< 4 November	6 November >

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. PhilKnight (talk) 00:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leigh Kessler[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP, I'm finding some passing mentions but no significant coverage. Should we keep this or delete it? --Nuujinn (talk) 23:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, close to a speedy. Not notable. Likely self-promotion. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Nytimes blurb on his wedding in 2004[1] but not really much out there for an individual article.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:08, 12 November 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 on main article, delete others. Please ask if anyone would like any of the others userfied, if there is anything useful to merge into the main article. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nathyn Brendan Masters[edit]

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

Possible autobiographical or paid article about the subject. Article creator's first edit was to proclaim that they did "basic publicity for film and video actors". Google search on the subject brings up only 164 unique results - some minor discussion on a few of his films, but little in the way of significant coverage of the individual. The following articles have similar notability problems, and were all created in within a short period of time by the same editor, all promoting subjects connected to Masters:

TheRealFennShysa (talk) 22:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the articles I've sighted they actually fall within the guidelines. 164 unique results isn't like saying they're no information about him and in fact he is noteworthy for the things mentioned in the article. And wikipedia isn't being used to promote these things. I'm just adding them as facts. I'm linking the articles together as I go along and others have the right to add to it or subtract if the information is incorrect. —Preceding Rmavers comment added by Rmavers (talk • contribs) 00:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I notice you're disputing some of my info on the comic book characters. I'm totally lost on this one. I wouldn't even know where to begin save for saying I don't know why they would need to be deleted. Has anyone else been threatened for deletion of a comic book character. I see all the Marvel and DC characters are fine, Strangers in Paradise and Vampirella so I don't see why these characters aren't fit to be in the Wiki Comic project just because they're new and not from a major company.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmavers (talk • contribs)

~~Delete all~~ currently all articles fail notability criteria WP:BIO, WP:FILMNOT, none of the articles have indication of non-trivial third party sources. If such a source were to be found for some there would be a strong case for merging some of the character articles.--Salix (talk): 09:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep Masters, going soft in my old age. Of the references 1 does seem to be substantial independent third party source dvdverdict, other still seem week to me, often looking like they have just rephrased a press-release. The comics don't seem to have made much impact I've not seen any reviews of them, the publishing house has just release those three comics which just are not notable enough for separate articles. All the other articles could be merged into NBM.--Salix (talk): 19:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Third Party sources added... There are several independent sources in the Nathyn Brendan Masters article including IMDB, Mac Daily News, The Chicago Redeye, moviesonline and Podcastingnews.com. Are you implying that Nathyn Masters is involved in all these sites and a Chicago Newspaper owned by Tribune? Now that's just ridiculous. For the "Epitaph: Bread and Salt" article I used IMDB, I've yet to add sources "horrornews.net" "vampireshow.com" "vampirenews" "FarEastfilm.com and "Chainsaw Mafia". I'll do these now. —Preceding Rmavers comment added by Rmavers (talk • contribs) 15:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More Third Party sources... I've added more sources to the article but these are not "trivial". These sources back up the information that I'm putting online. How are they trivial? I'll tackle some of the other pages soon. —Preceding Rmavers comment added by Rmavers (talk • contribs) 15:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you read WP:FILMNOT you will find Trivial coverage, such as newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews," plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as "Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide," "Time Out Film Guide," or the Internet Movie Database. So IMDB is specifically excluded and the Far East Films article seems to be a plot summaries without critical commentary. The bar is set quite high for films and other media on wikipedia, IMDB will be comprehensive wikipedia is for films which standout in someway.--Salix (talk): 16:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taken In Context When taken in context to the article these sources are reasonable. They prove that the films exist and were out in the time stated (fact). So if someone challenges and says "He didn't make one of the first (possibly THE FIRST) features on a DVX100" (A challenge of notability) the film's date would say otherwise and can be crossed referenced with other features shot at that time. Also the same is true for "Wages of Sin" being the first film created with Apple TV and mind. The date is important in these issues. Also IMDB's distribution list shows what films were picked up. It is "verifiable". Master's first film, possibly the first film shot on the DVX100 (the first pro-consumer camera with 24p capability, was shot for $800 and picked up by York Distribution. The Movieonline mention ads to it being "verifiable". While "The bar is set quite high for films and other media on wikipedia" Wiki still asks for things to be "verifiable" and therefore there is no reason that sources don't show verifiability. In fact it's just the opposite. Again, taken in context. Rmavers (talk) 17:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-Irony Before I ever started doing wiki pages this was on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Sunday_Law and guess whose mentioned under Cultural references. It states clearly: "Marcussen's National Sunday Law was in part the inspiration for the 2004 low-budget action movie, The 4th Beast: Mask of the Antichrist. Director Nathyn Masters, an alum of Chicago's Columbia College recounts" This was stated years ago. (And I too will now use this for my article). In light of this, I believe the notability challenge should end here. On WIKIPEDIA ITSELF Masters is used as a cultural reference in an article about Pastor Marcussen before I ever started doing the Master's Wiki. I would like to also point out this article written in 2004: http://christianfilmnews.com/1167/the-4th-beast/ the mention on Wikipedia itself is not trivial as it's at the heart of the matter and the other articles are independent sources and do include "critical commentary". Rmavers (talk) 17:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep main article on the author, and consider the others. This is not an appropriate combination AfD nomination because the notability of the various article subjects is likely to be very unequal. Clearly he as an author is more important than any of his individual works, which are in turn more important than the individual characters in them. The reasonable net step after keeping this would be to examine the articles on his works, because if they are deleted the deletion of the characters article is straightforward. But I would hope before that time someone knowledgable will merge them as appropriate if possible--if the span multiple works, this can be fairly tricky to accomplish . DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep author, consider others as per DGG. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto: Keep author, consider others as per DGG. But most of the other entries are about comicbook characters. —Preceding Rmavers comment added by Rmavers (talk • contribs) 05:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all; promo. Wile E. Heresiarch (talk) 05:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Witch Hunt at this point I've already proven notability based on Wikipedia itself. It's a witch hunt at this point. Rmavers (talk) 06:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Concerns about non trivial third party sources in the original article remains relevant, and it appears there's been very little actual input at this AfD. Shadowjams (talk) 10:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nathyn Brendan Masters, I haven't picked through the rest. Barely-there sourcing, and there is no such thing as "proving notability based on Wikipedia itself", notability is based on significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Hairhorn (talk) 13:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ Hairhorn and I have indeed proven such. This is basically going to be a gang up on a new member. I know how this goes, it happens in almost every new forum or what have you I go on. It's nothing new. The "other material" was for the comic project which is on going. With other comic book companies. Even if that is the case the NBM has significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject which can be proven by the links and coverage on the web. Just because a person isn't famous as Snookie doesn't mean they aren't significant. In fact they may be worth more to the society. And the coverage is for the NBM page is anything, but barely there.Rmavers (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I count at least 7 articles that are significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject]] which can be proven by the links and coverage on the web. You're no even looking at the stuff any more you're just voting delete. There's several articles and reviews not just blurbs. Rmavers (talk) 16:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Looking at diffs from the time of nomination to now, it looks like there are two new sources, Christian Film News and Columbia Chronicle, that weren't present when the article was nominated for deletion. I'm going to go through the articles in depth; however, since this is day seven since the nomination, I wanted to get this out there to the closing admin that there has been improvement from the time of nomination. —C.Fred (talk) 17:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nathyn Brendan Masters, delete the rest. Let me start with the article on Masters. I see enough sources to satisfy WP:GNG. I think the best course of action is to turn this into a good article by boosting it with reliable sources. Focus on what can be independently verified first. The strength of this article, especially compared to the others in this nomination, is that there are independent, reliable sources that have written about him and his work.

The rest of the articles cover Masters' self-publishing company (Night Phoenix Press), a film (Epitaph: Bread and Salt), a comic book series (Epitaph (comic book series), and a slew of comic characters. While Masters' article passed WP:GNG, the articles on the company and film fail it. The only references I see there are IMDB and press releases, so it's impossible to demonstrate significant coverage in independent sources based on those.

The article on the comic book series and the characters suffer from the flaw of being entirely in-universe and not presenting any real-world context. (One of them, Adam Hassan, doesn't give any context whatsoever.) If this were the Nathyn Brendan Masters Wiki, we'd have no problem—we could do a nice compendium of every character in the series. However, this is a general encyclopedia, and none of the characters are shown to have any real-world context or relevance whatsoever. I can't even recommend merging these back into the comic book series article—it would just weigh that article down with in-universe detail when it's needing demonstration of significance in the (real) world at large. —C.Fred (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete everything but the biography, and then renominate if necessary. At the moment it's clear enough the other articles lack significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject and therefore are non-notable. PhilKnight (talk) 00:46, 13 November 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

C.C.R.S. Award[edit]

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

Local award, no indication or evidence that it meets notability criteria. PK T(alk) 21:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - based on the above ((find)) searches, there doesn't appear to be significant coverage in reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 00:42, 13 November 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 under WP:A1. Airplaneman ✈ 03:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon X[edit]

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

The article does not even say what the subject is. It looks like some sort of fake anime episode or something, which fails notability. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 20:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.
Speedy delete fan-creation indeed, insufficient context. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:07, 5 November 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 02:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All-American Basketball Alliance (2010)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:EFFECT, WP:PERSISTENCE: this is simply not encyclopedic. Wikipedia aspires to be more than just the repository of every single thing that had two or more news stories about it. This is a "sports league" that did not exist beyond a non-notable wrestling promoter's press release. Yes, the press release, proposing an all-white league, successfully trolled a lot of people, and so got a lot of "Hey, isn't this wacky?" news coverage, including a Daily Show interview, but there's no evidence that a single dollar was spent in setting this non-existent (and illegal) league up. They didn't even spring $9.95 to get a domain name and website. Has no chance of becoming a featured article. THF (talk) 19:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that "Has no chance of becoming a featured article" was a valid reason to delete. The only question that needs to be asked: Did this idea receive significant coverage in reliable sources? The answer is yes. Keep. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not "the only question that needs to be asked." A burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article. THF (talk) 20:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what do you think "significant coverage" entails? Look it up, there was some coverage in August and September.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where? THF (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See [2] and also see this article from a Brazilian magazine, this book and this book, all of which were published after the extensive media coverage in January and February 2010.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google says Link 1 is from September 12, but if you click through, it's a non-RS messageboard from January.
The first book is self-published (Xlibris) and misspells "its": not a reliable source. (And its thesis is that the AABA was a hoax and no one should have paid attention to the press release.)
The second book isn't a book, it's a reprint of Wikipedia articles.
So your argument is that it meets WP:PERSISTENCE is a one-paragraph blurb in a Brazilian porn magazine. You've proved my point. THF (talk) 22:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a "porn magazine". Please retract that statement. I hope you're not so uncouth as to describe a different culture as "porn". Regardless, there were multiple articles from September and August, please read them as well. Additionally, the article itself should be a reflection of the concept and idea of an all-white league, which has been addressed for years.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Has no chance of becoming a featured article." Please don't use this as part of a deletion rationale again. Milt Bolling and a million other articles are never going to be a featured article, but that gives us no reason to delete it. I'm neutral on this deletion, but that last sentence was a big facepalm. Vodello (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Don "Moose" Lewis. Basically, this league has no potential of ever coming into existence, as its entire concept would violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It only existed as an announcement, not something that could ever possibly take effect. However, the league can be covered in an article about its promoter, who may well get media coverage for other stupid ideas in the future. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Don "Moose" Lewis, as per Metropolitan90. This "league" consists of nothing more than a press release and some inflammatory interviews, and is the moral equivalent of WP:BLP1E. Ravenswing 21:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This has already received a large amount of coverage beyond the NOTNEWS requirement of routine news reporting. If we regard this as a topic in its own right, it's notable under WP:GNG. If we regard it as an event, it appears to have already had quite a bit of impact on ongoing coverage, so it would meet WP:EVENT as well. Moving to a biography article is a bad idea; Lewis is only notable for one thing, so it would be the exact opposite of what WP:BIO1E specifies. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NOT#NEWS. Never got off the ground, probably only a publicity stunt, no need for us to have an article. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:31, 13 November 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 admin User:Jimfbleak per CSD G11. Non-admin housekeeping closure.--hkr Laozi speak 15:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Garrison Medill[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. As a candidate with almost no coverage, he gets no article. Ironholds (talk) 19:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete—no coverage in reliable sources. Only google hits are Medill-affiliated articles and websites. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 20:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until after the primary for Mayor. Racepacket (talk) 23:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any particular policy or guideline you'd like to cite, or is this just your personal opinion? Ironholds (talk) 08:12, 6 November 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 is a strong consensus here to Keep, with overwhelming consensus expressed from the community that the subject of the article is noteworthy, notable, and satisfies WP:NOTE. -- Cirt (talk) 05:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Karachi plane crash[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/2010 Karachi plane crash

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

Wikipedia is not the news. Routine air crash which fails our air accident notability essay WP:AIRCRASH and most parts of WP:EVENT, the Guideline which interprets the GNG for current events. MickMacNee (talk) 18:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Far from routine. An aircrash with 21 fatalities (do these happen on a routine basis - no they don't), no different from this which is on the frontpage. As you say, it fails the essay WP:AIRCRASH, which isn't a policy. This easily meets WP:GNG:

Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Check.
"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Check.
"Sources,"[2] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. Check.
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc. Check.
"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Check too. Lugnuts (talk) 10:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. The reason for deletion is for failing NOT#NEWS (policy), EVENT (GNG equivalent guideline), and AIRCRASH (topic specific essay). Simply meeting the GNG criteria does not defeat that, because as you point out in No. 5, (but don't seemed to have understood by giving it a 'check'), passing the GNG is just a presumption of notability, not a free pass, it is not our only policy and it is not our only guideline. To give an example of how poor this defence is to the actual nomination, your run down of the GNG criteria here would mean every single thing on Google News right now deserves an article. Check? No. And your actual use of the GNG isn't that great either - in your copy and past of the 'Sources' criteria for example, you conveniently left out the multiple sources caveat, for which multiple news reports sourced from the same few wires/quotes, is not considered multiple sourcing. And from NOT#NEWS, when they all say the exact same thing, it is not considered evidence of significant coverage either, but is simply routine news coverage reflecting the relative importance to news organisations, but meaningless when considering the encyclopoedic importance. And on that score, yes, it is entirely routine that when an airplane crashes into the ground, all the people on board die. It is also entirely routine that every now and again, a plane somewhere in the world falls out of the sky. Infact in Pakistan, quite often actually. You've given no evidence there was anything unusual about this particular crash, and don't even seem to realise why the other article you cite is considered historically significant and noteworthy, beyond simple news values. Nothing about your insistence that this is not a routine accident demonstrates how anyone in ten years time will not look back on this accident as anything other than just another routine aircrash. You want Wikipedia's role to be an aircrash database? Or a permanent memorial to such tragedies? Fine, then go and get WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:NOT#INFO and WP:NOT#MEMORIAL deleted as parts of the policy NOT, which is, as a core policy, more important than the GNG all day every day. Simply meeting the GNG simply doesn't cut it for these sorts of aircrashes, not by a long way. MickMacNee (talk) 14:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It meets the guidance cited. Thanks for your input. Lugnuts (talk) 09:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. You can either read, understand, and reply to the above comments, or you can't. Don't simply make nonsense statements in reply and pretend they make sense, that's just idiotic behaviour frankly. MickMacNee (talk) 17:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does! idiotic? that's really stupid! Elmao (talk) 09:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prove it then, answer the points above. MickMacNee (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please be civil. Thanks again. Lugnuts (talk) 14:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL specifically directs editors not to do what you did with that non-reply above. MickMacNee (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly a non-reply - fully citied policy that I've refered to, instead of your psuedo-essay. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 08:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "non-reply" refers to this, not your original response. To the closer - please note that despite what he claims here, this user has still failed to answer my rebuttal of 6 Nov 14:06, and thus the points still stand for consideration. Also please note that again, despite what he claims here, he is surely well aware by now (if he really cannot deduce it from the original nomination) that an essay is not the only reason for deletion. This fact has been stated and restated enough on this page already. MickMacNee (talk) 18:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to answer your rebuttal, as I've citied the policy this article clearly meets. Again, thanks for your input. Lugnuts (talk) 19:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you say. You want to ignore the rebuttal, you go right ahead, it doesn't help your case in any way at all, infact it totally weakens it, as it shows precisely how you really don't understand the principles, policies and guidelines in play here, and why your opinion counts for nothing. And the GNG is not a policy, and articles are not required to only meet the GNG to be kept on Wikipedia, as is fully explained in the rebuttal. If you simply don't know that, you don't know much tbh. MickMacNee (talk) 20:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, please be civil - that's your final warning on that note. Thanks again for your input. Lugnuts (talk) 08:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And for the last time, this, this and this are all picture perfect examples of incivil behaviour, if you actually read the policy you are trying to warn me about here, instead of just trying to use it as an excuse/weapon. I won't be so melodramatic as to you issue you a 'final warning' to be civil in all your actions, but I will note for the benefit of everyone that this is now the second time you've been reminded of that aspect of civility, and if you choose to so blatantly ignore it again, your intent in that regard becomes harder and harder to deny. And for the record, if you look downwards, you will see that I am not the only person who has correctly identified your sole fixation on the GNG as a completely flawed rebuttal to the nomination. And P.S., instead of worrying about giving out 'final warnings', it would be a help if you could actualy make proper use indentation, as I am not even entirely sure which post of mine you are even referring to. MickMacNee (talk) 12:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per reasons above. Zbase4 (talk) 01:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PERNOM. MickMacNee (talk) 01:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per ~~MickMacNee's~~ Lugnut's statement. --Saqib Qayyum (talk) 06:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

??????????? What? MickMacNee is the one whose trying to delete this. Either your vote is delete according to MickMacNee's statement or Keep according to Lugnuts statement Zbase4 (talk) 12:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, WP:PERNOM. MickMacNee (talk) 17:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Tragic event and important news event. But not every crash is notable and I see no specific things establishing notability here... L.tak (talk) 21:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Truth be told, Mick, were I in your shoes, I wouldn't dare wave the PERNOM flag after having claimed "failing" the provisions of an essay to be a valid deletion ground. That being said, let's examine your only other citation, that to WP:EVENT. First comes the Lasting Events clause, which states "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." Strike one. The second is Geographical Scope, "An event affecting a local area and reported only by the media within the immediate region may not necessarily be notable." This is an event receiving international front page coverage. Strike two. Depth of coverage? There's plenty of that. Duration of coverage? "However, this may be difficult or impossible to determine shortly after the event occurs, as editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not. That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable." This is a crash that occurred two days ago, and it's desperately premature to claim this as a leg upon which to stand. Diversity of sources? A slam dunk there too. The truth is that despite your assertion that this article fails "most parts" of WP:EVENT, it doesn't fail any part of it as of yet. Ravenswing 21:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can ignore our only topic specific essay all you like, it hardly makes your argument any weightier. As for your reading of EVENT, it's pretty poor actually. A strike for the one bit it does meet, and ignore all the bits it can't/won't yet, without giving any reason to do so? That doesn't stand up at all. And on that score, you really shouldn't think that you can simply get away with asserting this has depth of coverage, when it simply doesn't. And as for diversity, you need to read up on what that is also, because you've got that wrong aswell. If you want clarification on what those passages actually refer to, try the guideline's talk page, because your own interpretations are way off. Like I said, fails most parts of EVENT. MickMacNee (talk) 01:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Damn straight I'm ignoring your essay, because frankly, declaring it to be a valid deletion ground is a facepalm to AfD contributors. Also damn straight I'm ignoring the bits of WP:EVENT that don't come into play yet. That "it's desperately premature to claim this as a leg upon which to stand" got past you as the stated reason, I can't help. Ravenswing 03:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not 'my' essay, it was crafted by members of the Aviation project based what does and does not usually make a notable air incident worthy of its own article, so like I said, ignore it all you want, it hardly adds any weight to your argument, especially if you cannot offer any evidence as to why its contents should be ignored. As for ignoring bits of EVENT based on the idea that it's somehow premature to consider them, that is a pretty blatant violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Per that policy, creation of the article waits for EFFECT to be met, not the other way around. We simply do not retain articles until they can meet all the requirements, quite the reverse. And given the fact that even news coverage of this incident has already dried up, your claims that this incident is going to even meet criteria like INDEPTH and PERSISTENCE in future seem pretty hollow. And waiting is not going to change the definition of DIVERSE either, which you seem to have sidestepped. MickMacNee (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need any evidence to ignore your essay. It's an essay, and only reflects the personal opinions of the writers. It has zero policy weight. Secondly, your citation of WP:CRYSTAL is well to the left of farcical; that policy strictly, and explicitly, concerns future events. This is hardly a future event. As far as press coverage vanishing, 10 seconds search turned up over a dozen articles in the last 24 hours. Finally, I haven't claimed that this incident will meet INDEPTH and PERSISTENCE. How could I know that? More to the point, how could you? We have no idea one way or another. THAT is why an AfD is badly premature. Check back six months from now and we'll see. Ravenswing 19:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I never said you can't ignore the essay (and have said so three times now). All I'm saying is it doesn't help your argument one bit if you do, certainly if your only reason for doing so is that it's only an essay. WP:ATA, where that comes from, is also an essay, but ignoring its advice based on the fact it's just an essay is not going to make any Afd argument sound very weighty at all, I'm sure you can agree. Or maybe not. As for CRYSTAL, I think you'll find that not creating articles prematurely is at the very heart of that policy. If you are not even sure that this can meet EVENT, then why even bother pretending you've rebutted the deletion rationale? Such a 'wait and see' vote is not valid policy, if it fails now (which it does even by ommission), it gets deleted unless or until it can be shown to meet it later. MickMacNee (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was in the midst of writing another rebuttals, but sheesh ... arguing that we should delete an article based on an essay? Claiming that WP:CRYSTAL applies to events that have already happened? This has entered into the realm of farce; DNFT, and all. Ravenswing 20:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your choice. The essay is not the only reason for deletion, but me having to restate that yet again, shows which way the trolling has been going in this sub-thread. MickMacNee (talk) 21:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: 100% agreed with User:Lugnuts. nomi887 (talk) 07:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Closer please note that this is yet another WP:PERNOM vote. What I fear we have here is a case of Wikipedia:Follow the leader on Lugnut's statement abut the GNG, which, given the fact that it contains serious errors and ommissions per my rebuttal, and that neither he or any of the followers has attempted to even answer it, these votes should be weighted accordingly. MickMacNee (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely keep notable event which has recieved coverage. Plane crashes are not ordinary in part of the world. Mar4d (talk) 08:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how it is notable, instead of just asserting it, preferably showing how the deletion rationale is invalid in that respect. We do not keep articles simply because they recieve coverage, nor do we keep articles if they are on unusual events. MickMacNee (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Routine accident? whao! Elmao (talk) 09:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTAVOTE. MickMacNee (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, WP:PERNOM and follow the leader... MickMacNee (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Doesn't surprise me that the nominator has completely got the wrong idea, again....♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, closer please note, this editor has not even given a rationale for their vote (except an attack on the nominator), and thus, should be discounted per WP:NOTAVOTE. MickMacNee (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment MickMacNee, we know you strongly support the deletion of this article. But you are doing nothing to change the opinions of people here by replying to every single one of them with some policy which explains why they are invalid. Not only does it change nothing about whatever the outcome of this discussion is, it is really quite WP:POINTY. wacky wace 19:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly. MickMacNee (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure what that is meant to mean. wacky wace 20:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It means "I doubt it." MickMacNee (talk) 21:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the President of Pakistan, Prime Minister of Pakistan, the UN Secretary General or a famous actress etc, were on the plane? I can see were it would notable. I know this seems cruel, but I've never even heard of the crash, until today. GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notable? No. Will this be even remembered in a few years. No. Delete. --Diego Grez (talk) 01:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Why do you believe that it will not be remembered? WhisperToMe (talk) 21:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please note that user MickMacNee is fighting under many articles for deletion, so there is no point arguing with him. He also is/was banned from some sections of Wikipedia. From my side is a skip-it, let him to argue with himself, with his essey's Elmao (talk) 11:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And please note that I am not, and have never been, 'banned' from any area of Wikipedia. The accuracy of anything this user has to say in this Afd should be seen in that light tbh. MickMacNee (talk) 18:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mm. You've got NINETEEN blocks for edit warring, incivility and the like, the most recent one a little over a week ago. For what it's worth. Ravenswing 20:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For someone who supposedly abhors trolling, you seem to be desperate to engage in some yourself here. My block log has got absolutley fuck all to do with anything in this Afd. 'For what it's worth.' MickMacNee (talk) 22:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Other than shedding some light on your behavior for some startled editors wondering what the heck's going on, I agree that it ought to have nothing to do with it. Ravenswing 01:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My 'behaviour'? You can just stop your sly insinuations and general dickish posts right here thanks. If you have a problem with my 'behaviour', you know what to do. For any user that is 'startled' by what's occuring in this Afd, they only need to read WP:AFD#How to discuss an Afd and WP:ATA to understand the reason for any of my posts. The first of those pages is infact required reading before even voting in an Afd, and the second helps editors avoid wasting their time making generally poor arguments. MickMacNee (talk) 02:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fatal and disastrous air crashes like this are not routine news events, but major disasters which prompt deep and thorough and investigations which last much longer than the initial news story. This event is every bit as notable as Air Midwest Flight 5481 which involved the same aircraft model. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Fatal and disastrous air crashes like this are not routine news events" - Really? What is non-routine then about the news coverage of this incident? A plane crashed and the news reported it in the exact same way they would do for any similar event. This is not a rebuttal to a NOT#NEWS / EVENT deletion nomination at all
"major disasters which prompt deep and thorough and investigations which last much longer than the initial news story" - So what? The closer should note that every single aircrash, no matter how big or small, is always investigated (and yes, always thoroughly too!). This simple fact of life is completely irrelevant to establishing whether this crash is notable or not, or worthy of a stand-alone article on Wikipedia or not (unless the assertion is that all aircrashes are always notable? - this is not the case on Wikipedia at all)
"This event is every bit as notable as Air Midwest Flight 5481 which involved the same aircraft model" - Thirdly, so what? This is a complete and utterly irrelevant Other Crap Exists argument. Yes it involved the same aircraft, but that other article also has not one, but two, claims to lasting notability that this incident does not. This is again completely irrelevant to the deletion rationale. MickMacNee (talk) 18:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment About the Per nom which I voted on earlier I was not following the leader but had no more reasons to add on to Lugnut's statement. Plus MickMackNee you are using WP:JUSTA, because you are pointing out what everybody is doing wrong, and should be avoided. Zbase4 (talk) 00:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His vote is weak, and still has several unanswered questions about it. If you saw those, and still couldn't see anything wrong with it and just decided that it said everything you wanted to say, and you couldn't think of a single thing to add to it or in answer to the questions about it, then so is yours I'm afraid, per the basic principles of PERNOM and yes, follow the leader. And I honestly don't even understand what your point is behind your second sentence. MickMacNee (talk) 02:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep yet another misapplication of WP:NOTNEWS. This is not Routine News by any stretch of Imagination. Its not that aircraft fall out off the sky on a routine basis in Pakistan. easily passes WP:N and WP:V. also agree with Lugnuts and Sjakkale.--Wikireader41 (talk) 14:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is it extraordinary news then? Don't just assert that this is somehow non-routine, prove it. The sources are pure routine news fare. Anybody can see that. "easily passes WP:N" is just more WP:VAGUEWAVEing. It counts for absolutely nothing. MickMacNee (talk) 20:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MMN you are the one trying to get the article deleted. the burden is on you to show that this article is about routine news, not the other way round. remember unless there is a consensus that article fails relevant wiki policies it stays. So far you have failed clearly, utterly and miserably in making an argument which is remotely coherent. I will once again say what I have said in many of of previous AfDs where you voted for delete. their is NO way in hell this article will be deleted. As usual you are on losing side of (yet) another AfD debate.--Wikireader41 (talk) 09:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense, my deletion rationale is perfectly understandable and coherent. It really isn't my problem if you choose not to answer it in the correct way, and whether that's because you can't or won't is immaterial, the end result is the same. A small but policy-clueless consensus in and Afd cannot over-ride the inherent site wide consensus which is represented by policies. That's a simple fact which you never seem to understand in these constant claims of yours that 'there is no way in hell blah blah blah blah' at Afd. You said the exact same rubbish in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wind Jet Flight 243, and guess what, your clueless argumentation was ignored in favour of policy backed points. Do you remember what you said? "let me boldly predict that there is no way in hell this article will be deleted". So seriously, why should the closer, let alone anybody else, take a blind bit of notice of what you say at all? MickMacNee (talk) 13:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If the closer or anyone else wants to know how clued up Wikireader41 is about the whole application/misapplication of NOT#NEWS, check out the unfolding debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama's visit to India. MickMacNee (talk) 13:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. nobody here cares about what you say. calling it a "rationale" is a gross insult to the word. wait and see what happens to Obama article and this article. MMN would you care to list all aircrash related where you completely and miserably lost the debate or do you want me to do the honor. PS to the closing admin MMN is habitually on the losing end of debates in aircrash related AfDs. please ignore the rants here. This is going to be another of long list of air crash related AfDs where MMN artfully demonstrates his ignorance about how wp works.--Wikireader41 (talk) 14:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is ranting here, it is you with this complete and utter juvenile playground bollocks, as usual. Afd is not about 'winnning' or 'losing', and competent editors don't give a toss about such rubbish. They only care whether someone is making a good arguments, or bad/non-existent arguments. And you fall well into the latter frankly. Oooh, you 'don't care' what I think? What, am I supposed to cry or something? Jesus Christ, go back to your kindergarten already. MickMacNee (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

