations, and made new inventions in the field of operations research, inventory management, demand forecasting, and transportation optimization. It's technology also enabled vendor managed inventory to be practiced in the industry for the first time effecting the way tens of thousands of businesses were run across the United States and internationally. Smerdis of Tlön may not find this interesting, but it is interesting and important to many thousands of people whom it affected and, as such, is notable. It played a part in the history of the Petroleum industry that is indisputable. -Mathteacher69 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathteacher69 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - A company is notable if it is has significant coverage in reliable sources. There is no mandate for the sources to be of interest to a sufficiently broad audience. Most peer-reviewed academic journals are of interest to a very small population yet we don't hold that against them. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The business notability guideline says that "local media, or media of limited interest and circulation" --- i.e. with no readership outside the trade --- are not enough to confer notability on a business. The point would appear to be moot in any case, since there aren't really any non-self-published sources with substantial coverage anyways. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 22:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just concerned whether this means companies covered by only specialist sources would never be adequate for wikipedia. I didn't know you had to be somewhat mainstream to qualify as a company. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This company's technology solved the problem of gas stations running out of gas; prior to Petrolsoft [i.e. 1970's and 1980's], this problem was commonplace; now, you rarely if ever see a station out of gas due to this technology. The technology also had the effect of lowering transportation and carrying costs in an industry very sensitive to price; therefore, this lowered the price to the consumer compared to the what the price would be with higher costs built in. Petrolsoft's technology is effecting the mainstream person by insuring they can always get gasoline when they need it at a lower price than they would otherwise pay. Petrolsoft pioneered this technology and was a leader in its space becoming an industry standard ; what they did was groundbreaking and industry-changing, and in at least a small way, effected everyone.Mathteacher69 (talk) 04:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Mathteacher69[reply]

• Comment - are there any reliable sources that make this case for importance? I looked at Google Books, Scholar, and News, and did not find them. They may exist; the Internet is not the world. But I looked, and could not find anything that was not coverage of routine events or press releases. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The fact that nearly every major oil company on the planet employed this company's technology in order to manage their downstream supply chain should be significant enough. The press releases that you refer to are joint releases by both companies, are factual, and reliable; you can't release a false statement about what Exxon or Arco or Amoco or Chevron is doing without it bankrupting you...I agree that there is a shortage of internet-available information about the effects of the technology on each oil company's operations; this is primarily due to the fact that such information would have fallen under a confidentiality agreement. Many industry journals are subscription only, and not published on the internet during the 1990's. There were also a number of reports by third-party analysts such as AMR Research[12] and Gartner[13] that spoke to the positioning and strategic advantage of Petrolsoft's solutions compared to what had previously been done; you had to buy these reports and they were not published on line at that time. The fact that all of these enormous companies converted to this new business process and technology one after the other should be evidence of its value.Mathteacher69 (talk) 00:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Mathteacher69[reply]

• Comment. For what it's worth, investment analyst firms like Gartner don't really do much for notability, even if (I hope) they're reliable. The problems are first, limited readership; and more importantly, they are driven by client and market demand, and report on broad sectors. Coverage by such firms is not really an independent, editorial judgment of significance, and not every firm in each sector has the kind of notability needed for an encyclopedia subject. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -Much of the initial criticism of this article occurred when it was barely a day old, and still under construction. References for this article have been improved; much of the initial criticism regarding references no longer applies. Mathteacher69 (talk) 03:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Mathteacher69[reply]
• Delete, no evidence of notability. Does this company even have a webpage? Pretty much all the hits I found online for this company was from user generated content, from online encyclopedias and press-release archive pages. If there's anything worth saving, it can go on the page of the parent company. Hairhorn (talk) 04:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a defunct company, therefore no working website. Petrolsoft.com is in archive.org however it there's some kind of problem with it. This company seems to meet the Primary Criteria of WP:ORG, however coverage is sparse. No promotionalism or financial benefit seems possible from covering a defunct company. The software this company made was used by several notable petroleum companies so it seems that coverage of this company is essential for a complete picture of the industry. - Stillwaterising (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but the sources linking this company to Chevron, Mobil, Exxon et al are from press releases and user-submitted content, which raises, to greater or lesser extents, notability and verifiability problems. Hairhorn (talk) 21:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Cline (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Stillwaterising makes some interesting points, but they do not go to notability. --Bejnar (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Why is the notability standard being applied so much more harshly to Petrolsoft than to other Wikipedia companies? Choose a random industry (for example trucking). You will find (in some cases many) companies with their own wikipedia entries. Ask yourself, did any of these companies change the way their industry operates? Did they change the business process or business model for their industry? Did they invent a new business process for their industry that was widely adopted? Did they invent a new technology for their industry that became the industry standard? I think you will find that the answers to all of these questions for most of the companies will be NO. The answer to all four of these questions for Petrolsoft is YES, making Petrolsoft a significant company in both the Petroelum industry, and in the supply chain software industry. Nearly all of the most notable petroleum companies implemented Petrolsoft's technology in order to change the way they do business; this is well documented in the entry. Petrolsoft may have a limited amount of internet-available press, but it is still very significant in its industry. Do not throw away a company that is more significant than the vast majority of Wikipedia companies who have uncontested listings, companies who may be large, or public, but have done nothing more than business as usual. That would be hypocritical, and Wikipedia's coverage would be incomplete.Mathteacher69 (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)mathteacher69[reply]

• Your argument about the lack of notability of other companies is proven invalid by WP:WAX. Please post the companies that you believe to be less notable than Petrolsoft Corporation so that they, too, can be evaluated for notability. Cunard (talk) 05:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Did you follow the trucking example I gave and lookup the companies listed? I just asked Wikipedia for a random article, and what I got was The Bicycles, a current music quartet from Toronto. I certainly do not want to direct your wrath at them, but please...there are so many. Mathteacher69 (talk) 03:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The article for The Bicycles demonstrates that the band is notable; this article from the Toronto Sun establishes that it passes the notability guidelines. Cunard (talk) 02:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the lack of reliable sources. The coverage in this from Inc. and this from Silicon.com (two sources in the article) is not enough to establish notability because neither provide in-depth coverage about Petrolsoft Corporation. This company fails Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Notability (companies). Cunard (talk) 05:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete vote withdrawn due to the list of sources presented below. I have doubts about the depth of the sources though so will remain at Neutral. Cunard (talk) 02:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computers-related deletion discussions.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.

Comment - I truly don't see the non-notability of this company at all. A company like Maui Jim somehow passes no problem, but the company whose software controls the majority of the gasoline being distributed in the world is not? And yes, while I see that there is no single source that provides substantial coverage, many sources provide more than trivial coverage which passes GNG. If this software had a bug that shutdown the world's oil supply I'm certain it would be a household name, but because it worked quietly behind the scenes and received little media attention I guess it's unworthy of having it's own article. Also, this article was nominated for deletion one day after good-faith creation while displaying the newpage tag and sources which is extremely bitey. - Stillwaterising (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mistake "absolute importance" for notability. "Absolute importance" depends upon point of view, notability is a culturally measurable quantity, based primarily upon people writing about things. --Bejnar (talk) 02:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that Wikipedia is limited to being a depository for pop culture, and absolutely important topics are not allowed in? It doesn't seem that way to me. People seem to be using Wikipedia to look up important stuff. If everything that is important, but not culturally popular, gets deleted, Wikipedia will be less useful.Mathteacher69 (talk) 03:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has gone beyond the bounds of a typical Afd into a more philosophical area. I do believe that the eventualist long-term historical perspective needs to be taken here. Being that this company existed before the modern Internet we also recognize that much of what has been written about this company is not available on the Internet. Also absolute importance, as a concept, would differ from relative importance which is dependent on the observer while the former is not. Regarless, as per the second paragraph of WP:GNG, notabilty may be established by satisfying either GNG or COMPANY and there seems to now be multiple independant non-trivial sources which as a whole do provide adequate coverage of the topic. Unfortunately a decade has gone by and some sources are now lost and it seems to me if this article is deleted, as time goes on even more knowledge will be lost or become unavailable to the everyday person. - Stillwaterising (talk) 14:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No significant RS coverage; fails Wikipedia:Notability (companies). Qrsdogg (talk) 04:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Third party references support facts presented in the article. Meets notability guidelines. The company is objectively important to keep based on its influence.Mathteacher69 (talk) 04:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)Mathteacher69[reply]
• Delete - If this technology was so effective, so far reaching and so significant then why is no-one writing about it? Oh and BTW Mathteacher69, I realise that maths may be a source of interest to you but racking up a score of "keep" !votes is not the way to go to impress and influence people around here. You get one !vote and that's yer lot. Please stop producing them every time you start a new paragraph. Thanks. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Most of what was written about Petrolsoft was not published on the internet; this company lived a decade ago when most industry publications were still on paper. Do you really doubt its effectiveness if most major oil companies use it? You might try reading the argument thread first, as this has been addressed in prior comments.Mathteacher69 (talk) 15:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Mathteacher69[reply]