really then why dont you enlighten us about your knowledge about deletion policy as it applies to Aircrashes and the results on recent aircrash AfDs where you !voted ??? I think it would be of interest that your arguments are frankly rubbished most of the time by the community. this article is not that much different from recent AfDs on similar crashes which have survived AfD nominations with flying colors. total and complete waste of time IMO--Wikireader41 (talk) 15:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can do better than that tbh. If you want an example of someone having their argument "rubbished" as you so ludicrously put it, then you need look no further than the very latest aircrash Afd, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qantas Flight 32. You voted "Strong keep clearly meets WP:N". Another pointless and clueless VAGEUWAVE as it happens. I voted delete, referencing the exact same policies, guidelines and essay that I have done in here. That debate ended 'no consensus', and the closer states "I think the delete side has a slightly better argument". So, let's just stop pretending you have any idea about the deletion policy at all shall we? You are still at the level of cluelessness where you even think putting 'strong' before your vote makes a blind bit of difference, as if the closer is going to take a any notice of that. That's the level of competency you are at right now. I will of course be interested in any diffs where a closer has "rubbished" any argument of mine in any Afd, but I think we both know that they don't exist outside of your imagination. Or better yet, you can explain how, if you think the community always keeps accidents like this, there is still not a single guideline out there that gives automatic notability to these perfectly routine news events. And the proposed guideline doesn't either. Again, the only place where a guideline is ever likely to follow what you think is 'obvious blah blah blah' at Afd, is in your imagination. If you can't see where some of those those flawed vote-counted keeps are going to go once that guideline is adopted, or where all these no consensus outcomes are going to go a year or two down the line, then you are very naive indeed. But I have to say it is down to clueless votes exactly like yours which is going to result in that guideline eventually being adopted, so you at least have some use around here. MickMacNee (talk) 16:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While we're at it, this comment left four days ago on Mick's talk page [3] highlights the WP:AIRCRASH essay (upon which he's relying so heavily) as a proposed guideline that's failed to meet consensus for a year now. The essay's talk page confirms this and includes a link to a new proposal, with the explicit intent of better reflecting the consensus of the community and the trend in AfD discussions. Given that this was out several days ago, I'm quite comfortable with characterizing Mick's continued vehement opposition based in part on the provisions of this essay to be in bad faith. Ravenswing 15:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's take a look at what that draft says then, if you want any reminder as to what you need to start proving and disproving here, instead of pissing around talking about my motives and generally trying to talk shit about me, as a replacement for arguing the case properly. Here is what that proposal actually says:

"For an aviation accident or incident to be notable enough for an article it must meet a consensus for inclusion which is provided by a general notability guideline, a notability of events guideline (EVENT!) and a guide on the use of news reports (NOT#NEWS!)." - which puts the whole 'just an essay' nonsense being peddled in here into full perspective
"Most accidents and incidents are not notable enough for their own Wikipedia article" - has anybody even come close to showing how this incident is different to most crashes? Not at all
"News coverage is not an indicator of notability on its own." - has anybody even attempted to show that this article is covered by sources other than basic routine news? Absolutely not
"Most accidents and incidents that have an enduring historical significance or have lasting effects are notable" - has anybody even attempted to explain how this crash will have enduring historical significance or lasting effects? Of course not

So as anybody can see, this article miserably fails this proposal too, because it is an article about a non-notable aviation accident sourced soley from a brief burst of routine news articles. Still, at least you are finally realising that the essay is not the only reason for deletion, so I guess that's progress. MickMacNee (talk) 20:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 21 fatalities sounds notable to me. 68.45.109.14 (talk) 04:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable (many dead, hull-loss of aircraft), WP:NOTNEWS is being misapplied. It's enyclopedic to have articles on these events - if it takes off, a warning light comes on and it lands again then it's likely not notable. If it takes off and falls out of the sky killing people it pretty likely is. Pedro : Chat 15:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly meets WP:GNG, how could this possibly have been nominated?--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not appear to be particularly notable domestic private charter flight, as a fatal hull accident it would meet the criteria for a mention on the Beech 1900 article but I cant see any unusual circumstances or an enduring historical significance that would raise the bar for an article of its own. MilborneOne (talk) 19:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like all news stories, on the face of it this passes GNG. However no accident is automatically notable regardless of how many people are killed, and with no evidence of lasting significance this absolutely fails WP:NOTNEWS (& WP:EVENT). It has even been reported like a routine crash. Mention in the Beechcraft 1900 article and a list of crashes in 2010 (if such a thing exists) more than does this incident justice at this time. _wjemather ^bigissue 20:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts and others, since it is proven to meet WP:GNG by any standard. --Cyclopia^talk 20:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC) - Also, it doesn't fail WP:NOTNEWS: an air crash with multiple deaths is not routine news coverage at all; the wording of the guideline is pretty clear in that NOTNEWS excludes only menial routine coverages, not exceptional events like this one. --Cyclopia^talk 21:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- More pertinent (Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Inclusion criteria): "Routine kinds of news events - whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time - are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." This really is not an exceptional event, so you need to demmonstate enduring significance. _wjemather ^bigissue 23:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As we know WP:NOT (a policy) trumps WP:GNG (a guideline). As such, for this to be kept, it must be clearly demonstrated why this has enduring significance as required by WP:EVENT (a guideline that deals with the specifics of WP:NOTNEWS). So far no keep !voters have shown this to be the case, with many not even giving any kind of reasoning at all other than copy-paste from WP:ATA. _wjemather ^bigissue 21:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added a section in my !vote to address this concern. --Cyclopia ^talk 21:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS, and for the same reason we don't cover all small plane crashes. I don't see anything particularly notable about this one. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:This was not a small plane (i.e. GA). A total of 21 people killed is a number sufficiently high enough to mean that we ought to cover the accident. Mjroots (talk) 03:23, 13 November 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 Sudbury, Suffolk. Jujutacular ^talk 17:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Church in Sudbury, Suffolk[edit]

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

This article makes no claim to notability. It's sole outside source is a mapping program's indication of where the church is located. There are no third-party sources referencing significant coverage of this particular church. --NDSteve10 (talk) 18:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient references to establish notability. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 19:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—I'm not finding any sources outside of yellow pages and self-references. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 20:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Merge—per below. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 19:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking in books is so passé isn't it?
There are in fact two sources cited in the references section of the article. The first points to an article about a different church, but was probably intended to be this page about the 1893 Our Lady and St John church, on which this article's content is clearly based. There are, in addition to those WWW pages, actual books documenting the work of Leonard Stokes. Nicholas Pevsner has something to say about the church. And Anne Vail, in ISBN 9780852446034, devotes the whole of chapter 20 to the Shrine of Our Lady in Sudbury, which has been both at the mediæval church and at Stokes' 19th century church.
That said, this is loosely paraphrased text, with the wrong references (added post hoc by someone other than the original author) at a bad title. I know that I'd start again from scratch. How Vail2004 treats the subject makes a fair case for not treating these churches individually. Uncle G (talk) 17:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is listed Grade II which gives it automatic notability (LBS number 275971 — check it on Heritage Gateway or Images of England). OK it needs some work, but that does not deny that it meets WP's requirement for notability.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sudbury, Suffolk for now. Case for notability is borderline (generally a building needs to be a grade I- or II*-listed building and not just II), but given the brevity of the article it makes sense to merge the encyclopaedic bits into Sudbury for now, like we can do for non-notable churches. Should someone wish to add a lot of encyclopaedic information from reliable sources, we can always split it off again later. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the comments above regarding listed building ≠ notable. Listed building includes around half a million structures, including many small private residences, and it is doubtful that every one of these would meet WP:N criteria. I added the two factually supported statements about this church to the Sudbury page, and continue to feel it should be delete. --NDSteve10 (talk) 20:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - specialist sources will exist that give more in-depth coverage. Somebody with access to the local history library services in Suffolk will almost certainly be able to turn out a decent non-stub article on this. The listing is not in itself convincing, but the fact the building has a remained in use as a church (rather than e.g. being shortly closed then converted to a private dwelling) means that the building has long history as a sizeable community focal point. TheGrappler (talk) 00:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Sudbury article. 92% of listed buildings are Grade II, so not overly notable. Mjroots (talk) 10:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the Sudbury article as above. To answer TheGrappler's comments, it is not enough to claim that reliable sources must exist out there somewhere. Either they do, in which case they must be produced to save the article, or they are not in evidence, in which case the article must be deleted or merged. Ravenswing 22:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point; although it's also true that the current, small article does say a couple of useful things. My argument that other sources exist was in the hope that people could see the potential for development rather than judge this article on a few lines of text; I think that notability is arguable even without them. An independent article even a few lines long can be helpful and non-harmful if it pertains to something that is certainly physically real, whose notability is arguable either way, but which allows e.g. that information to be navigated to via the category system (e.g. for Catholic churches in England) and via geodata on a map. If information about all local churches was merged into small town articles, it does help centralize information about the town, but in a sense it breaks up the structure of information about the individual churches by removing them from access via category and geodata systems. I'm quite happy to let a high school sub-stub continue to exist even if all I have to go on is proof that the high school is of non-trivial size and has physically existed for a couple of years: fleshing out the article from reliable sources can be done later. Similarly, it strikes me that there is enough information available to prove that this church is near-certainly capable of having a very decent article written about it. Therefore its continuation as an independent article is a marginal argument, and the alternative is merging the material to Sudbury so we are talking purely about what is best for the purpose of organizing this information.

The fact that the article subject is physically extant and distinct from the town in general makes me sway very much towards keeping it: the information is better sorted in that way, since it allows use of geodata and category navigation. On the contrary, if the article was a substub about one component (such as a line of argument) in a wider philosophical dispute, and that component could potentially be fleshed out into a fuller article of its own, I'd still be more inclined to merge it into the main article for the timebeing, since the information would be better presented in a wider context and there would be no navigational benefit to spinning off a few lines of prose (that can wait until expansion, when "undue weight" can influence a spin-off decision). I'm not arguing on pure inclusionist criteria, but there do seem feasible arguments both on notability and organizational grounds for maintaining an independent article on the church, even if it only runs to a few lines for now. TheGrappler (talk) 02:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probably merge to Sudbury, Suffolk. This is usually thge best solution for local churches. The only thing that might persuade that of that being inappropriate would be the notability of the architect, but that is not my subject. Even if merged, his article could have e link to the relevant section in the Sudbury article. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sudbury, Suffolk. There appears to be a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, so it would appear this isn't sufficiently notable for a stand alone article. In this context, merging is probably the best option. PhilKnight (talk) 00:59, 13 November 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 00:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tanglewood Guitars[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Tanglewood Guitars

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

Forgive me if I'm doing this wrong or if I'm waisting time with an article that shouldn't be deleted, it's my first Article for Deletion. I don't see anything notable in this article that seems that it'd be worth keeping. However I'm not a guitar player, yet the first sentance "...that manufacture a diverse collection of affordable acoustic guitars, other stringed instruments, and accessories." Seems to be on the side of advertising to me. Shadowed Soul 18:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the present content is promotional. Back in 2006 this was one of someone's very first articles. He left it like this and never edited it again, and it's decayed somewhat since, with some marketing-speak occasionally inserted by drive-by IP editors. This is why, once you've written a Wikipedia article, you have to watchlist it and defend it forever after.
On the plus side, there are some ~~excellent~~ sources available for Tanglewood Guitars and it would be possible to write a decent, if short, article. I'll get started on that now.—S Marshall T/C 20:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Make that "reasonable sources", but I hope the revised stub will give other editors a basis to work on.—S Marshall T/C 20:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A very well known and long-established guitar company. --Michig (talk) 08:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in fairness to Shadowed Soul, it's only well-known to you and me because we're both British guitar players.—S Marshall T/C 10:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator is indeed doing it wrong and should please see WP:BEFORE wherein it is emphasised that issues which may be addressed by ordinary editing, such as a promotional tone, should not be brought here. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This business makes acoustic guitars, and as such seems to have attracted genuinely disinterested notice. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 02:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a household name in the guitar world. It is a senseless decision to remove the article on basis of lacking notability. 82.132.136.142 (talk) 20:37, 10 November 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. Courcelles 10:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uttaradhikar[edit]