• I didn't mention "written on the Internet". It doesn't have to be available on the 'net to be able to reference it. Many WP articles use dead tree sources to reference their facts. If indeed this producJt/company is notable then where are the articles/theses/journals/reports? Surely something this revolutionary got in the papers at some point? Into motoring magazines? If it did then all you have to do is reference them. So long as they are in some way publicly accessible for checking then they can be used... if there are any of course. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response - These should give you a start if you can find them:

• Crama, et al.; A Discussion of Production Planning Approaches in the Process Industry CORE Discussion Paper, 2001.
• Ronen, David, Dispatching Petroleum Products Operations Research, May-Jun. 1995, vol. 43, No. 3, pp. 379-387.
• Lason, Leon S. et al., Survey of Nonlinear Programming Applications Operations Research, Sep.-Oct. 1980, pp. 1029-1073.
• Enterprise Profit Management for the Chemical Value Chain Accenture, Dec. 6, 2001.
• Korzeniowski, Paul et al., Trading Exchanges Have the ‘Big mo’, But Users Should Proceed with Caution SupplyChainBrain.com, Jun. 2000.
• Fransoo, Jan Cornelis, Production control and demand management in capacitated flow process industries Technishe Universiteit Eindhoven, 1993, AAT C320771, Abstract.
• Petroleum Refinery Planning and Optimization Using Linear Programming Che Plus, Retrieved from www.cheresources.com/refinery—planning—optimization.shtml Jan. 31, 2007.
• OSHA Technical Manual—Petroleum Refining Processes Section IV: Chapter 2, Retrieved from Osha.gov Jan. 31, 2007.
• Supply chain technology Hydrocarbon Processing, vol. 80, No. 9, Sep. 2001.
• Weitzel, Dale, How to manage your refining supply chain from E-to-E World Refining, vol. 10, No. 10, Dec. 31, 2000.
• Supply chain technology (refining) Hydrocardon Processing, vol. 80, No. 9, Sep. 2001.
• Aspen Announces Availability of eSupply Chain Suite to Optimize Flow of Knowledge and Materials for Process Manufacutring Industries, PR Newswire, Aug. 3, 2000.
• Dempster Mah et al., Planning Logistics Operations in the Oil Industry Journal of the Operational Research Society, 2000, pp. 1271-1288.
• Escudero, L.F. et al., CORO, a modeling an alogrithmic framework for oil supply, transformation and distribution optimization under uncertainty, European Journal of Operations Research, Vo. 114, 1999, pp. 638-656.
• Loos, P. et al., Application of Production Planning and Scheduling in the Process Industries Computers in Industry, vol. 36, 1998, pp. 199-208.
• Bolander, S. et al., System framework for process flow industries Production & Inventory Management Journal, vol. 34, No. 4, 1993.
• So what does make MRP II software suitable for process industries? Control and Instrumentation, Oct. 1991.

Mathteacher69 (talk) 01:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Mathteacher89[reply]

I'm unsure what this long list of sources is supposed to represent. Do all of these cover Petrolsoft in a non-trivial manner? - Stillwaterising (talk) 03:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I've done what I can with the Internet tools I know how to use. I've requested a Subject Matter Expert to review it however 2-3 days isn't long enough to get a response. As far as I can tell an industry expert has not given an opinion yet. This is a specialized behind the scenes small corporation that may have had a world changing product but got aquired while still pretty small. Nobody has looked into it's notability after being adopted by Aspen Tech and I'm not sure that's going to accurately portray the original product either. I'm just a volunteer assisting a newcomer, I've done all I can for this article. - Stillwaterising (talk) 19:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I've long been of the opinion that we'd have a lot less friction if we put together some kind of notability guideline that explained more clearly than the current ones do that "a specialized behind the scenes small corporation" is not really a good candidate for an encyclopedia article. Verifiable historical importance is what we really need here, and I don't see that coming for this one. I looked before nominating this article, and found very little other than notices that this business had been bought out. Were its products truly as influential as has been argued in this discussion, I'd expect somebody to have taken some kind of note of it. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of the specific notability guidelines are supplemental to the general notability criterion. They are meant to add articles, not take them away. What has zero historical importance are the video games we see plastered on the Main Page every other week. Wnt (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Fred the Oyster: This is supposed to be a discussion, not a vote at all. In a proper discussion, all parties involved speak from time to time. Mathteacher69 did nothing at all wrong in that respect. Perhaps they don't understand sourcing and notability on WP, but they have the right of it when it comes to commenting/replies. No only is discussion not prohibited, it's actively encouraged. I'm somewhat discouraged to find an experienced Wikipedian such as yourself suggesting otherwise. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 04:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Huh? My comments were regarding the use of the emboldened "Keep" at the start of the new paragraphs and nothing more. Mathteacher69 has now corrected it. I'm still not sure how you came to the conclusion I was attempting to stifle discussion. I even pointed out that refs do not need to be restricted to online sources. So I'd be very grateful if you found a dark place for your patronising, and erroneous, lecture. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 10:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, while I have no doubt this company existed and was later bought I don't see any evidence that it had any real impact on the area it claims to have had an impact on, and 75 gHits don't help the case, and a Bing search turned up less. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. This company is mentioned in the New York Times and quite a few other good industry references that the author has added. The we-are-but-poor-peasants-we-must-not-think-about-the-shiny-things-in-the-massas-house mentality some have expressed is truly pathetic - even worse than I've seen regarding medical information. Wnt (talk) 17:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The New York Times is a single paragraph from a column on "Company News", noting the acquisition. "COMPANY NEWS; ASPEN ACQUIRES ANOTHER PETROLEUM SOFTWARE COMPANY". [14] - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 11:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep based on the current suitable sourcing. I can't see what is the sturm und drang. Bearian (talk) 19:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Mixed:
  • Notability: I think the key argument is the idea that Petrolsoft significantly impacted the way the petroleum industry managed its retail supply chain. If that is true, it is worth covering. The question becomes one of verification. I'm not familiar with the subject matter, and the sourcing of that particular concept in the article is currently weak. Weak does not mean non-existent, though; there is a start. I'm somewhat inclined to give editors a chance to improve the article, with an eye towards establishing significance by citing reliable sources. If there's no improvement in time, it can always be re-nominated. But there may be mitigating factors; see below.
  • In the above discussion, web search engines (Google, etc.) are mentioned multiple times. The fact that you can't find the information you're looking for on the web doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There is still more information not on the web then on it.
  • The article section entitled "Significance" cites a single source, a PhD thesis by a Mr. Louw. I don't see how the source supports the assertions in the section; it does not mention Petrolsoft beyond citing their corporate website as a source. Could Mathteacher69 please comment on what the Louw paper is supposed to establishing?

• Response - The Louw thesis repeatedly cites Petrolsoft's business process and white papers in discussing how the supply chain process can be run to gain efficiencies, indicating Petrolsoft expertise in this area.Mathteacher69 (talk) 04:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • I'm somewhat suspicious of the format of the "Further Reading" list (also copied above). The pattern "Retrieved from [URL fragment] [date]" appears more than once. What are these dates of retrieval? Who retrieved them? Why are the dates from several years ago? It looks a lot like a list copied from some other article/work. Could Mathteacher69 please comment on that?

Respectfully submitted. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 04:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Since this article now easily satisfies the requirements of WP:GNG and therefore is presumed to be notable, why is there an apparent division of consensus? The aquisition of Petrolsoft by Aspen was covered by the New York Times, AMR Research, numerous press releases, and the recently added TEC Newsletter which was in-depth substantial (447 words). This seems pretty significant for a small (50 employee) company with a global presence. It would seem that some editors aren't bothering to read the article (and sources) but instead are typing the article name into Google and looking at the first ten "Ghits". - Stillwaterising (talk) 07:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Leaving aside the question of whether 447 words is in-depth or not, I still don't see this even passing WP:GNG. The sources are all to insubstantial one-paragraph notices or press releases about the acquisition. The rest is self-published material. All of the "Business Wire" sources are press releases. No independent source that's been added substantiates the claim that this business revolutionized the oil industry. I also looked at the Louw paper (it's huge and takes a while to load). It mentions Petrolsoft three times; it's website was used as a source for general information about oil industry supply chains. This is not substantial coverage either. It is a sad truth that people who really want publicity from Wikipedia articles about non-notable businesses are willing to lawyer on endlessly and forum shop.[15] I've tried to stay focused on the issues here, but frankly it's getting a bit ridiculous. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: There's no way this article could be motivated by promotional objectives. The company was aquired by Aspen Technologies in 1990. It has no stock to sell, no product, and no employees. Unless the creator has a warehouse full of Petrolsoft keychains and coffee mugs I can't see how he could gain from this financially. I don't have any connection to the petroleum industry and got involved in this as a way to help a newcomer and promote the aims of Wikipedia and expand the coverage on energy related topics. I wouldn't have worked on this article unlesss I believed it was both created in good faith and had educational value.

You seem to have a personal vendetta against contributors who use Wikipedia to promote thier companies. I also find it repugnant. Regardless of your personal opinions you need to comply with policy and guidelines and consider alternatives to deletion. - Stillwaterising (talk) 23:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Stillwaterising. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note I fixed the url on the source #18. A free registration is required and I will gladly email the article to anybody who does not wish to register. It's contains substantial coverage of the merger as to how it applies to the industry and software users that is not a rephrasing of the press release. Some excerpts:

"The scope of Petrolsoft's product suite covers two primary activities, those involved in terminal-to-retail customer and refinery-to-terminal workflows. These segments complement Aspen PIMS crude selection and refinery operations planning and execution capabilities."

"The acquisition will offer Aspen another product to sell to its vast customer base in the petroleum refining industry."

"Users who make their business in retailing or distributing petroleum products should not change their perception of Petrolsoft with the recent acquisition, although few changes will be apparent in the short term" - Stillwaterising (talk) 03:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note I found a good on-line summary article in Inventory Management (on-line) regarding the Mobil implementation of the Petrolsoft technology. Reference added. Mathteacher69 (talk) 04:40, 1 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maddie cyrus[edit]

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

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

Non-notable person. Minor actress whose only claim to fame is being cousin to Miley Cyrus. (See WP:NOTINHERITED.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Notability is not inherited from one's famous cousin, and only minor roles are reported, failing WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As mentioned before, Wikipedia articles should not be made based on the fact that someone's cousin is famous. It seems like more of a biographical-editorial essay. "Then her dream began!" sounds opinionated. Refer to Wikipedia:Notability. Have A Great Day! Lord Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 00:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not verified through reliable sources. Despite the claims of various television and movie roles for this person, she has no IMDb listing. Searching the IMDb for "Maddie Cyrus" only produces a listing that it is an alternate name for Dianna Agron, who is a different person and not the person described in this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Looking at the assertions, I cannot find her name listed in Hannah Montana, Privileged, How I Met Your Mother, The Troop, 17 Again, Miss March, The Romantics, or Knuckle Draggers. So if she was in them, she either used a different name or her roles were uncredited. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable. Evalpor (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Smackdown vs. Raw 2011[edit]

WWE Smackdown vs. Raw 2011 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Very badly written and a fair bit premature and presuptuous as is it hasn't even been announced that it will be made in the series's current format, delete until further news comes out The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 18:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As Nominator The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - it's inferred that since you're nominating you're voting to delete, no need to vote again, that ends up confusing others. --Teancum (talk) 17:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. I couldn't find any coverage that's reliable for this game. --Teancum (talk) 17:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Has been deleted 3 times already and still no information.--C23 C23's talk 18:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Teancum. --  Θakster   12:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

STANDING TALL - IT’S DEFINITELY NOT ALL ABOUT YOUR GENES[edit]

STANDING TALL - IT’S DEFINITELY NOT ALL ABOUT YOUR GENES (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Deprodded. Original research, essay, and already covered in Human height. No idea how the article title relates to anything that's not OR in the article text. Shadowjams (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not an encyclopedia article. Original research, possibly copied from the linked site. Woogee (talk) 00:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unencyclopedic and unreferenced. We cover this topic at Human height, as noted above - so no need for this article. If it were a book title, I find no evidence that any book of this title exists. If it's something else, the context is unclear enough to suggest that perhaps a clean start would be of benefit. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nom, Woogee, and Ultra. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 01:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not sure what the author was going for here, but it is unreferenced, unencyclopedic, and likely a lot of original research. PDCook (talk) 12:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Doors: Box Set. Filest (aktl) 08:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Doors Original Acetate Demos[edit]

The Doors Original Acetate Demos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ——Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Response Why? This isn't a vote, and you need to provide compelling reasons to keep an article, not simply a vote to keep it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to The Doors: Box Set as an item of historical interest, since the demo songs were included in the box set. If this demo recording itself was actually released as a stand-alone product, it did not gain enough notice and appears to be a mere historical curiosity. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I ask you, what equality is the demo with the box set? ", the article isn't so small, can be considered. --Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 23:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to The Doors: Box Set or The Doors, okay good, I agree with DOOMSDAYER, maybe the demo nor did it ever recorded, however only one website says about, and the web is fan page. --Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 20:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Question Which of the categories that this album is in are appropriate? Did it win a Grammy? According to the infobox, it was recorded and released on the same day; surely that's not correct. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can find no evidence that the recording was actually "released" as a stand-alone product to be consumed by the general public, as the term "released" was defined back in the day. Perhaps it was recorded, put on wax, then immediately shopped around to labels. But I could be wrong on this because it's hard to prove a negative. In any case, that's why I voted as I did above, because the demos are an item of historical interest in the biography of The Doors, but probably not a stand-alone product deserving of its own article.DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Filest (aktl) 08:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Saxton[edit]