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

There is no evidence this TV program meets WP:N notability guidelines. A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Specifically excluded are trivial coverage, such as newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews," plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides or the Internet Movie Database. The single reference provided is a capsule summary by a columnist. There is no evidence of critical commentary. The article is written like a promotion and does not seem encyclopedic. --NDSteve10 (talk) 17:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -I am not an expert on India-based research tools, but I can't find English language sources. Racepacket (talk) 23:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non notable TV series. To address Racepacket's comment above, I am from Bangladesh and am very familiar with Bangladeshi Bengali language media. Even there, this TV series is not considered to be anything special. --Ragib (talk) 05:00, 8 November 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. Wikipedia:CSD#G3 — Scientizzle 18:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Villarreal[edit]

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

This appears to be a hoax. I cannot find any information for a Victoria's Secret Angel with anything close to this name. And if you read the article, you'll notice that not only is it written in broken English (and I realize that isn't a deletion criterion), the gender of the model repeatedly switches from "she" to "he", and I cannot confirm anything else in the article either (her having a child; any mention on AskMen.com; being in a relationship with someone named Brian Gutierrez...and the list goes on). Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Article is a hoax. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LimabeanAdrianalima/Archive. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 17:39, 5 November 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. Courcelles 10:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glen A. Staples[edit]

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

Only ref is a You-Tube video. WP:OR WP:NOTE. The Eskimo (talk) 16:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. I'm not convinced this can be tipped all the way to a speedy delete under criterion A7, but I don't see any assertion of significance beyond being bishop of a megachurch, and not every pastor is notable. —C.Fred (talk) 16:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - per C.Fred's impeccable reasoning. ukexpat (talk) 20:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A church of 14,000 might be notable, but (if so) we would need an article on it, before we had one on its presiding pastor ("bishop"). Accordingly, delete unless notability is proved during AFD period. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable pastor, if church is notable, give article for the church but pastor is not notable. "Call me fart fart. Toot toot!" 108.111.28.91 (talk) 07:52, 10 November 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 00:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BMB Group[edit]

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

Promotional. Not notable. Sources are weak. The Eskimo (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Weak sources? Have you seen the full article in the Financial Post.? The WP article itself lists a full article in the Wall Street Journal. Two such references are enough to establish notability. This article does need considerable rewriting, but that is not cause for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 19:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely needs cleanup, but it seems notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NDSteve10 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, weakly. The cited coverage is all announcements of investments or acquisitions. These routine deals don't really establish historical, technical, or cultural significance, and I am not seeing anything more substantial. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 02:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; blatant promo. Wile E. Heresiarch (talk) 05:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG above. I've cleaned up some of the worst of the WP:PROMO already, but it needs more: I'll have a bash at that today. It will need occasional checking and de-spamification if it's kept, as there's an evident WP:COI by its creator. Top Jim (talk) 13:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I originally PRODded this article for being an unnecessary content fork but it has improved a fair amount since then and though unlikely to be of interest for the layman reader, it appears to meet the WP:Notability (organizations and companies) criteria; on this occasion, I too fall in line with DGG's opinion. Fæ (talk) 16:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG and with thanks to Top Jim. Peridon (talk) 15:15, 11 November 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 Said the actress to the bishop. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what she said[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Deleted in 2006, no consensus in July. Only source is for a made up holiday related to the hook. I have found nothing at all that references this in a credible fashion, just quotes of people who've used it. Some suggestions were made to redirect to Said the actress to the bishop, but that article's almost as questionable and isn't quite the same thing. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 16:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and so articles on bits of phraseology like this need to meet a fairly high standard to avoid being dictionary definitions. The current article is not even a dictionary definition, but one large trivia section, with one questionable reference. There's no need to keep it. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge ~~and redirect~~ to Said the actress to the bishop. The one half-decent reference [4] was already moved there. Possibly we can find a use for this washingtonpost article? Or page 111 of this book? Or this video comedy piece? or this other huffingtonpost article?
And Convert into disambig page, something like this. Those music articles still need somewhere to be linked from, and there's a wiktionary entry to be pointed to. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Said the actress to the bishop per Mandsford below. It is far too widespread to have no article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.191.116 (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This comment was placed at the old (2nd) afd. I've moved it here. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Said the actress to the bishop. Extremely widespread comedy one-liner spanning generations, let's take the historical view of this... Carrite (talk) 01:44, 13 November 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. Davewild (talk) 18:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Cohen (crime journalist)[edit]

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

Contested CSD, most likely close acceptable candidate for CSD, but slight suggestion of notability. From the talk page:

The author:

David Cohen was the president of the WA Journalists Association. He is considered the top crime journalist in Australia.

Another user:

Personally, I think it meets the A7 criteria for speedy deletion for a non notable person. Nonetheless, I see why an admin may decline, so I'm writing this comment to let the author know the rationale about the various issues a couple of editors, including myself, have raised about the article. First of all, I removed both the references given as they were self-published and therefore didn't meet the reliable sources guideline. Second, judging by the username, user Dcohen99 appears to have a conflict of interest with the subject of the article. Third, the article is a newly created biography of a living person which are a very touchy subject and, even if they assert notability, are liable to a special proposed deletion process. Having exposed the reasons of the fragility of the article, I encourage the author to improve it, and if you need some help please let me know at my talk page. Thank you. --Legion fi (talk) 07:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UnsureThere is something strange going on. User talk:Dcohen99 appears to be a new editor, but the article topic is almost certainly User:Davidcohen, who is a long term occasional editor since 2005. Trying to find out what's up. He isn't considered the top crime journalist in Aust, so it may be someone known to him doing it as a joke. He is a journalist and was the president of the WA organisations. The-Pope (talk) 15:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definite - same person and needs a speedy - should have known better - sloppy self bios like that should go asap Satu Suro 23:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "the top crime journalist in Australia" works for the Mosman Cottesloe Post Newspaper, a free local paper? Yeah right. Lacks coverage of him in independent reliable sources. It's verifiable that he held the positions claimed and there is a lot of quotes from him in one of those positions but they lend more to the notability of the organisation, not the spokesman. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:53, 11 November 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. Courcelles 10:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Castran[edit]

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

Spammy article about a non-notable Australian who sells real estate. Has won a local award for selling real estate, which falls far below what's required for notability. He also has a brother who didn't die in a skiing accident and a wife who sells jewellery. The only realistic claim of notability is that he once said he was going to sue Google but then thought better of it. Fails WP:BIO among other things. andy (talk) 16:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing here to indicate notability or suitability for inclusion in an encyclopedia.--Michig (talk) 07:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or even CSD it again - it's a blatant recreation of a CSD A7: 22:32, 23 September 2010 Alexf (talk | contribs) deleted "Paul Castran" ‎ (A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject) - I patrolled and nominated it.--Kudpung (talk) 08:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete overly promotional, and probably WP:AUTOBIO. LibStar (talk) 09:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete preferably speedily. Wile E. Heresiarch (talk) 05:55, 9 November 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. Courcelles 10:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Birth of a Killer[edit]

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

WP:NOTPLOT - article is entirely plot. No usable content to merge into Darren Shan, so delete. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 15:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- agree with the nominator. Reyk _YO! 06:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Sadads (talk) 02:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wile E. Heresiarch (talk) 06:01, 9 November 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. This one is basically an A7 Courcelles 10:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremiah Palecek[edit]

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

no claim to notability Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blatant self-promo. Wile E. Heresiarch (talk) 06:02, 9 November 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. Davewild (talk) 18:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Foxhole Sessions[edit]

) • Afd statistics

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

Cousinss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Non-notable demo tape by Random Gender. Fails NALBUM because of no major awards, reviews etc. Article unsourced, and searches found absolutely nothing. Christopher Connor (talk) 14:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Christopher I will add some links and review references to improve verification. I have added a link to footage from a 1984 Random Gender concert in Richard Branson's Golddigger's club where the demo is referred to, and will gather further sourced reviews as evidence to improve the article to the standard required for its inclusion on Wikipedia. Cousinss (talk • contribs) 00:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Christopher I have added quoted references to improve verefication and notability. Cousinss (talk • contribs) 01:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Christopher the following search links to videos for three of the tracks from the Foxhole Sessions http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&tbo=1&tbs=vid%3A1&q=%22The+Foxhole+Sessions%22+&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= Cousinss (talk • contribs) 02:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Christopher is the above sufficient evidence to request the removal of the proposed deletion from the Foxhole Sessions page? Cousinss (talk • contribs) 02:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^communicate 15:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - YouTube is not a reliable source. Fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG. SnottyWong ^communicate 15:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Random Gender, even though the unsourced information is already in the bands article; I think that page needs some additional references anyway. I looked, and couldn't find anything on "The Foxhole Sessions". I may be wrong, but this may be a nominal name for the sessions. Simon, is there another search term for this demo that could help out with finding reliable sources? - Theornamentalist (talk) 22:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Theornamentalist I have read WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG and understand that this page does not have enough notability. I have no other references for this demo apart from the one already added. There are no other names for it. It is not my intention to breach Wikipedia policy and I am learning fast through this experience. I am happy for this article to be deleted. - Cousinss (talk • contribs) 22:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Everyone, I have just read WP:COI Policy and understand that I need to declare a conflict of interest on this page and others that I have contributed to. I was a member of Random Gender and started this page. I wish to contribute information to improve pages and wish to do so with the strictest integrity and only in upholding the validity of Wikipedia. I am willing to learn and will make no further edits on pages where I have a conflict of interest. I will use the talk pages on articles to suggest neutral additions. I will read Wikipedia Policies before I contribute further. - Cousinss (talk • contribs) 23:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete self-promo. Wile E. Heresiarch (talk) 06:04, 9 November 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. Courcelles 10:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sincretics[edit]

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

Contested prod. Unreferenced article about what appears to be a New Age concept to do with "inner vision" (apparently not the same as Syncretism). Nothing relevant on Google. Fails WP:RS, WP:FRINGE andy (talk) 14:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Maybe the term itself is a personal translation of something in a foreign language, but that's difficult to say as there are no references. --Tikiwont (talk) 14:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions.
Delete. Original research, a non-notable neologism for some sort of visualization technique: Sincretical images are continuously-associative and can be decoded by linguistically developed brain. The images are visualized by the sincretical algorithm of the brain and are stored in the special storage for the sincretics. All correctly visualized images can be latter retrieved and analyzed; it’s not possible to remove all the images from the storage. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete The article makes unsubstantiated claims about alleged brain functions. This is fringe science and should be deleted. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 19:52, 5 November 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Alan Wolk[edit]

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

I do not think this person meets WP:BASIC since I cannot find any sources which directly discuss the subject, as is required to meet the general notability guideline. Sources are either unreliable, or make only passing comments about the subject and his legal cases, rather than directly addressing them.

Note that the article appears to have been created and edited as part of an off-wiki dispute, in contravention of Wikipedia is not a battleground. Whilst not a reason in itself to delete, this, combined with the lack of notability, makes me think we are better off not having this BLP to deal with.

(There have been posts at COIN and at BLP/N regarding this article and Arthur Alan Wolk v. Walter Olson which is also at AfD.) SmartSE (talk) 14:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there is sufficient sourcing on the article currently to establish notability and there are more sources available that aren't yet being used. The solution to WP:BATTLE is to remove those doing the battle and get on with editing the article -- and in fact this has already been accomplished. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Which sources directly discuss the subject and which remain to be used? SmartSE (talk) 14:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the ones Racepacket indicates below, see this (not currently used) and the Reason article by Jacob Sullum used as a reference on the page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - An aviation tort lawyer who crashes his own plane and then sues the National Transportation Safety Board over the report of his crash is unique and very notable. Racepacket (talk) 20:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - Article is of little to nil informative or educational value and will be nothing but trouble. A clear net wiki - loss.Off2riorob (talk) 14:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not a reason to delete. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - This non-notable or marginally notable subject does not want to be covered. The article has become a magnet for WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE violations. We will be better off without this article. Jehochman ^Talk 14:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any evidence indicating that the subject does not want to be covered -- instead I understand that he paid the creator of the article to create it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An IP posted something to that effect, though I can't find the diff at the moment, and it was an unverified IP, so I will concede the point. Jehochman ^Talk 12:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Nomoskedasticity. There are many times more reliable sources used discussin him that is needed to prove notability.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I had serious problems with the article as it was created by User:Lawrencewarwick, who is being paid by the article's subject. However, I spent some time doing independent research and have now balanced out the article by including his own plane crash and at least two different lawsuits in 2002 and 2009 against his on-line critics. (By the way, I have no role in the off-Wiki battles.) The subject of the article has gained coverage in a front page article in USA Today and is something of a poster child for tort reform. Sources:

Morrison, Blake (January 5, 2000). "Tragedy's bottom line". USA Today. p. 1A. Retrieved 2010-11-05.
Passarella, Gina (April 7, 2010). "Pa. Jury Awards Nearly $89 Million in Plane Crash Case". The Legal Intelligencer. Retrieved 2010-11-05. - Racepacket (talk) 17:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to User:Racepacket by putting a link to me before yours makes it appear that I have voted to keep this article and of course I would like to keep it but I have not voted please correct by removing the link or placing yours before mine in the vote. Thank you LEW (talk) 11:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seriously. Almost all the refs are about the lawsuits (not about him), about his libel suit ~~(which is suspiciously absent from the article)~~, or not wp:rs. Some of the cases are probably notable, and he deserves mention in those articles. Possibly a redirect if he is known for one case more than others. The Eskimo (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem of WP:BLP1E, as more than one of the lawsuits appears notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject of article is of minimal notability, and there is already a history of legal threats and COI issues connected with the article. We don't need the headache. Ray^Talk 00:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
None of those (except "minimal notability") is even a potential reason for deletion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, those are definitely reasons to take into consideration for deletion, if the cost to Wikipedia's editors of maintaining the article (dealing with constant legal harassment, etc) is not worth the benefit (maintaining a neutral biography of a colorful local figure of minimal import). Ray^Talk 21:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But the editors who were causing difficulties are no longer a problem: one is blocked, the other has undertaken not to edit the page anymore (see here). We have the means of dealing with WP:BATTLE, it has been dealt with. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh really? THF is commenting below. The battle is still ongoing. Jehochman ^Talk 11:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So then he can be dealt with as well. Really, it's not difficult. I won't lose sleep if this article is deleted, but I'd rather it be done (or not done) for the right reasons. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree; I will not lose sleep if the article is kept. :-) What we need to do is remove the partisans, and prune all the dubious content. My feeling is that once all the layers of bad content are peeled off, there won't be enough left to have an article. Jehochman ^Talk 12:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wolk meets Wikipedia notability standards under WP:BIO and WP:GNG. If Wolk wants the article deleted, as Jehochman states, I support its deletion. If Wolk wants the article kept, as Lawrencewarwick states, I support keeping it. I have serious concern that Wolk will sue Wikipedia and Wikipedia editors if his Wikipedia presence is not to his liking. (Wolk might sue poor Lawrence Warwick and his marketing firm if Warwick didn't warn him about WP:LUC when he made that phone call.) American Wikipedia editors considering editing the article should review this recent lawsuit by Wolk (page 9 forward) that (1) alleges that anyone who links to a website is a "co-partner" of everything that website and all of its commenters say and (2) shows what sort of statement about Wolk Wolk considers legally actionable. (Disclosure of conflict of interest: Wolk has sued me. Twice. For the same 2007 blog post.) Because Wolk has accused me of "inciting" negative comments about him, I hereby request that no one on Wikipedia write anything about Wolk that Wolk does not want them to write. Editors should only write true things about Wolk. Contrary to Lawrence Warwick's complaint, I have not edited and will not edit the Wolk article. My only edit was to nominate the forked lawsuit article for deletion, which Wolk's marketing representatives requested. Long-time Wikipedia editors will know that I have consistently (if unsuccessfully) argued that district-court cases do not merit their own articles except in rare cases like the Scopes trial. THF (talk) 22:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems to me that we should have a two-staged analysis. First, here, the community should apply normal community standards to determine if the article is worth inclusion. Second, if the AfD decides to keep the article, Wikimedia Foundation management can make a cost-benefit analysis as to whether it is worth its resources to implement the community's desires. If the AfD decides to keep the article, and someone then makes a legal demand on Wikimedia, they can make a unilateral decision to bow to the demand or to fight it in court. However, the community should not assume that just because other lawsuits have been filed in the past, that a lawsuit will be forthcoming here. Our task here is to reach a conclusion applying all of the normal Wikipedia criteria in the normal course. Speculation about possible future legal threats should not enter into our deliberations here. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 00:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redflag THF should not be commenting here. By his own admission, he's involved in a lawsuit with the subject.[5] The article seems to be some sort of coatrack, where PR agents[6] and antagonists of the subject are competing to hang their coats![7] Jehochman ^Talk 11:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you acting like you've discovered something sinister? I disclosed the conflict of interest in my comment, which you plainly didn't even read. With this edit I add emphasis to help guide your eye.
Please run the check-user so I can be exonerated. Again. It's ironic, because I've been regularly harassed by sock puppets since I started editing Wikipedia, but for some reason, I get accused of sock-puppeting every time another editor agrees with me. I'm Collect, I'm Cool Hand Luke, and so on. And here, where another editor and I disagree and he or she insults me and after that editor is blocked a SPA appears and vandalizes the article about me. (All this wonderful concern about BLP, but no one's touched the libelous edit about me that's been sitting in mainspace for several days.) If I had a nickel every time someone made a false sock-puppet allegation against me on Wikipedia, I'd have at least 25 cents. And I'm especially offended by the accusation in this case, because it could get me sued by someone who has previously sued me because I linked to a website.
You also plainly didn't read the guideline you cited and falsely accused me of violating, since it nowhere says I should not be commenting on a discussion page.
I'd like an apology for all these WP:AGF violations, but I've sadly come to accept that the civility policies are never enforced when it comes to baseless personal insults against me, and I don't really have time or interest for Wikidrama. THF (talk) 06:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why don't we stop commenting off topic and just stick to keep or delete until closing? The Eskimo (talk) 18:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep Seems to be meet WP:BIO multiple times over. So it should be kept. People will however need to keep a careful eye on it. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable and meets WP:BIO. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you address the quality of the references please? Simply asserting a conclusion is unlikely to carry any weight when an administrator closes the discussion. Jehochman ^Talk 13:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that the USA Today article is of sufficient quality to establish notability. It even described the decoration of his house. Racepacket (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient sources for notability . If the subject thinks he has a case that there is libelous or unfair content, he should go to OTRS. DGG ( talk ) 19:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Regardless whether this is kept or not, the lawsuit should be mentioned at Overlawyered and/or Walter Olson. There are enough sources for that. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable for multiple lawsuits covered in the press. He is also notable as an expert interviewed on such matters. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Wolk's (presumable) legal representative did not request deletion of this page, they only requested deletion of Arthur Alan Wolk v. Walter Olson, which has already been accomplished. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply We have already established that Wolk's "representatives" were web designers, not lawyers. Racepacket (talk) 11:30, 13 November 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 Rozonda Thomas. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 00:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bi-Polar (Chilli album)[edit]

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

This unreleased album has not been noticed by sufficient third-party sources, either during its production or during its cancellation. There is not enough info available to merit an album article. A brief mention at Rozonda Thomas would suffice. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rozonda Thomas, as per WP:NALBUMS, which states that: "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting." If the redirect is reverted, an admin can always protect the page.--hkr Laozi speak 17:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rozonda Thomas, as per above logic. A "shelved debut album" doesn't need its own article, if it didn't cause the MSM press to sit up and take notice. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 01:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator - I concur with the above votes but we might as well let this debate run its course. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is only one credible source which says Chilli was releasing an album called Bi-Polar. Everything in the article is unsourced and/or originally researched. There's not even a need for a redirect because there is no evidence that its existance was widespread knowledge, judging by the lack of coverage in reliable/trusted/credible sources. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 01:23, 10 November 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. Courcelles 10:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trainwreck Riders[edit]

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

Band with no significant coverage. Only label seems to be a tiny indie label, no charting, Only references I can find are self-published, blogs, or circle back to enwp. — Coren ^(talk) 13:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any reliable sources. A shame, since the article's not half bad. ceranthor 14:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:41, 8 November 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. Courcelles 10:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For That Cake![edit]

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

Online video that has met very little third-party coverage. The film doesn't meet notability guidelines for film. BOVINEBOY2008 13:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No third party coverage, only primary sources and was written by the director of the short. Mike Allen 06:08, 8 November 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. If he actually plays, feel free to appraoch any admin to undelete and void this decision. Courcelles 10:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Hansen[edit]

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

Originally deleted by PROD. Non-notable youth player who fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 13:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice to reaction if Hansen actually plays for Liverpool (he has been on the bench recently). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Premature per WP:CRYSTAL. Fails WP:NSPORTS as not yet played professional 1st team. --ClubOranje^T 10:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- note: article and 99% content created by sockpuppet of banned user. --ClubOranje^T 09:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others above. A thought: is this a plausible enough misnomer to justify a redirect to Martin Hansson? Alzarian16 (talk) 13:16, 10 November 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. Courcelles 10:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andre Wisdom[edit]

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

Previously deleted by PROD. Non-notable youth player who fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 13:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article asserts its own non-notability as NSPORTS failure to date. Never played professional 1st team, youth internationals do not confer notability. Article created by blocked sock with history of creating non-notable youth footballer articles. --ClubOranje^T 10:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has never played 1st team pro football. The article also contained a copyvio, which I have now removed. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has a professional contract with one of the most notable clubs in world football, and is a regular in the youth national side of one of the most notable footballing nations on earth. This despite being two years younger than the team mates. Roslagen (talk) 10:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - youth player who fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Zanoni (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

E-Visibility[edit]

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

This article appears to be a veiled advertisement for "eVisibility Research", to which the author has provided an external link. No reliable sources use this term in the context of generalized descriptions of website marketing (though it is employed, in varying senses, for the description of certain discrete geometry, computer graphics, and physics problems [8].) Peter Karlsen (talk) 22:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well beyond name dropping the actual topic here is "Website visibility" for which there are many Ghits, mostly of the how-to type as this one, so delete. This is partly covered at Search engine optimization, so I'll create a redirect for the more common search term. -Tikiwont (talk) 14:46, 5 November 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 BMB Group. Black Kite (t) (c) 02:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rayo Salahadin Withanage[edit]

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

Insufficient sourcing to establish notability; article is a mess of unsourced claims, likely an autobiography, reads like a promotional piece. Again though the main reason to delete is that there is nothing close to sufficient coverage in sources to establish notability. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As the nominator says, its a mess of un-sourced and likely un-sourcable claims. Off2riorob (talk) 12:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Moving to Merge with the company. Off2riorob (talk) 21:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:BIO, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, though there's a fair bit of hagiography about him on the usual, unreliable, look-at-me promo sites. It's a whisker away from a speedy-delete as WP:SPAM as is BMB Group, the other article in this WP:Walled garden. Top Jim (talk) 13:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment BMB Group has been substantially cleaned up, so if it survives AFD (which is now looking likely), then I'd support a ~~merge~~ there. Top Jim (talk) 07:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Weak delete Sorry to switch votes yet again, but per Nomoskedasticity's comment of 14 Nov below, there appears to be diminishingly little reliable info to merge from this article, apart from his leadership of the notable company. Note that the AFD for BMB Group has been closed, with a result of "Keep". Top Jim (talk) 15:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable subject.President of a notable firm , the subject of a full article Financial Post. And there is another in the a full article in the Wall Street Journal. Nor do I regard the full signed article in the Global Investor as entirely PR. A good deal of rewriting will of course be necessary. DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DGG, I'm puzzled -- clicking on the Financial Post link doesn't take us to a substantial article on the firm (still less its president). I agree the WSJ article is a more substantial article, but primarily about the firm not about Withanage. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above The Eskimo (talk) 16:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"the above" is my comment citing references. DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment - articles like this are rubbish and should be speedied. If someone wants to create something worthwhile they can easily do that, right now it is worse than worthless. Off2riorob (talk) 19:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to locate independent coverage in reliable sources. Eudemis (talk) 20:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found a reliable source, directly discussing the subject and have trimmed the article severely to only be based on this. SmartSE (talk) 21:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many of the reliable independent source articles about the subject, including the Euromoney and Global Investor articles are now only available through subscription to those publications. Many of the articles referring to the subject only refer to him obliquely as CEO and latterly Executive Chairman of the BMB Group. LMatheson (User talk:LMatheson\talk) 22:38 (UTC) — Lmatheson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (as if it wasn't already obvious...)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment from nom -- with two delete votes now having moved to "merge", I'll concede that a merge result is acceptable (though I still prefer delete, as do two other editors). I can't see how it could be kept, if Smartse is correct in asserting that there is one reliable source (and if DGG is mistaken in what he identifies, as I note above). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:53, 11 November 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 Person. Davewild (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Persons[edit]

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

Denis tarasov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This article makes no sense and hence I have put it in the "Indiscernible or unclassifiable topic". It could be OR, made up, or perhaps legitimate. In any case, the name doesn't make searching easy. I had redirected it to Person, but this was overturned by the article creator. I was going to move it but couldn't think of a disambiguation term. Christopher Connor (talk) 12:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect ~~Delete'~~ Unless the article is further clarified. I was unable to find the phrase "persons" or "pv" in the Latvian reference supplied and do not understand the definition given in the article. This may may be due to a translation issue Clovis Sangrail (talk) 12:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands, the article cannot be interpreted in any meaningful manner. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 00:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It doesn't appear that the article's creator, User:Denis tarasov, has been notified of the nomination. I frankly don't understand the article, but it looks like he's referring to a concept in the Latvian constitution and than saying that there are similar ideas in other constitutions. I'd like to hear his side before we simply dismiss this as original research that can't be improved. Mandsford 13:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked - it appears he has been notified (its a little up the page, he's had more than one afd notification recently) Clovis Sangrail (talk) 14:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I notified him after seeing Mandsford's comment. But it's likely on his watchlist so he was probably aware anyway. Christopher Connor (talk) 14:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be talking about legal persons aka Legal personality. As that article is already linked from person, this article here is unreferenced and the title is simply a plural, I'd redirect to person and refer the author to the artcile on the legal concept. If that is not what they have in mined, they may as well want to start from scratch with a different title.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.
Redirect, or rather, restore the redirect. We already cover legal persons, and this text is too confusing to make sense of, and as such can't really be edited to improve it, though in fairness the author's English is going to be better than my Latvian: ....an object of economic motivation, mentioned in the Latvian legislation. In the Satversme he has a name Person with a constitutional code XPV. This construction borrowed from the constitution of the Weimar Republic. The reference given would appear to be the source text of the Constitution of Latvia. I wish I knew more Latvian; it's the sort of language that looks like you ought to be able to decipher it, if you just concentrated harder. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect back to Person. Not sure that this is appropriate for Afd since it's more of a content dispute. Uncle Dick (talk) 18:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to a surname page: Gordon Persons, Wilton Persons, Henry Persons, Peter Persons, and maybe Alice N. Persons would all Personally thank you if they could. Redirect to Person (disambiguation). I've added these Persons to that page. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Person (disambiguation). This article is not effectively communicating anything, possibly due to a language barrier. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would be good if we could have the old page history back, as well. Uncle G (talk) 17:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect to Person - plural to singular, link to primary topic. PamD (talk) 10:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
... "Operator, I'd like to make a "Persons" to "Person" call please..." I don't see any reason not to make this a redirect, the same way that a lot of commonly used plurals get done-- i.e., you can write dogs instead of dogs without getting a redlink. Mandsford 14:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are no any direct links between a person and Persons, moreover it's a very important concept from the Constitution; there is no original research, the article is sourced and contains useful additional information. I spent a lot of time to write it. Denis Tarasov (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is sourced only to the constitutions themselves but has no secondary sources that would among other things help to understand the concept as you intend it and understand the appropriate English term to be used. Could you please review once more above discussion and the 'legal persons' as described in the article Legal personality?--Tikiwont (talk) 21:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as totally incoherent. Dew Kane (talk) 05:11, 9 November 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. Courcelles 10:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New ideas in quantum physics[edit]