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

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

I don't see that this person is notable - the scientology vs the Aussie govt issue might be notable, but I can't see how this person is. WP:BLP1E could apply here. The-Pope (talk) 17:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Satisfies WP:NOTE. Subject of the article has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Secondary source coverage pertains to the significance of this individual coming forward as a major whistleblower, as well as to biographical details about his life, and media reactions, and subsequent reactions from the organization where he was a whistleblower. This is not simply "one event", but actually a significant amount of coverage from many different secondary sources relating to multiple different aspects of this individual's life and biography. -- Cirt (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not much biography to speak of. What is this person's occupation? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The standard is WP:NOTE. -- Cirt (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Subject is mentioned in articles from The Guardian, The Daily Mail, The Sydney Morning Herald, The New Zealand Herald, The Australian, Sky News, the BBC News, the front page of the New York Times, do I really need to keep going? I do not think there is any doubt about notability. Grandmartin11 (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is everybody who has been mentioned on the New York Times front page notable? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I do not see his name there, nor in the links to the BBC or Sky. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was sure I saw him in those. My mistake. But my point still stands that multiple articles in the other five newspapers I linked (and the fact that the article itself has 29 cites) is pretty clear evidence of notability. Grandmartin11 (talk) 19:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. The nominator's opinion that the subject is not notable is irrelevant. As Cirt points out, the standard is WP:N, and this entry more than meets it, with nearly 30 reliable sources. — Hunter Kahn 21:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This...this is a joke, right? I'm staring at a well-written and well-referenced article that is definitely one of the Wiki's better articles, though definitely not in GA or FA status or even close to there, but still rather nice. And it's on AfD? What's going on here? Silverseren^C 00:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This guy is at the centre of a political case unfolding in Australia which has received a level of worldwide attention, and has been the subject of significant published secondary source material which is reliable and independent of the subject. Therefore, meets WP:BIO. Orderinchaos 01:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BIO1E; this person is only in the news because Nick Xenophon had quoted him in a parliamentary session; the article was written to counter this deletion request on Commons. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He has ongoing coverage, which overrides the one event rule. Silverseren^C 09:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Response from nominator: Do you all really think that a mention or two as being a letter writer in 10 articles in 10 papers on the same topic on the same day makes someone notable? The topic of a politician accusing Scientology conducting torture is probably notable. I maintain that the whistleblower is not independently notable, and at best this should be merged/redirected to a more complete article on the Criticism of Scientology in Australia, Scientology_controversies#Allegations_of_criminality or a similar article. Show me one article where Saxton's life is described as more than a letter writer? As Pieter Kuiper said above... what is his occupation? Of the links listed above and in the article, apart from the youtube interview and the 3news.co.nz (#14) I would not consider any of them significant coverage. Focusing the article on the whistleblower in my mind is wrong - it should be on the the topic that he whistleblew. And I think the link bombing of the basically the same story in 30 references is overkill - number of references alone is no indication of notabilty.The-Pope (talk) 12:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge to Scientology in Australia per nom. --JN466 13:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Cirt has researched and fleshed out the article sufficiently over the past few days to keep as a standalone biography. --JN466 18:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Every once in a while the topic of Scientology flares up; this AFD arose in a recently closed arbitration enforcement thread which concluded with a warning to Pieter Kuiper and no warning to Cirt (who wrote this biography). See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Pieter_Kuiper. The closer is invited to consider whether a B-class article with nearly thirty sources would otherwise be at AFD. Durova⁴¹² 15:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is not B-class, it's unassessed by anyone but its author, who rated it Start class. I am always amazed at how the topic of Scientology is able to make people abandon all sense of compass direction. Honestly, how is this a biography? It is about Saxton's allegations, not Saxton, and that is what the sources are commenting upon. As a BLP, it is nothing but a puffed-up WP:Coatrack, in parts saying much the same thing over and over again; e.g.:

    "Senator Nick Xenophon stated that Saxton "rose to a position of influence in Sydney and the United States" within Scientology.[8] According to 3 News, while in the organization he was part of "Scientology's senior management".[9] The Sydney Morning Herald reported that Saxton "rose to a senior level" within the Sea Org.[7]"

  • Or:

    "The Courier-Mail called Saxton a whistleblower against Scientology,[2] and 3 News reported that Saxton's "whistleblowing about the Church has made it all the way to the Australian Parliament".[9] The New Zealand Herald described the statements given to Senator Xenophon by Saxton as "at the centre" of the Senator's speech in the Australian Senate criticizing Scientology.[3] The New Zealand Herald commented, "Saxton's allegations about behind-the-scenes church activities caused an uproar after they were quoted in the Australian Senate", and noted that Saxton's statements "formed part of a blistering attack in the Australian Senate".[4] The Australian current affairs program, produced by the Seven Network, Today Tonight, described Saxton's revelations as "shocking".[5] Today Tonight commented, "He joined a group of former Scientologists in revealing stunning, shocking claims of abuse, tabled by federal independent Senator Nick Xenophon."[5]"

  • This content would be correctly placed in Scientology in Australia, and deserves a hefty subsection (minus the repetitiveness) in Scientology controversies. It would actually find a lot more interested readers there. ;) --JN466 16:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems like systemic bias to set the bar for biography notability differently for Australia than for North America or Europe. If Saxton (or anyone else of comparable notability) requested courtesy deletion I'd nominate/support AFD in a heartbeat. That said, let's be candid: if this article were about an Olympic athlete instead of a former Scientologist, with equivalent scope and sourcing, it wouldn't be at AFD. Let's follow the same standards regardless of whether the subject is sport, religion, or anything else. Durova⁴¹² 17:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with you that compared to the "BLPs" of Thai footballers I have seen, this article demonstrates a wealth of secondary-source coverage. :) I think the problem is WP:ATH (let's not go there). On the other hand, if you look at WP:PROF, there are thousands of academics who have made significant contributions to science, have written books and papers that have been widely reviewed and cited, and are still not considered worthy of an article here.
      • Where Saxton differs from professional footballers or academics is that being a Scientology critic is not his profession. He just happens to be a private person who spoke out. Presenting Saxton's allegations in the context of a BLP is not the proper way to do it. If you want people to read Saxton's allegations, and how they have been received in Australia and abroad, I believe that material is better off in the Scientology articles I mentioned above. I would even support a standalone article on the Australian senate discussions initiated by Senator Xenophon. --JN466 17:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well yes, and Olympic athletes are traditionally amateurs. Durova⁴¹² 18:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment from nominator: Just to clarify, I found this article from the User:AlexNewArtBot/AustraliaSearchResult, not from any ArbCom or other issue list. Everyone else is comparing it to other articles - the one that I think it matches is murder victims. Invariably, murder victims have articles written on them, and most end up being deleted/moved/redirected to articles about the crime, not the victim. Unless Saxton becomes a Ellen Brockovich style serial whistleblower/activist, the story at the moment is about Allegations of torture in Scientology, not about him. As JN466 said, this is a coatrack. I now wish I'd stuck to the disclaimer on my user page:Despite my username, I am not at all interested in religion. Back to footy players for me. You lot can have your religion arguments to yourselves.The-Pope (talk) 23:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• In its present state, the article relies extensively on Saxton's self-published interviews. Some of the quotes sound rather self-serving, or include claims about third parties. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 67.242.138.141 (talk) 12:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC) — 67.242.138.141 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Note to closing administrator: while this AFD was underway Pieter Kuiper was the subject of two arbitration enforcement requests. On 29 March 2010 he was topic banned for two weeks from Scientology and related discussions. Durova⁴¹² 05:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (weak) - While not greatly noteworthy as such, the article is reasonably well sourced and merging it with another article would make that article overly long. I don't see how Wikipedia is harmed by keeping this article even if it is not one of the strongest or most needed articles in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calicocat (talk • contribs)
• Keep. Keith Henson (talk) 11:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silverseren^C 18:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable and influential. Nageh (talk) 08:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silverseren^C 18:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Few secondary sources, those presented in the AfD are trivial mentions (or don't mention it at all). Jayjg ^(talk) 04:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Stress Relief[edit]

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

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

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Fladrif (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Promotional article for product/company without notability. Article is unsourced, except to primary, company-produced sources. No independent secondary coverage whatsoever of the topic can be found in Google, Google News, Google Books or Google Scholar Fladrif (talk) 17:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Scientia Institute, the owner/developer of this product was previously deleted as non-notable over two years ago. [16] Fladrif (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responses by David Spector[edit]

Keep. I thank Fladrif for informing me of this AfD request and inviting me to respond. That was very thoughtful of him.

I am sorry for the length of these responses, but I wish to respond with several reasons to retain this article and include sufficient supporting details.

• The background to this AfD request is a personal conflict between Fladrif and myself in connection with the arbitration currently in progress concerning the Transcendental Meditation movement article. In that arbitration I have supported the evidence provided by other editors showing Fladrif's lack of civility (which include several sanctions placed on him in the past). It is well-known among the parties to that arbitration, including Fladrif (who maintains anonymity (User:Fladrif), that I am the owner and president of Natural Stress Relief, Inc., a nonprofit educational corporation offering clients a $47 do-it-yourself alternative to the Transcendental Meditation program. I currently have 969 clients all over the world, and our organizations together have roughly 2000. Our organizations have little money, so I do not draw a salary or compensation for my work. I believe I make a good target for people like Fladrif who do not like opposition to their POV. As mentioned above, Fladrif has a consistent history at WP of attacking many fellow editors, including myself. Most of us respond politely to his bullying and ownership tone. Very rarely, due to frustration, some editors have criticized his argumentative Talk page language. I don't believe I have, though.

• Fladrif claims that I am an editor of this article (which would be a violation of WP:Conflict of interest): "An article that you have been involved in editing...". I have never edited this article, as can be seen from the page history. This article was created by a rather enthusiastic client of mine who wanted to describe the NSR technique, history, and self-conducted but peer-reviewed published research of the NSR organizations. I am pleased that the article exists and contains only a few errors, but I did not write it.

• Fladrif claims that the NSR organizations are not notable. Yet we have an unexpectedly large number of clients. We estimate that over 90% of these clients are happy with how NSR improves their lives. Quite a few of these clients chose NSR because they could not afford TM. These facts show that we are a small but important organization, one whose notability rests on our success and the fact that we are the principal competitor of TM, which is an enormous and wealthy set of corporations which has been around in one form or another for about 50 years. We are also notable because we have survived in spite of about six letters the TM lawyer has sent us during our existence threatening us with legal action (lawsuit, presumably) within a week or two. Our cooperative and informative responses have apparently ensured that he has not actually taken such legal action. But it was clear from the wording of the letters that the TM organizations perceived us as a competitor and a threat. I should think it notable that a one-person organization should be seen as a competitor of a $3.5 billion organization.^[1]

• Fladrif states correctly that there are almost no secondary sources of information about Natural Stress Relief ("No independent secondary coverage whatsoever of the topic can be found in Google, Google News, Google Books or Google Scholar.") The reason is simple: we have been in existence less than 10 years in our current form and have done little advertising or marketing (we can't afford it). This is certainly a difficulty with this article, and I will accept the decision of the AfD reviewers. Since few of my clients report that they were referred by the article, I am not particularly attached to it. But I wish to point out that there are many WP articles on people, events, and organizations that are too new or specialized to have had secondary reporting. They are tolerated not because they are 'encyclopedic', but because they are of active public interest. NSR is such an organization. We have constant orders from people who say they want to learn TM but simply cannot afford the $1500 price tag. I would think our position as the main viable competitor with TM, which shows our desire to help people improve their productivity at work, success at school, better personal and professional relationships, energy, creativity, and intelligence makes us notable. These benefits, and many more, have all been reported by our clients. (The benefits are not magical; they are the simple result of clear thinking and freedom from stress.)

• Fladrif claims that the article is "promotional". I see it as descriptive of our organization and technique. It appears quite objective to me. Compare it with articles about Coca-Cola, the United States Postal Service, or the Nintendo company, which are also descriptive and objective, yet also describe their services and products. If I wanted to be 'promotional', I would put emphasis on the many impressive and unsolicited testimonials we have received from our clients, or I would make unfounded, pseudoscientific, or logically specious claims about NSR; I have never done this, and never will. I also would have created the article when I started NSR/USA in 2006 and was an active WP editor, instead of waiting until 2008 for a client to write it.

• I should think it obvious that the deletion some time ago of an article on our Italian NSR organization, Istituto Scientia, due to being self-published (a mistake by Dr. Coppola, who was not familiar with WP policies) has no bearing on whether Natural Stress Relief should be deleted.

In this response I am speaking on behalf of Dr. Fabrizio Coppola and myself, representing the three volunteer Natural Stress Relief organizations (in USA, Italy, and Brazil).

Respectfully submitted, David Spector 23:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input David. To your arguments:

(i) This has nothing to do with ArbCom, and even if it did, that would be irrelevant to this discussion. See WP:ADHOM The article was tagged by another editor as unsourced and for lack of notability over a month ago. I looked for reliable secondary sources (I'm really very good at that) in the expectation that I would be able to add some references to the article, and there simply are none. Hence this AfD. Period.

(ii) You were notified of this AfD because you have repeatedly identified yourself in talkpage discussions as President of this company, not because you edited this article. There was no notice template for people who haven't edited but may be interested for other reasons. I used the most appropriate template readily available to give you that notice. I have not accused you of editing despite a COI.

(iii) Notability is not established by the number of your happy customers nor whether your principal competitor has noticed you sufficiently to send you threatening letters. "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable." (Emphasis in original) See WP:ORG

(iv) You admit that that there is no significant independent secondary coverage of your company or product. That is, for all intents and purposes, dispositive of the issue here. Yes, there are other articles about companies or products that suffer from the same lack of notability. That, however, is not justification for this article. See WP:OTHERSTUFF If they are not notable, they should also be deleted, and the list of companies and products nominated for AfD grows daily. Nor does it matter that you may have a great product and a great company that is doing a world of good for your customers at a very reasonable price. See WP:VALINFO The test for inclusion in Wikipedia is notability, and without secondary coverage, this simply doesn't qualify.

(v) The article is promotional notwithstanding that it is not an obvious "hard sell" Spammy advert, but that is not the basis for this AfD. Lack of notability is the basis for this AfD. See Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Special_note:_advertising_and_promotion

(vi) The Istituto Scientia article was not deleted because it was written by your partner, Dr. Coppola. It does not appear that either the editor who placed the PROD notice nor the admin who deleted it knew at the time that Dr. Coppola was User:Nooyawk the editor who added that article.[17] (Since you say that you are posting this on behalf of both yourself and Dr. Coppola in your official capacities, I will assume in that you had his permission to have outed him here.) It was deleted via WP:PROD for lack of notability[18], as I correctly noted above. Fladrif (talk) 15:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. All references are self-published, clear COI. Woogee (talk) 00:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for lack of notability. Proponent admits that Fladrif states correctly that there are almost no secondary sources. Article also appears as a promotional piece, despite David Spector's disclaimer. --Bejnar (talk) 04:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As author of this article, I was careful to write it in an objective manner and to state the facts as I believe them to be true. I am a client of both NSR and TM, having paid money to both organizations to learn their techniques. I therefore have a "close connection" to both NSR and TM. Does that mean I cannot contribute to either page? I don't think so. I am sure many of the contributors to the TM page, have purchased that product as well. I fail to understand why the references cited in the article are being discounted. Yes, they were written by Scientia Institute, but they were published in peer reviewed publications. To the best of my knowledge, 'Psychological Reports' and 'Social Behavior and Personality: an International Journal' are independent publications and will only publish papers which they deem appropriate to the psychological field. Please dispense with the politics and keep this topic on Wikipedia. --User:DaveRaftery —Preceding undated comment added 20:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

It is a very neutral article. That is not the point. You being a satisfied customer is not the point. No-one is saying that the two papers you quoted are bad studies. But, they are not independent secondary sources: (i) they were authored by the principals in this business; and (ii) per WP:MEDRS they are primary, not secondary sources which, and in the absence of significant secondary coverage, probably do not qualify as sources for a Wikipedia article. The requirement of notability is significant independent secondary coverage. Those two research papers don't satisfy that standard. No politics. Just facts. Fladrif (talk) 21:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find myself in the rare position of agreeing with Fladrif, in spite of my obvious interest in seeing the article kept. It is quite true that primary sources should only be used when there are sufficient secondary sources cited. I am also in the rare position of respecting Fladrif's balance of opinion. I think that admitting that our research studies might not be poor science, that NSR has many satisfied clients, and that the article is neutral (rather than promotional) is a very big step for him or her towards applying WP policies rationally and dispassionately. David Spector 23:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't push your luck, and don't put words in my mouth. I have no idea whether your research studies are good or poor. I haven't read them. I have expressed no opinion either way. Their merit or lack thereof is irrelevant to this discussion. They are primary sources which shouldn't be usee here and which don't establish notability. That is the point. You have made representations about the size and satisfaction of your customer base, which is entirely unsourced and unverifiable. I have no basis to question those representations, and have not questioned them. Whether or not your representations are accurate is equally irrelevant to this discussion. Notability is established by significant independent secondary coverage. You admit that there is none. The article is neutral yet still promotional. Those are not mutually exclusive. A neutral article on a company and product with no secondary converage whatsoever is by definition promotional. But, again, that is irrelevant. Notability is the issue. But, thank you for your belated recognition that I do actually apply WP policies rationally and dispassionately. It is your recognition of that fact, not some change, insight or reformation on my part, which is the big step here. But that is again beside the point; which one of us has had an apostrophe is not the issue here. Notability is the issue here. Fladrif (talk) 01:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added seven (7) Third Party References to the article. This should be more than sufficient to address the Notability issue raised previously and dismiss this Article for Deletion request. --DaveRaftery 03:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Not so sure about that. "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." (I can read Italian)

• "La Repubblica" ref is about Dr Coppola, but does not appear to makes any mention of Natural Stress Relief
• "Stress and Quality of Working Life" has two sentences about one of Dr Coppola's studies, and does mention NSR, in a wider discussion of meditation research.
• "A Biblical Approach..." mentions NRS in a parenthetical as one of several techniques based on the same approach as TM but with different names.
• "Stress Management" has a single sentence on NSR as one of several varieties of "New Age" meditation
• "Google Scholar" is not a source - it just points to the two company-sponsored papers which are primary sources (and shows that they have not been cited in the literature - a single third-party citation for the 2007 paper )
• The Radio Interview is not secondary coverage - it was an interview of Dr Coppola.
• "Super EVA" does not look like a RS, and appears to have been written by Dr Coppola.