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

Original research. Anna Lincoln 11:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To call it original "research" is to be very polite. It is unclearly written and almost impossible to follow, but appears to arbitrarily throw together various scientific ideas in an incoherent jumble that does not add up to anything meaningful. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The editor already appears to have a blog, referenced in the article, which seems like the best place to post this kind of OR. Acroterion _(talk) 12:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does anyone know if this is speedyable under G4 (WP:Articles_for_deletion/New_ideas_in_physics). Rnb (talk) 20:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not exactly the same content, but it is, once again Kaliamboslef (talk · contribs) submitting the original research by one Lefteris A. Kaliambos. It even covers much the same ground, although not in exactly the same way. My opinion from that discussion covers this content, too. Uncle G (talk) 17:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that the article is sufficiently similar to just about qualify for speedy deletion as a repost. In any case I think pretty well all of the arguments given in that AfD apply here too (it was unanimously "delete"). I will not speedily delete it myself, having already posted here, but I would have no quarrel at all with any admin who did so. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy delete and protect for article creation. Nergaal (talk) 18:22, 8 November 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 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Butland[edit]

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

PRODded as "Young footballer who has not yet played in a fully professional competition, so fails WP:NSPORT; not enough coverage to pass general notability guideline". Prod removed with rationale "coverage exists". While coverage certainly does exist, it's no more than would be expected for a promising youth international with a Premier League club. Longstanding consensus is that international football at youth level doesn't afford notability, and the player has not yet played in a fully-professional competition. Struway2 (talk) 10:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Struway2 (talk) 10:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE, and not enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. J Mo 101 (talk) 11:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No pro-game, youth international only, minimal coverage - non-notable--Egghead06 (talk) 12:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 13:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as he fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --Carioca (talk) 20:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 18:31, 6 November 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. Courcelles 10:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appalachian Airlines[edit]

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

I could not find any reliable secondary sources offering a deeper coverage on this airline, so it seems to miss the WP:CORP criteria. There aren't any reference for any aircraft it operated (the airline is not listed at any fleet directories, so it did have any Airbus/Boeing/Bombardier/ATR/Embraer/Douglas) aircraft. Thus, likely a non-notable, non-scheduled airline with only minor airplanes like Cessna, Jetstream... Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 09:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Little commuter airlines are not inherently notable, and no sign that this will ever go beyond a stub. The article truly has nothing to say. To paraphrase, "I hear tell that there was this airline that was around the late 1970s; dunno whether it had an airplane, dunno what airport the plane was kept at, dunno where it flew from or where it flew to, dunno who started it or why it folded in 1980... but I saw it on a list." Mandsford 13:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found some references, includin press clippings and timetables. I don't think that the possibility or not of an article going past stub status or not is reason for deletion. Ravendrop (talk) 04:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. Reading the WP:CORP guidelines, "Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization". Dunno if deep coverage is achieved here, but as the article looks like now I would definitely call for keeping it. But rather than closing the AfD debate, we should wait for more opinions. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 09:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nice work by Ravendrop on this one. Mandsford 19:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:22, 10 November 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 Hanwell. Everybody is free to merge any reliably sourced, relevant info to that article of course. However, it is clear from this discussion that the consensus is that a separate article for this street is not warranted. Fram (talk) 14:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grove Avenue, London[edit]

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

Contest PROD - non-notable street -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not exactly the world's most promising start to an article when two out of the four sentences are falsehoods. Uncle G (talk) 16:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero evidence of notability. And no, leading to a golf course doesn't count. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's one of the falsehoods. Brent Valley Golf Course is on Church road. Uncle G (talk) 22:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Grove Avenue provides access on the eastern side of the golf course. What's the other falsehood supposed to be? Colonel Warden (talk) 06:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wrong. It doesn't. That's amply clear from the golf course's own map. One can see where the entrance is, and where there there are no entrances. And that's without even reading the part of that very same page where it gives its street address. These aren't supposed falsehoods. These are easy to determine from what one can check from maps falsehoods. As such, I leave it as an exercise to spot which of the other three sentences are also falsehoods. Uncle G (talk) 09:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Eastern access to the golf course looks to be via Elmwood Gardens or Westview, so Grove Avenue perhaps only indirectly provides access. I can't see what else is wrong - it looks like it's in Hanwell, Ealing, has Greenford Avenue and Cuckoo lane at its ends, and its postcode does appear to be W7 3EX -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Hint Uncle G (talk) 09:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Ah, it covers several post codes - but at least W7 3EX is one of them. And so the statement "Grove Avenue has the postcode W7 3EX" is not a falsehood - it is incomplete, but not untrue. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First contribution from a new editor, welcome to Wikipedia, and I hope you'll continue to contribute-- but most city streets aren't famous at all. There are a few like Fleet Street and Downing Street that get a lot of mention; I have serious doubts about the notability of a lot of the entries in Category:Streets in the City of London, and suspect that they're hangovers from the "every bus stop is important" days of Wikipedia. Mandsford 19:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the topic we discuss here is not in the City of London and so your comment is irrelevant. But I'm putting all members of that category on my watch list, just in case. Is there an easy way of doing this? Colonel Warden (talk) 06:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell you where you can go. Help:Watching pages is one suggestion. Mandsford 13:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry, City streets just aren't notable. Winner 42 ( Talk to me! ) 19:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The place has an interesting history and I have made a start upon improving the article in accordance with our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked what I could of these references, and they seem to be mostly one-sentence references to the battlefield. This is a long way from significant coverage, and quite of lot of claimed notability by association. However, there is definitely a case for an articles about the battle (and William Retford's business on that road certainly has a place in the Wiliam Retford article). Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, you agree that we should do something with this sourced information per our editing policy of WP:PRESERVE?

If a sourced article on the Bloody Croft could be created, the fact that Grove St. exists there now would be an appropriate and brief footnote. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (amend: alternatively, merge/redirect per discussion below if such a consensus can be justified). I have to concur with User:Chris Neville-Smith's comment above; the sources indicate the battlefield, but not the road, per se. I'm certain this isn't the only road which exists on a site that served as a battlefield centuries ago, and to say notability is inherited from that without significant referencing is quite a stretch, in my opinion. Likewise, the notability of a street isn't inherited from residents who have lived/worked there... well, Downing Street notwithstanding, mind you :). --Kinu ^t/_c 19:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our guideline defines "Significant coverage": "... means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content.". There is no original research here and so the guideline seems satisfied. What is your policy reason to delete this, please? Colonel Warden (talk) 21:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is curious to ask me for a policy reason for deletion when you yourself cite a guideline reason for inclusion. To address your position, as indicated above, I see no evidence that the sources address the subject directly in detail, simply that Grove Street happens to be located where the battlefield (which seems to be the primary subject of discussion in the text of the sources) once was. One sentence mentions, such as here or in the other sources, do not convince me the guideline is satisfied. (Searching for "grove" in The "History of Wembley" text doesn't yield any matches, either.) Thus, while the battle or the at-the-time location at which it occurred might be shown to be notable, I see no reason that the street itself is. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have multiple sources; multiple sentences; multiple facts. These are details. The point of the guideline is that we require more than a name check such as one might find in a index; we also require some details of the place. But we have these now and they are non-trivial. Nothing more seems required to satisfy our notability guideline. My impression is that you are expecting pages of detail. But this is not a requirement of the guideline nor do we have a minimum article size. Enough is as good as a feast. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As for the History of Wembley, this refers to the place as Cuckoo Hill. Grove Avenue is on the slopes of this hill. We do not have an article about that hill yet. It may be a better title for the topic, affording more detail and more expansion but this would be a move achieved by ordinary editing not by deletion. It is by such ordinary editing that we build and develop the article. How would deletion assist us in this? The relevant policy is WP:PRESERVE which indicates that deletion should not be used when we have material worth preserving. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"My impression is that you are expecting pages of detail"... er, yes, I am? That's what "in detail" means to me. A one-sentence mention is a detail (fact), not a topic of discussion in detail (coverage). In other words, a simple statement that says "X occurred where Y is now" actually makes neither X nor Y notable. X is notable if there are reliable sources which clearly discuss X, and the same goes for Y. If X is notable, then Y would ostensibly be an appropriate fact in the article for X (and WP:PRESERVE would be reasonable), but such a statement does not automatically grant inherent notability to Y. Y would need to show standalone notability through being addressed by sources in detail. That does not seem to be the case here. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. If X and Y are covered together in sources then this is evidence of their notability and association. Places often have multiple names which we may support with alternate titles and redirects such as the Bloody tower. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, technically, that means you do agree with me... if they are covered together, then both are notable, undoubtedly. My logic above refers to mentions, such as single sentences, as is the case here. Those ultimately verify existence and a relationship, but do not grant notability to either. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is a guideline and so, following your point above, is inferior to our policy of preserving material rather than deleting it. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. As I've indicated several times in this discussion, I would not be averse to moving any sourced content to an appropriate location if one can be found, such as Hanwell as several editors have suggested. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your summary !vote above is still "Delete". If the delete button is pressed then everything goes. See WP:MAD. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know that; I'm the one who wrote it. As I said, I wouldn't be averse to a merge/move as a compromise. However, I do not desire to explicitly indicate that I endorse it, because while the information could be useful, I'm not wholly convinced that it is, given the current sourcing and ambiguity as to a proper merge/move target. Nonetheless, I will add a parenthetical to my !vote above indicating such. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It isn't notable, it's a road that pretty much goes nowhere. My house is probably built on the site of a notorious murder of a couple of cats in 1732, that doesn't make my house notable it makes the location notable... If the battlefield is notable, then move this article to that name and build it out IMO. QU ^TalkQu 22:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We can't move it if it has been deleted. Your comments are self-contradictory. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But are your sources reliable sources. They may well all be quoting one source. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources seem quite reliable per our usual standards. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- just another NN street. If a reliable source can be found for the battle, something on it might be added to Hanwell. The discovery of burials was presumably reported at the time, and possibly in archaeological literature, rather than merely newspapers. The orthography of the name Hanwell looks suspect to me, but I am no great expert. I doubt there is any ancient literary source for the battle, so that I suspect this is a hisotrian's interpretation of the burials, from a time when the study of ancient bones was much less advanced than today. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not an expert then you are not a reliable source. Your doubts and suppositions seem to be contrary to core policy. It is our policy to present what sources say rather than to decide the truth for ourselves. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion that a source is reliable is no more authoritative than someone else's opinion that it isn't. And if your interpretation of original research applies non non-mainspace pages, that would invalidate virtually every argument for and against deletion in every article. After all, attmpts to find sources, or show lack of them, is original research. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This does look like a run-of-the-mill side street. But if you look at the sources, there is information about the street and its history, something uncommon to find about most side streets. Sebwite (talk) 00:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please address the lack of depth of the sourcing, as has been indicated above? --Kinu ^t/_c 04:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. This isn't clear cut, as there do appear to be some sources available and the street has a bit of history. The problem is that of the five sources cited, none is really good enough. This and this hardly mention it. This is better but only one line in a 216-page book, so not really significant. This may or may not be reliable, but half of one sentence isn't really enough. And this only gives coverage to one resident, not the street itself. Some of the content given isn't really backed up by the sources either. What we need is a source about the road itself, but there don't appear to be any around, so I can't see how WP:GNG can be met. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable street. Merge and redirect if there is an appropriate target. SnottyWong ^squeal 17:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep per the research of Colonel. Sorry we are so bitty to new editors :( Okip 21:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks like any other side street. Dough 48 72 01:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or rename? I opened this AfD (after a PROD was contested), because what was there really didn't seem to be of notability. However, I think the information now uncovered and added to the article is of notability. I'm just not sure it is specifically about the road itself, rather than the area - but I really think the current content is worth keeping, perhaps under a different title or perhaps merged to Hanwell? (Apologies for not being more decisive, but I'm not at my most creative right now) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but as a section of Hanwell. Multiple sources locate the battlefield there and relate it to the placename. But the modern street is not sufficiently notable in itself - unless it's received newspaper or magazine coverage as a locality. If the article creator or someone else who looks here is in the area, I suggest an offline search for such articles; if any are found I think that would suffice to keep this as an independent article. I see the redirects from Blood Croft and Cuckoo Hill have already been created. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - with battlefields and manor estates in its history this area is notable, but probably under the wrong name. I would hope it acts as a magnet for expansion of coverage of those areas, so a name will depend on which direction it takes, but from looking at the sources Hanwell Park would be the more likely name. This is an article editing issue, not a deletion issue. And to those moaning about biting the newbies, why didn't they go and say hello? I found a talk page filled with templates when I went to actually offer them a hand... Bigger digger (talk) 23:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename ~~to Bloody Croft (which is at present a redirect to this article)~~ per Chris Neville-Smith and several other posters. I'm not thrilled about the prospect of an article about the street. However, I'm quite happy with the prospect of a combined article about the archaeological finds and the sixth century battle.—S Marshall T/C 00:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as far as I can tell there's only one book source on Bloody Croft which is then quoted pretty much verbatim in another local history book and a few Hanwell-related sites. In this search User:Colonel_Warden/creations is ranked 7th! Hanwell Park is the way forward! Bigger digger (talk) 00:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, Bigger digger—I accept that.—S Marshall T/C 01:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hanwell per above concerns. Not really notable enough to have its own article, but certainly needs a section. Vodello (talk) 01:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (EDIT: or refocus and rename (see comments below)). (Technical note, if kept, it should be moved to Grove Avenue, Ealing, London as there is another Grove Avenue in Tottenham, London.) A look at Google maps shows what status this street has: it is basically a fairly short and unremarkable residential street. This is not a major artery constituting a significant part of London's transportation system in any way. All the sources provided refer to the area, not to this street in particular. A possibly notable old building along the street does not necessarily confer notability to the street. Colonel Warden has made a good effort to provide worthwhile information, but I am unconvinced that this is the correct article to put it in (Cuckoo Hill or Bloody Croft are more historical terms which describe the material better.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moving of information between article titles is not achieved by deletion. Please see WP:MAD. Also your argument that we can deduce the notability of a road by looking at a map is neither correct nor supported by policy. Downing Street, for example, is a minor cul-de-sac not a major artery. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Downing Street is not notable as a means of transportation, but the area is very notable since it is the executive political authority in the United Kingdom is headquartered. A residential street like Grove Avenue has none of that. I appreciate the points you are making, but at the very least, I think the article needs to be refocussed to be about the geography and history area, and retitled to reflect that. All the content which makes the area notable predates the street by a considerable margin. Renaming and rewriting the article entirely is pretty much the same as deleting an article, and then writing another one on a similar but more notable topic. If you would prefer to do this all this without deleting the article, then that is fine as well (and I have added that to my original vote above.). My original "delete" vote means that I oppose the presence of an article which is primarily about the avenue. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there are admins who seem to do little more than look at the summary words in bold per the AFD statistics above. The primary purpose of this discussion is to determine whether the delete function should be used to remove this article and its contents in their entirety. Other outcomes which may be achieved without use of the delete function are varieties of Keep and so should be summarised in this way. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination and most of the following arguments for deletion are actually arguments to correct the article and to improve the references. patsw (talk) 12:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The claim to notability seems to be that this street runs alongside a notable institution, traverses a larger area where a possibly notable event occurred, etc. Notability of the location itself has not been demonstrated, and it does not look likely that it will be. That does not preclude a mention in another article. --Boson (talk) 14:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The past and present practice of Wikipedia has been to consider named places verifiable to a government or other reliable source to be notable and included in the Wikipedia if only as a stub. Thousands of articles on place names exist for which there are no references to significant coverage by multiple independent sources. patsw (talk) 21:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The general practice, though not set in stone, is that articles about inhabited communities are kept, and even that is not a specific policy. In addition, numbered federal, national, state and provincial highways are considered notable. On the other hand, most streets, small neighborhoods, trailer parks, fishing holes, etc. are not considered entitled to their own page, and thank God for that. Otherwise, we would be inundated with pages from people wanting to write about the street where they live. Mandsford 17:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or maybe merge. It's a nice little sourced article at this point. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 12:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You haven't read the sources. Guess how I can tell. In fact, most people, including the writers of the article, clearly haven't properly read the sources here. Uncle G (talk) 10:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 07:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two relists for a discussion like this is usually pretty good evidence that we won't reach a consensus.—S Marshall T/C 09:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Patsw's "correction" would involve not ascribing historical events to an unremarkable suburban street that they pre-date the existence of by a millennium and a half. This article is geographically and historically misleading, in part because it's a grasping-at-straws write-up of an undocumented subject, complete with an etymology of the name "Hanwell" that for starters Hanwell#Etymology outright contradicts (as do various sources). The actual history here, which a proper reading of the history books cited (paying attention to their authors, for starters!) would have revealed, is a quite different subject, quite differently structured. It has pretty much nothing to do with a suburban housing development that post-dated it by decades and centuries. The two are not even co-terminous. This is just laughably bad, from a historical perspective. It's an original synthesis of muddled history made as a desperate attempt to prevent the exercise of a MediaWiki function rather than as an encyclopaedic coverage of a subject. The actual historical subject, which Bigger digger almost gave away above, is still redlinked, and this would be a woeful and confused start to it. This article started with falsehoods about an unremarkable street, and is now a synthesized and muddled admixture of history supposedly, but not in fact, occurring on an unremarkable street. Uncle G (talk) 10:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what would you suggest we do? I can admit that this article doesn't seem to belong, and is very mixed up (which I added to when trying to help), but has useful information about the area and its history. I think there seems to be a consensus that various bits of the article are notable, but added together they do not create a notable article on Grove Avenue, but I don't have the experience to suggest what the next step is... Bigger digger (talk) 11:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be rather helpful if Uncle G would be kind enough to tell us what he thinks should be done in ~~plain English~~ huge red font accompanied by a picture of an elephant, as opposed to veiled hints.—S Marshall T/C 11:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In plain English, the best solution to indecision on an evenly split debate is to simply say "no consensus", rather than going into Round 3. I'm starting to think that Grove Avenue must be notable if 18 different people have registered an opinion on it. Maybe someone can put up a sign. Mandsford 13:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Mandsford, even though I've already said that a "no consensus" outcome seems likely to me, I think solutions are better than compromises. If there's a good answer let's hear it.—S Marshall T/C 13:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Supposing that the discussion is closed as no consensus or keep, then what is likely to happen next is that I will move the current content to a new title. Where the article goes from there depends upon that title and the input from other contributors. This is ordinary editing work and the AFD is now obstructing this. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Random assortment of facts which have a loose connection with this present day bog standard street. To be clear - there are no sources specifically discussing this street. There are bits about Hanwell, and bits about Cuckoo Hill and so on, but no reliable sources have discussed this street in any depth. What we have now is a synthesis of bits and bobs which bear little relation to this suburban street. This is a bad thing. Quantpole (talk) 14:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources which discuss the actual road surface in detail can be provided, such as The London Gazette. It is our general policy to keep articles about places because there is usually an abundance of such sourcing. The project contains many thousands of stubs about other places which have inferior sourcing and so there is no case for deleting this one. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a primary source containing no interpretive material. It does not contribute anything to show the notability the road, much the same as you could go through council planning records and find thousands of documents which mention individual roads, all of which would be equally non-notable. And this is not a 'place' it is a residential street, which it certainly is not general policy to keep. And the article is misleading - synthesising together various sources which are not about the road. You are quite correct that many articles on places are badly sourced so why don't you make those articles better rather than attempting to construct an article on something that isn't notable. Quantpole (talk) 16:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The London Gazette is a journal of record - the oldest English newspaper in the world. It is not a primary source - that would be the local authority planning documents. This is a public announcement made to ensure that the public has good notice of the matter and so is good evidence of notability. Regarding places, we have numerous articles about villages and hamlets which have less households, value and history than the place in question. There is no reason in logic or policy to delete this when we keep the others. All this street-hate is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT and that is contrary to policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to read up on what does or doesn't count as a primary source - all they are doing is repeating a council memorandum which most certainly does not count as a secondary source. I have nothing against streets providing there is coverage to show they meet the GNG (one off the top of my head is Baldwin Street, Dunedin). However, saying that it is normal wikipedia practice to keep articles on streets is false. Quantpole (talk) 19:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a primary source, being a digest or summary of the Order to which the source relates. The Order would contain quite detailed plans for the proposed schemes. I am quite familiar with coverage of streets on Wikipedia, having defended many of them at AFD. Deletion is usually quite inappropriate because, even if the street seems too inconsequential to stand by itself, it can usually be merged with some higher-level article about the locality. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Merge to Hanwell. Whilst I'm all for article rescue, I don't think the practice of sticking in vaguely related information into an article in order to obstruct deletion using WP:PRESERVE is helpful (and the selective interpretation of wikipedia policy to prove a point is especially unhelpful). It would have been far easier to just include this information in the Hanwell article in the first place (where the information is equally relevant). However, if merging is going to settle the arguments over preserving the encyclopaedic information, so be it. Should a lot of information be unearthed later specific to the road itself, the information can always be split off again later. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hanwell Park