I doubt these amount to anything other than trivial and incidental coverage, but it is for others to decide that. Fladrif (talk) 19:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is Fabrizio Coppola: I have been quoted above, and I believe that I should post an explanation about the seven (7) Third Party References reported by DaveRaftery, which may easily be increased to nine (9) or more. My purpose is only to try to give a clearer picture to the Wikipedia Editors about the main secondary sources, which probably are neither "trivial" nor "incidental". First of all, please note that David Spector said: "... there are *almost* no secondary sources of information about Natural Stress Relief...". Saying ... "*almost* no secondary sources" is different from "no secondary sources at all", as simplistically was assumed later. (The aim of David Spector, as usual, was to be honest in admitting that the secondary coverage about NSR is limited - but it nevertheless exists and probably shows a sufficient "notability" for this technique). NSR *is* found on Google Books, more than one or two "incidental" cases. And it *is* found on Google Scholar, too. And it has been quoted in at least three case in important Italian press (not counting the several minor articles or the many unsolicited testimonials by NSR practitioners that can be found in the web). Let's start with Google Books:

• Google Books - Stress and Quality of Working Life - Here, the peer-reviewed study of 2007 about NSR (primary source) is supposed to be scientifically respectable, and descriptive of this (relatively famous?) meditation technique. It is reported at pages 160 and 164 of this book, written by three researchers in three different University (two in the USA and one in Brazil).
• Google Books - Stress Management - Here, Natural Stress Relief is included, with TM, in a list of six (6) meditation techniques, assumed to be implicitly notable in this book about Stress Management published in India (a country that is supposed to be quite reliable in evaluating meditation techniques).
• Google Books - A Biblical Approach to Indian Traditions and Beliefs - This is a critical book mostly about TM but it also quotes the meditation technique by Deepak Chopra (the famous New Age Medical Doctor) and NSR meditation. Of course, we are talking about *notability* here, independently from the fact that this is a critical book. TM is much more notable than NSR, but this is fairly reflected by the very large coverage that TM has got in several Wikipedia articles (not only the main TM article), so it would appear unfair for NSR not to have at least a single small article.
• I would add this book (that DaveRaftery did not quote): Google Books - Alternative Therapies for Mental Health by a American Medical Doctor. Apparently this book is scientifically valid, also because its cost is rather high, around $130.00. At page 334, the 2007 NSR peer-reviewed article was implicitly considered the best scietific article about the effect of meditation techniques on anxiety: "While reducing stress [...] meditation has also been shown to [...] reduce anxiety (226)". You can check at page 567 that quotation 226 is just the NSR article from Psychological Reports, 2007.
• Also, consider that the two peer-reviewed articles about NSR have been quoted on Google Scholar (and one in MedLine/PubMed, by the way). From Google Scholar one can see that a citation of one NSR article has already been made from another article (about Tai Chi and Meditation) from third party researchers, even if only 2 years have passed from publication of the quoted article.
• About the second most important newspaper in Italy, La Repubblica, please notice that NSR in Italy is also known as "Tecnica Naturale Anti-Stress" or "Training Naturale Anti-stress". The article was based on an interview of mine, but the journalist considered NSR meditation as the most important thing I spoke of: isn't it "secondary" coverage? And, even if it not considered formally as such, it might be an objective sign of notability of NSR.
• The same might apply to the Italian National Radio interview on a different topic, that was a book I wrote, but also this journalist decided to talk briefly about NSR ("Tecnica Naturale Anti-Stress").
• The SuperEva Guide is an independent website about several subjects, including Health, that unsolicitedly reported parts of a previous article of mine about NSR. Even if it may not be strictly secondary coverage, it seems very similar.
• I can report another website, about Experiential Yoga, where one find an unsolicited article made with a mix of the articles above, added to the 2007 Psychological Reports abstract of the article about NSR (confirming that NSR meditation or Tecnica Naturale Anti-Stress is implicitly considered notable among generic meditation techniques).
• Another important article about NSR at a national level was published independently on the "Alias" section of the newspaper "Il Manifesto" on September 23, 2006, but I have not yet found a link on the web.
• I am not going to report several other minor articles. I imagine that NSR is also quoted in other new books in English that are not (yet?) in Google Books, but I cannot be sure of this.

I hope that these explanations may help the Wikipedia Editors. Thanks for reading this post of mine.

Fabrizio Coppola, Istituto Scientia, Italy. Posted on 28 March 2010, 16:45 UTC.

(A few other corrections made later, until 20:00. Sorry for bad editing and not so good English)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.17.199.12 (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So. basically what we have is this:

• The La Repubblica and Radio interviews of you regarding your book, neither of which is about NSR. The first doesn't mention it at all, and the second only in passing
• Various search engines and web pages, none of which are independent, reliable, secondary sources, and which point to articles or papers you wrote, not to secondary sources.
• Three or four books which make passing mention of NSR or your research paper in footnotes or parentheticals in the context of discussion of meditation in general, but containing no substantive discussion of NSR.

I'm inclined to characterize that as no more than trivial and incidential mention of NSR, and not "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". But, as I said above, others will decide that, not me. Fladrif (talk) 00:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fladrif, I imagine that certain translation issues, added to your tendency to undervalue the importance of NSR meditation, may prevent you to exactly understand those references and whether they are really secondary and independent or not.

• NSR meditation (a.k.a. Tecnica Naturale Anti-Stress or TNAS) is described in both the Repubblica article and the National RAI Radio 2 interview. A possible connection between the mantra, regular alpha brainwaves, transcendence and the mechanics of stress removal is briefly exposed in both. About the Repubblica article: from a simple translation from Italian to English one might understand that this is just a description of a generic mantra meditation technique. This is partly true, but those who are familiar with Italian can get that the subject is specifically NSR/TNAS meditation: for example, the Italian website YogaEsperenziale.com (Experiential Yoga), which is an independent third party in no way connected to our organizations, easily gets that and resumes that article and other basic information about NSR in that one single page. The NSR/TNAS technique was also described by an independent article in the newspaper Il Manifesto/Alias (but I can't find a direct link to that text on the web).
• Guide SuperEva, which is a large Italian website about culture, science, health, etc. (of course independent from us), also reported some of that information about NSR, and favorable comments about NSR/TNAS can be found on minor independent Italian and international websites or fora (for example Yoga.it), but I think it is not worth to fill this page with a large number of such micro-references.
• You initially said that NSR had no references at all in Google Books and Google Scholar, but it is easy to find the ones that DaveRaftery then reported above, including Google Books 1, 2, 3, 4, Google Scholar 1, 2. Now, you say that these are just incidental or trivial references to generic meditation, just quoting NSR as an example of meditation technique. Well, even if you get only that little from those references, it means that those authors consider NSR as a notable and typical meditation technique, and this should definitely close the notability issue.
• However, there is more than just that little you got: for example Google Books 4 considers the 2007 Psychological Reports article about NSR (reference 226) as the best scientific source about demonstrating that meditation can reduce anxiety. I personally do not agree, since I consider the Eppley et al. meta-analysis (including TM) published in 1989 as a better article (about anxiety reduction and meditation): this is just my opinion, though, and we agree that our individual opinions mean nothing to Wikipedia. The important fact is that that author does objectively consider the 2007 NSR article as the best reference on that subject. This is a fact, not an opinion, since secondary source statements are considered facts according to the Wikipedia policies.