Honestly, people! I explicitly noted this last month, and pointed Bigger digger in the direction of it too. It's screaming from the sources cited. The very first source cited at all, in this edit cites a book by Montagu Sharpe. Even a little work with the old research tools turns up the fact that Sir Montagu Sharpe once owned Hanwell Park (even if one hadn't seen what is written about him in Hanwell). If you go to Hibbert's 2010 London Encyclopaedia (ISBN 9781405049252) and look up the entry for Hanwell, Hanwell Park is right there. Some random suburban backstreet isn't, and neither is this particular etymology of the name. The blooming great elephant in this room is, though.

And it's all over the place as well. There's Edward Mogg's 19th century railway travel guide (and Charles Knight's guide as well) that mentions Hanwell Park on one side of the railway line and Hanwell Asylum on the other. There are history books that tell us how Hanwell Park was merged together in the first place. There are WWW sites that tell us how Hanwell Park was then split up and sold off in bits to become variously a golf course, a school, some housing estates, and allotments apparently. There's stuff about Benjamin Sharpe, Montagu's predecessor, who invented stuff. Even Ealing Council has something to say about the history of Hanwell Park and the farms surrounding it.

This subject is just one road in one part of what used to be (at its height) Hanwell Park. And it's a bad and misleading portrayal of the actual history of Hanwell, which unsurprisingly did not all occur in the area occupied by one suburban street. If you read this (a re-print of one of the aforementioned history books), you'll see that the real history of Hanwell is rather different to the view of it through a narrow slit that is given here. Indeed, even Hanwell Park may be too small a subject to give a proper view — hence the tantalizing redlink subtly introduced just now.

Uncle G (talk) 21:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The relevance of the Hanwell Park estate was highlighted in the article many days ago. But note that the London Encyclopedia (which I keep by my bedside) gives equal prominence to the Hanwell Grove estate (aka The Grove) which was highlighted at the same time.

The creature which really dominates in this area is not the elephant nor the bunny but the cuckoo as we have Cuckoo Hill, Cuckoo Lane, Cuckoo Farm, Cuckoo Schools, Cuckoo Estate and conservation area. A large asylum for the cuckoo was built nearby but that is perhaps a coincidence. The current confinement of these topics within the article in question is due to the constraints of the crazy AFD process rather than a lack of knowledge or will.

Colonel Warden (talk) 09:49, 6 November 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 Despite the number of comments and the length of the discussion, there were only 12 participants who registered opinions, and the split was fairly even. Objections concerning content are valid, and there is always room for improvement in any article. Mandsford 17:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Southern California Chinatowns[edit]

Strong delete This article is blatantly original research, and even contains within itself a statement that the five so-called Chinatowns it describes are not even called Chinatowns by the Chinese community there (nor anybody else). One editor rightfully, more or less, rightfully tried to redirect this title to Chinatown, Los Angeles but the editor who's been expanding it (DocOfSoc) wants it to remain so he/she can use it as a resource for "improving" the Chinatown, Los Angeles article; how "improving" an article by referencing an article composed out of original research is quite beyond me; similarly on Monterey Park, California there are hosts of citations which are entirely wiki-clones of earlier versions of the same articles (including the Little Taipei article, which is similarly unsourced and/or reflexively-sourced). I don't think this should even be a redirect, I think it shouldn't exist at all, as the notion that there is more than one Chinatown in Southern California is in and of itself purely fiction....there is one author, P.Fong, who described Monterey Park as "the first suburban Chinatown [in Southern California]", but that's an idiomatic and also idiosyncratic use of the term "Chinatown" - and one author does not make a term valid, by any means. But the others are just areas where there are lots of Chinese businesses and/or residents, and the descriptions of such are a muddle of demographic/immigration figures and outright directories of businesses and shopping malls. Wikipedia is not a directory, though clearly there are repeated efforts to turn it into one on various fronts. I was putting off an AfD on this as there are others equally deserving or OR-related deletion; but the gall of this edit was just too much to put up with; aside from WP:Own and using an Original research article as a "resource" for a legitimate page, well, that's just too much to bear with longer....also note that the edit I reversed was a placement of a REDIRECT in front of the lede, without doing anything else to the rest of the page. DocOfSoc goes on about Good Faith and more, and wants proof this is original research; I say "prove that it is NOT original research", which just can't be done. If something's not called a Chinatown (by more than one author, especially), it's just not a Chinatown, period. But to ask for the page to be preserved, in all its OR-ness, so it can be used as a "resource"....that's breaking so many guidelines I don't even know where to start enumerating them....Skookum1 (talk) 06:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Re the validity of the title, the plural conceivably might have included historical Chinatowns in places like Bakersfield, Barstow, San Bernadino, Long Beach or San Diego. But using "Chiantowns" to mean modern commercial plazas/areas which are not known as Chinatowns i.e. by name, or by Little Taipei, is a confabulation of normal English usage. There are also articles such as List of Chinatowns and Chinatown patterns in North America where any and all of this is duplicated and reduplicated, and also wiki-clone-cited and also functioning as business directories. No other region in the US has such an article, eitehr - e.g. Texas Chinatowns, New England Chinatowns, Pacific Northwest Chinatowns. This article fails validity and notability on so many tests it's remarkable it has survived this long; as for DocOfSoc's protest that it should remain a few days so it can be "used" to further OR-ify another article....well, that's what copy-paste and notepad are for.Skookum1 (talk) 06:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have simply and politely asked that this article remain for a couple days as I was using it as a starting point to expand on "Suburban Chinatown", which two editors don't seem to comprehend. It absolutely needs to be deleted but why the big hurry? I asked for Good Faith and was insulted in return. The definition of "Chinatown is: Chinatown |ˈ ch īnəˌtoun| noun a district of any non-Chinese town, esp. a city or seaport, in which the population is predominantly of Chinese origin. Is that so difficult? I would appreciate someone explaining why a simple request of time could not be honored. There is no exact "time limit" in Wiki. Civility would be nice. DocOfSoc (talk) 06:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your expansion and/or creation of the '"Suburban" Chinatowns' section on Chinatown, Los Angeles is ALSO original research and uses reflexive wiki-clone citations which themselves are ALSO original research. As is your interpretation of the one dictionary definition you've trotted out to justify why Chinese-themed/dominant areas are "Chinatowns". Last time I looked, teh San Gabriel Valley wasn't a seaport, also....Skookum1 (talk) 06:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I looked it said city or seaport. I used *no* original research. I was simply using the SOCal article as a place to start as I only began this article yesterday. Delete the darn thing. I have been harassed by the best and am still recovering. Checkout SRQ in ANI. Please just leave me in peace. May God heal your heart. DocOfSoc (talk) 07:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep temporarily~~ Sorry, scratched double vote, didn't realize I put it up here too. I'm not sure what DocOfSoc is doing with this article but she has become a very good writer of articles. There is no reason not extend her good faith about all of this. If the article is useless in say a week then we can ask an administer to speedy delete it. I'd be more than happy to do that myself. --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment If this were titled Chinese commercial and residential areas in Greater Los Angeles, fine, but it's not - and that title itself is questionable on notability and undue weight grounds (compare Jewish commercial and residential areas in Greater Los Angeles as a concept....). That DocOfSoc wishes to use this material to ADD TO the Chinatown, Los Angeles article in an inappropriate fashion is nowhere near enough grounds to tolerate its further existence; I've once-deleted the "Suburban Chinatowns" synth/or section on that page, as it's also off-topic and not about Chinatown, but also because the "properly cited" citations are largely wiki-clones, and they do not support the claim that these are "Chinatowns" (whether cap-c or small-c). Grayshi has re-deleted that section after it was restored and expanded (OR-fashion) by DocOfSoc. So allowing the continued existence of one OR/synth article so as to enable expansion of another synth/OR section somewhere else....I don't see the point of that at all. Being able to write good articles does not mean that all articles written are good; if they are OR, they clearly are not what should be in WikipediaSkookum1 (talk) 21:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and for all the reasons listed above. It's not clear why DocOfSoc wants to keep it in the first place. …Grayshi ^{talk ■ my contribs} 21:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment NB the existence of List_of_Chinatowns_in_the_United_States#California which includes several historical entries this article never even acknowledged in its efforts to promote "new" so-called Chinatowns.Skookum1 (talk) 02:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep I changed my mind. Nintendude has an excellent point. In fact , I will again volunteer to rewrite it. Taking ONE sentence and extrapolating that these towns don't exist, when my excellent sources say otherwise (see Monterey Park talk) is just argumentative. BTW Synth says a+b=c. My sources conclude a+b=ab. Voila! "Surburban Chinatown"" . Dude and Crohnie agree.DocOfSoc (talk) 19:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Asian Nation, a vague mention of "suburban Chinatown" that is specifically about Monterey Park by a 1987 LA Times article, and some book written by a Timothy Fong are hardly 'excellent' sources. Your reasoning is clearly conflicting with WP:SYNTH; taking your sources and guidelines extremely literally and finding little technicalities does not make them any more Chinatowns than simply places with high Chinese populations. …Grayshi ^{talk ■ my contribs} 20:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's needs to be reworked from an essay into an encyclopedia article, but that doesn't mean it warrants deletion. Definitely needs more references, too. Despite all that, I don't see how this is any less significant than any of the other Chinatowns: Category:Chinatowns_in_the_United_States. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 18:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Duh - because it's about places that aren't Chinatowns. And there's no other equivalent regional article, even if this were about the historical Chinatowns (in SLO, Barstow, Bakersfield, Riverside etc); List of Chinatowns in the United States and Chinatown, Los Angeles suffice, and the so-called "New Chinatowns" are ORIGINAL RESEARCH (just as the article says, they aren't even called Chinatowns by Chinese residents).Skookum1 (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's obvious you haven't read any of the points listed by Skookum1. Monterey Park, Arcadia, San Gabriel, etc. are NOT Chinatowns but merely some original research perspective that they are, simply because there is a high Chinese population. Where are all the suburban "Latinotowns"? There's surely a lot of Latinos that are living all over the United States. …Grayshi ^{talk ■ my contribs} 20:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The History of the First Suburban Chinatown[9]