I will try not to answer anymore, and I hope that other Wikipedia Editors make their comment, after considering the whole picture, rather than the limited facts exposed at the beginning.

Thanks for reading. Fabrizio Coppola, Istituto Scientia, Italy. Posted on 29 March 2010, 20:30 UTC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.19.206.19 (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• NSR has nothing to do with the paranormal

An editor added the Paranormal category tag to this deletion discussion page apparently without explanation. I removed the Paranormal tag and added a Spirituality tag, retaining that editor's intent in using Paranormal but changing it to the less outrageous and superstitious Spirituality tag, even though even Sprituality is irrelevant to a secular mental technique like NSR. I also provided a rationale for the change.

Unfortunately, that editor has seen fit to add the Paranormal tag back to the article. I will not start a revert war, because that is not my way. But the editor should not WP:PUSH his or her WP:POV in this way.

Natural Stress Relief has nothing to do with belief or religion, and definitely is not 'Paranormal' in any way. It is simply a stress reduction technique! Would anyone call hypnosis or taking a bubble bath 'paranormal'? Of course not. Why does this editor insist on smearing Natural Stress Relief with the brush of pseudoscience? Does he or she have a WP:RS for this? I ask for correct categorization (is that a WP policy? It should be). David Spector (talk) 18:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of those listings is simply to alert users interested in the relevant project to the existence of this AFD. They don't mean that the article is necessarily related to those projects except by the broadest interpretation. Broad exposure to AfDs can only improve the final decisions. If this article is not at all related to the paranormal then probably no one from that project will weigh in and so it won't have any effect.   Will Beback  talk  18:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will, neither you nor Fladrif have the right to impose your POV on NSR. Suppose I add the Medicine category to this page. will you silently acquiesce, or immediately remove it? I have removed the Spirituality tag. See our discussion about this on my talk page. It's clearly two bullies against a volunteer trying to protect his organization from libel. Must I follow the official complaint mechanisms? I really don't have the time, even if it is clear to me that I would win. NSR is not paranormal and therefore would not be expected to be of any interest to people who believe in things paranormal, like ghosts. Why do you think NSR is of interest to people who believe in mind-reading, but not to people who believe in spirituality? You're inconsistent. You should really put this in the category of Cults (or Bad Things, or Things No One Should Waste Their Money On), and see if you can prove that. You can't even provide one WP:RS showing why NSR has anything to do with the paranormal! I look forward to your responses with interest. David Spector (talk) 20:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. I have no objection to adding this AfD to as many delsort lists as might be applicable, per my comment above. I haven't !voted in this AfD, and I've only made a single minor edit to the article. I'd remind you that WP:COI calls on those with conflicts of interest to avoid or show great caution when participating in deletion decisions. Your intemperate words are not helpful.   Will Beback  talk  20:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully request that Fladrif recuse himself from this AfD per WP:COI since he has a conflict of interest with NSR and David Spector as documented above. DaveRaftery (talk) 01:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)DaveRaftery 31 March 2010[reply]

I'm having trouble finding the documentation of Fladrif's COI. Could you repeat it here please?   Will Beback  talk  02:20, 1 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 From the comments below, it seems that the discussion lies somewhere between consensus to delete and no consensus to do anything. As Steve Smith is a trusted administrator and functionary, I will take him at his word that the subject requested deletion. Default to delete. NW (Talk) 11:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The emails between Steve Smith and Kent Glowinski have been forwarded toOTRS. NW (Talk) 16:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Glowinski[edit]

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

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

Individual at the fringes of WP:N, if covered by it at all, and the article is attracting negative attention. The subject has requested deletion. Steve Smith (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep "subject has requested deletion"? Where? Unless tinytory is the person in question, I see no evidence of the article subject wanting it deleted, nor do I see why that matters anyway, as I don't see any "I don't want an article about me so delete it" directive in WP:BLP. The original creator of the article wanting deletion doesn't matter as there have been over a dozen other contributors to the article. Back on the subject of deletion, the subject of the article appears to be at least marginally notable, same as last time 2 years ago and the article is well sourced in compliance with WP:BLP, and "article is being harassed" is a possible rationale for protection, not deletion. Grandmartin11 (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The subject requested deletion in an e-mail to me. Steve Smith (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Why? How relevant is that to this discussion. If Paris Hilton asked us to delete her article, would we?--Milowent (talk) 04:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't ask why; what matters is that until Wikipedia is able to offer article subjects some guarantee that their articles will be treated responsibly and professionally, we should accept their requests for deletion. As for the relevance, there is ample precedent for the subject's wishes being taken into account in AFD closures: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7...many more examples available on request. Steve Smith (talk) 04:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. I assume he is asking because not all his press is universally positive.--Milowent (talk) 04:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Subject not notable. This appears to be a biography of a living person of marginal importance and interest. Appears to have been politically active a decade ago, but did not hold any "official position" within a political office, party or movement, for that matter. Voting and volunteering is not notable. I suggest delete. Old katlady (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC) — Old katlady (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete "Narcissistic Personality Disorder"? Sounds like a scientific/medical work. No, it's an apparently self-published book of 'poems'. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=98FnIP2TEi8C&dq=%22Narcissistic+Personality+Disorder%22+Glowinski%27&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=C2eqS-LMD4W80gTK8-HHAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBoQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=&f=false (I hate those Google links...) Subject of article seems to have been a rather thrusting teenager, but not to have achieved much as a result. The McGill Daily is a student newspaper, and I don't feel that contributing there is particularly notable. 'His latest article "Don’t get enough credit? The need for an impartial consumer Credit Report Appeal Tribunal in Ontario" is in the process of being published.' OK. Where and in what, and remember WP:CRYSTAL. Peridon (talk) 19:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Tinytory may or may not be the subject of the article, but was the creator. As such, Tinytory would be entitled to request deletion by blanking, but too many other hands had stirred the broth by that time. I usually feel inclined to say Keep when the subject apparently wants out, but there doesn't seem to be the controversy element involved here. Peridon (talk) 19:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You usually feel inclined to say keep when the subject wants out? Out of malice, or what? Steve Smith (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to feel there is something notable that doesn't fit with the vanity article created. I've seen rather more than one case of this. Peridon (talk) 12:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree to Delete I know (through other professional persons) the subject in question. Professionally, he's a whip without doubt and done some noteworthy things as an individual person. But in all honesty, I just do not see him meeting the well-known requirements. As Peridon submits, the "Narcissistic Personality" book is poetry, not a scholarly text. In furtherance, the upcoming article on a proposed "Credit Report Appeal Tribunal" is simply not attributable (re: Peridon - "Where and in what"). Again, this is not to impugn the character of the subject, I would just agree with the foregoing comments on deletion.Ellismoo999 (talk) 23:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Ellismoo999 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Silverseren^C 01:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Re Comment Peridon Agree on WP:CRYSTAL. Forgot to quote. Out. Ellismoo999 (talk) 23:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silverseren^C 00:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silverseren^C 00:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am absolutely appalled at the state of this AfD. I have seen absolutely no attempt by anyone here to actually look up any sources on the man. After a simple, easy, less than five clicks to get to search, I found a incredibly large amount of articles on him for various things. I took the liberty of adding them into the article, they just need to be switched from being external links to references. Silverseren^C 00:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Marginally notable living person who requests deletion. Hipocrite (talk) 00:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how he is marginally notable? He has enough coverage in reliable sources. Silverseren^C 01:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's not famous. He's not infamous. He's just a guy. We delete articles of people who aren't famous who ask for it. Hipocrite (talk) 15:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Subject's lawsuits (over gambling and student loan repayment) have given him sufficient mainstream RS coverage to meet the GNG and hence N. He is not a non-public figure, so his own opinion on the article is essentially irrelevant. Jclemens (talk) 04:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We created this page on the subject years back when circumstances would have rendered him notable within meaning of WP:N; however, those circumstances changed and subject remains relatively unknown WP:NPF. Keep in mind "profile" is dynamic WP:LOWPROFILE. As for above comments about civil lawsuits: if Wikipedia is to retain articles on relatively unknown subjects solely because unproven allegations in civil lawsuits appear in the media through malice/pure interest or otherwise, almost anyone in a litigation (divorces, property disputes, etc.), which often become heated, would become notable and deserving of a page. Wikipedia is not here to parrot out relatively tenuous and unlinked data appearing in media here and there and pertaining to unknown individuals. If the criteria for being notable is (1) civic involvement at any point in life and (2) being involved in one or more legal disputes at any point in life, then 90% of the population is famous. There also seems to be a zeal to keep articles solely in spite of someone who wants them removed. Tinytory (talk) 13:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Tinytory (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Silverseren^C 14:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporary. It doesn't matter that he is relatively unknown or that he is low-profile, that does not affect notability. It just means the article needs to be carefully written, but not that it should be deleted. And being involved in a rather well-publicized dispute does garner notability and this is a large battle between the Canadian government and one man. Also, the casino dispute is involving changes of law, which is also a big deal. There are enough references from reliable news sources to show that the man is notable. Silverseren^C 14:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"It just means that the article needs to be carefully written". And once Wikipedia demonstrates any ability whatever to ensure that such articles are carefully written, then that might be a viable policy. Steve Smith (talk) 18:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment makes no sense. Wikipedia's articles are done by the users. It is up to you and me to ensure that. Do you not feel capable of doing it right or something? Dissing the project does not a valid point make. Silverseren^C 18:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not feel personally capable of protecting every BLP, no. Steve Smith (talk) 19:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Hipocrite. Notability is marginal at best. I also think that when people of questionable notability request deletion of their articles, their feelings should be taken into account. AniMate 03:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But where is the policy that states that that is what we should do? Silverseren^C 18:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that we needed a policy page that tells us to behave like decent human beings. AniMate 18:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You weren't? How long have you been on this project? You should really pay more attention. Steve Smith (talk) 18:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, first off, the nominator has not given us the log link for the person asking for deletion, which is normal to be done in cases like this. Without that link, we have no way of verifying whether the person this article is about ever asked that. Second, we're here to build an encyclopedia. We can't cater to the people we write about, just because they don't like the truthful, verifiable information about them we put on here. If there is bad information, it's because they got themselves into a bad situation. That is not our concern. Our concern is for the articles and the project. Silverseren^C 18:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I was wrong. We do need a policy page that tells us to be decent human beings. AniMate 18:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've gotta go a little further than this. WP:BLP wasn't created to protect articles, it was created to protect the subjects of these articles. According to the policy: "The possibility of harm to living subjects must be considered when exercising editorial judgment." You wanted relevant policy, there you go. This is why we consider the subjects wishes. You should read WP:BLP and actually learn what it says. AniMate 19:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That part of WP:BLP pertains to editing that defames a person or slants an article in a negative light. It does not pertain to the fact that, if there are sources about osmething he did wrong and he doesn't like that there is coverage of this wrong thing he did, then we should delete the article for him. That's not how it works. For example, the gambling thing. That certainly portrays him as being a not really smart person who drinks too much. But that is not us making some sort of conjecture off of the sources, that would be from the fact that the incident happened at all, which is covered in the sources. We do not cater to people that do things that put themselves in a bad light. It has nothing to do with being decent human beings. If we held to that, then every article about a scandal on Wikipedia should be taken off, because it portrays them in a bad light. That is not how policy works. That is not how WP:BLP works. Silverseren^C 19:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and request. Simple. Jack Merridew 06:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems notable to me. Article has plenty of references. --DThomsen8 (talk) 11:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I happen to believe that we can and should consider the subject's wishes. Unless a subject is of such overwelming notability, as reflected in reliable sources, that omitting them does injury to the project, I favor deletion. Thus, while I feel that the subject meets our minimum requirements for notability, I am willing to accede to his request. Steve - is this email an OTRS issue? If so, please post the ticket number. Obviously, if it's an ARBCOM thing we'll just take your word for it. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It's actually neither; he contact the oversight list, but since it wasn't an oversight matter I took it off-list and corresponded with him personally. I could forward the e-mail in which he requested deletion to OTRS, if that would help. Steve Smith (talk) 02:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Essentially I agree with Xymmax that the case for notability is not so high here that we should ignore the subject's request. And I say this as an editor who added references and then recommended "keep" at the previous AfD. I can understand Silver seren's argument, but on balance I think it's reasonable to honour the subject's request in this sort of case where there are multiple news articles covering various minor aspects of the person's life and times. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Plenty of news about this guy's life to make him notable. You don't get to erase an article about yourself, just because you don't like attention towards something you've done that the news reports on. I restored part of what was removed in this edit [19], and discussed on the talk page how it was easy enough to find the news article mentioned as the source for those paragraphs of information. Dream Focus 08:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, clearly meets WP:GNG. Filest (aktl) 08:59, 1 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 all g4 and a9, see previous afd. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yung Mercury (rapper)[edit]

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

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

Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Zero Google news hits on name, Google web hits are either primary sources (blogs, myspace, etc) or are of unclear reliability. Might be notable one day but not now. RadioFan (talk) 15:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete Should have done some additional Wiki searches before nomingating this. It meets Speedy Deletion criteria G4 as it's been deleted before (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yung Mercury) and has not significantly changed since then. RadioFan (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and SALT. There's even less here than there was before, and the previous situation didn't meet WP:MUSIC either. "Might be notable one day but not now" sums it up. Until then, given that this failed AfD about a week ago, I recommend SALT; at that hypothetical future point of notability, I think WP:Deletion review should be required. (added later) SALT the whole mess. The last AfD noted a number of "album" titles and details that were simply hoaxes -- this seems to be the same. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following album page associated with this rapper, it also lacks 3rd party reliable sources and is based completely on "confirmed" details about a forthcoming album from what appears to be a fan blog.

Elavation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to History of the Royal Air Force. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RAF kills post-World War II[edit]

RAF kills post-World War II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

I'm no crab but this article was obviously started with the intention of being a POV fork.[20] It reminded me of a statement made by Sharkey Ward, a bitter RN pilot in the inter-service rivalry. A merge tag was placed, however no discussion was actually started. I also recognise that Hohum has done very good work to try and "neutralise" the article. Ryan4314 (talk) 15:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete An article about what the RAF hasn't done? How bizarre (and more importantly, how unencyclopedic). -- Boing! said Zebedee 15:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep, if it was moved to Air-to-air combat history of the RAF it would be more encyclopedic. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 19:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Merge to a relevant, established article, preference for the former. (Hohum ^@) 20:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to History of the RAF. The article notes that the RAF shot down two Egyptian planes in 1948, and a couple of their own RAF planes since. 62 years without one of their planes shooting down an enemy plane seems worth mentioning, either here or in the article on the RAF, to balance the POV assertions of "great success" post WW2 period in the target merge article. Edison (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request. Edison, if you could point out (on the article talk page) which elements of the current History of the RAF article you see as being POV, that would be of use. Greenshed (talk) 22:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentOne wonders how many planes shot down in air to air combat could be claimed, post-WW2, by the air forces of France, Germany, the Soviet Union, China, Japan or any other country prominent in WW2 air combat. A score card for all countries would be an interesting and referenceable article. Edison (talk) 18:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not much better than trivia Nick-D (talk) 09:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unencyclopedic. — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Partial merge to History of the RAF. The RAF's post WW2 air to air combat might be mentioned as applicable in the appropriate section heading in the History of the RAF article. More generally, while recognizing the good attempts at NPOVing so far (which has only been partially successful), if any of this article were to stand on its own it might be presented in a wider post WW2 air power analysis (covering such topics as whether air superiority was gained and the RAF's role within joint or coalition air operations). Greenshed (talk) 18:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a mess of ideas and NPOV problems, anything relevant should be in History of the RAF but most of it is not relevant. MilborneOne (talk) 17:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Some detail now added to History of the RAF article. Greenshed (talk) 18:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Partial merge as suggested above.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Partial merge to History of the RAF. - The Bushranger (talk) 22:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment is there anything more from RAF kills post-World War II that editors want to see added to the History of the RAF article? Greenshed (talk) 22:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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