Obviously not original research. Karma= not filling out the delete form correctly.DocOfSoc (talk) 22:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:SYNTH again, a+b= ab, the same exact conclusion as *Many* sources. There is no Mexican town , you are talking apples and oranges. My sources are excellent. You should try reading them.

Comment - I meant other Chinatown articles, this is obviously an article for less-significant Chinatowns in a single article. If you actually drill down into articles for some cities such as Boston or San Francisco or New York, you'll see tons of articles for neighborhoods and whatnot. If this were the second AfD then my vote would be delete, but this article deserves a chance to be saved. It needs work; it needs references and some cleanup since it looks like an essay right now. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 00:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing Professor Susie Ling’s research on the history of Monterey Park, America’s first suburban Chinatown

Not in the standard tourist guide, Monterey Park is nevertheless recognized by Chinese the world over as America's first "suburban Chinatown",

Recent research suggests that members of these Chinese communities aren't getting dispersed and lost in the 'burbs. Rather, they're 'reconstituting' their Chinatowns in suburban settings...In the face of gentrification, America's Chinatowns set up shop in the suburbs. Chinatown, Suburban Style. Kelsey,Eric. Utne.com - The Utne Reader, September 13, 2007

The Greater Toronto Area in Ontario, Canada, has at least seven Chinatowns (Chinese: 多倫多唐人街/duo lun duo tang ren jie') — four are located within the city's boundaries, while the other three are located in adjacent suburbs.

Markham's experience as a "suburban Chinatown" in similar to that of neighbouring Richmond Hill. The most well-known Chinese mall in Markham is the Pacific Mall, at Kennedy ...

www.famouschinese.com/virtual/Chinatown,_Toronto Markham's experience as a suburban Chinatown in similar to that of neighbouring Richmond Hill.

Article from:The Oral History Review Article date:June 22, 1997 Author:Chen, Yong

In the depths of the worst recession in decades, one of Canada's richest men is taking a $1 billion gamble on 'suburban Chinatown' with plans for a massive mall and luxury hotel/condominium complex in the heart of Markham's shopping district.

With a little bit of reading, rather than undocumented personal opinion, anyone can document the use of the term "Suburban Chinatown" and those towns very existence, especially in Los Angeles County...= DocOfSoc (talk) 02:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FACT: Markham, Agincourt and Richmond Hill have all REJECTED the use of teh term "Chinatown", which in Greater Toronto refers to the Spadina/Dundas area; the same is true of Golden Village in Richmond BC....part of the reason for this on the one hand is the resistance of non-Chinese in the area (not just whites, but other visible minorities) to having their communities labelled Chinatowns, in name or promotion; Calgary's "new" Chinatown twenty years ago was a few busineses; now a giant mall with accompanying dragon lampposts but that's a different matter and it was created AND BUILT as a Chinatown ON TOP OF teh site of an original Chinatown. And it appears to me that you've been "reading" wiki-clone sites, which re-circulate the original research material that got compiled here and on related pages - very pointedly http://www.famouschinese.com is a wiki-clone and its content lifted directly from Wikipedia. That this notion of "suburban chinatown" has been used idiomatically by academics studying Chinese settlement patterns does not mean that society at large accepts these places as Chinatowns, in name or in concept, even if some academics - and business people -like to promote them as such. Note my use of small-c chinatown. The presence of Chinese businesses (w/wo residents) does not make a place a Chinatown, escept in academic constructs or in marketing promotion, and is often rejected by non-Chinese residents as nothing more than hype and fiction. And there's a BIG difference bewteen somewhere NAMED Chinatown, and somewhere that a write or business prmoter calls "a chinatown".....it's not a widespread usage, and I dispute your claim that Chinese "all over North America" acknowledge Monterey Park as "the first suburban Chinatown".....it's overblown claims like that that are your own karma here; no doubt you'll find something you read that supports it, but chances are it's another wiki-clone like those which littered the Monterey Park article so extensively....."if you self-reference something six times it's true".....well, it's true that it's a tautology and original research, at least, even if it feeds and propagates upon itself....Skookum1 (talk) 01:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- CommentI had not edited Monterey Park since last August until you brought it up. I dispute your claim that it is "Littered" with wiki-clones.; if there are any , why haven't you fixed them? You have provided no resouces for any of your claims. Both Dr. Fong and Dr. Ling are respected professors and writers. I repeat for the third and last time, I did no original research. This is turning into one of those useless and laborious discussions. Your verbose paragraph above violates No personal attacks and is lacking in Good Faith. As an academic, I can turn the article you want to delete into a decent article. You said " That this notion of "suburban chinatown" has been used idiomatically by academics studying Chinese settlement patterns does not mean that society at large accepts these places as Chinatowns, in name or in concept, even if some academics...like to promote them as such. " I believe Academics has a place in Wikipedia." and in Society. It is now up to others to decide the outcome. BTW, I did say "Snookums" tongue in cheek, and I apologize if it offended you. Sincerely...DocOfSoc (talk) 03:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Idiosyncratic uses are not common uses; that these places are explicitly NOT named Chinatown, or that their inhabitants don't use or like the term, is sufficient to indicate that an academic affectation-usage is NOT enough to warrant a title using that meaning. Chinese commercial and residential areas in Greater Los Angeles is what this is about, but even so it comes off like a Directory (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a directory. "Chinatown" in North American culture and historical context has a specific meaning, and so-called "Suburban Chinatowns" are not part of it; many of those are explicitly in areas that are not exclusively Chinese nor want to be, also. The further issue here is that this is content-forking, even if these were legitimate "Chinatowns"; why an article on Southern California? Not on the Bay Area? Greater Seattle? Chinatowns in Metropolitan New York?? (though there have indeed been efforts to expand Chinatown, New York in that direction. If the logic applied to Monterey Park or Milpitas were applied to Vancouver, the whole city woudl technically be a Chinatown, BUT IT's NOT. As for the Monterey Park article, I took out all the wiki-clone citations (still not sure about at-usa.com but those probably are too) and put in "fact" templates; NB instead of deleting it all outright, as should be for unreferenced original research. This problem is even worse on [[Chinatowns in Canada and the United States], which is rank original research and includes suppositions and definitions and even comparison tables which are all uncited, and uncitable (except using wiki-clones). This article, if it's to survive, should have a much larger section on each of the historical Chinatowns (now vanished) than on any of the "invented" and re-branded "Chinatowns" you seem to want it to be about (but which it shouldnt' be about). But I daresay that if a more accurate title of Chinese commercial and residential districts in Greater Los Angeles were to be adopted, with content just as it is (with valid citations, rather than citations used to create/support SYNTH), it wouldn't last very long at all, as it would come off like a directory. And there's the other issue, too, as in at least one case, I've forgotten which, the area you claim is a chinatown is actually officially labelled "Little India", even having a gate-sign to that effect.....See btw http://www.americanchinatown.com which DOES cover REAL Chinatowns, including the new "invented" one in Las Vegas (which is admissible because it is CALLED Chinatown).Skookum1 (talk) 04:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

idiomatic |ˌidēəˈmatik| adjective 1 using, containing, or denoting expressions that are natural to a native speaker : distinctive idiomatic dialogue. 2 appropriate to the style of art or music associated with a particular period, individual, or group : a short Bach piece containing lots of idiomatic motifs. DERIVATIVES idiomatically |-ik(ə)lē| |ˈˈɪdiəˈmødək(ə)li| adverb ORIGIN early 18th cent.: from Greek idiōmatikos ‘peculiar, characteristic,’ from idiōma (see idiom ).

idiosyncratic |ˌidēəsi ng ˈkratik; ˌidē-ō-| adjective of or relating to idiosyncrasy; peculiar or individual : she emerged as one of the great idiosyncratic talents of the Nineties. DERIVATIVES idiosyncratically |-ik(ə)lē| |ˈˈɪdiəsɪŋˈˈkrødək(ə)li| adverb DocOfSoc (talk) 05:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC) ORIGIN late 18th cent.: from idiosyncrasy , on the pattern of Greek sunkratikos ‘mixed together.’ and again you cite no sourcesDocOfSoc (talk) 05:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Little India [[11]]DocOfSoc (talk) 05:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification The article will be rewritten to make clear it is parrts of Cities referred to, not whole cities ( Maybe a title change?)

Most, if any, wiki-clone refs were not made by me if anyone had checked.DocOfSoc (talk) 09:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If this is something that someone is actively working on, but it isn't fit for the mainspace (yet), would it be appropriate to userfy? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- reply As uncited original research/synth, NO.Skookum1 (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - reply No to what? I do not know who's "original research" this was. A couple days ago, I began to attempt to rewrite and wikify entire article and was bombarded by 2 editors, who after five years decided the article needs to be immediately deleted. I would like the opportunity to proceed with this article as all my other efforts were deleted with violations of good faith and civility. This article needs a total rewrite and i think that it is mandatory the discussion should include the Wikipedia:WikiProject Asian Americans, before any decisions are made. I am offering again to rewrite the entire article with input from the above mentioned wikiproject !! I have already written a small portions of the article on another page that was unceremoniously deleted. I do not understand the motives of editors who would mock and block an attempt to improve an article.DocOfSoc (talk) 19:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's 5 years worth of original research by Wikipedia editors. There simply is no such thing as a "suburban Chinatown" and deleting things that do not comply with Wikipedia guidelines is not considered a breach of good faith. As for WP:CIVIL violations... you really shouldn't be calling the kettle black. …Grayshi ^{talk ■ my contribs} 20:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - The material on the other article was ALSO deleted because it ALSO was original research; just as you wanted to use this to add original research to the Chinatown, Los Angeles article. None of it is acceptable, ditto your cutesy nickname for me and the "karma" comment. You seem more obsessed with WP:Civil and WP:Good faith than with WP:OR and [[WP:Synth)) and also WP:VS and WP:RS. And as this page is tagged with WP:Asian Americans (as also with WP:California and WP:Ethnic groups any of those editors who have this on their watchlist are already aware of this, or had the option to be. And the special interests of WP:Asian Americans do not trump guidelines such as WP:OR and WP:Synth. This is a matter of legitimacy of content, and it fails that test. Instead of being on ACTUAL Chinatows in Southern California, the previous editors who created/expanded it and also yourself are wanting to re-brand areas which are NOT called or perceived as "Chinatown" by a more general notion of what you'd like "Chinatowns" to mean (but which that term doesn't). The historical Chinatowns - actual Chinatowns - in Southern California were many, and they are accounted for on both Chinatowns in Canada and the United States and on List of Chinatowns in the United States#California. There is nothing special about those in Southern California to warrant a completely separate article on them, as this might have been had it been written properly - it would have wound up being merged anyweay, if it had. but it's about something very different, not about Chinatowns as that term is properly used....Skookum1 (talk) 02:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - NB in addition to the parallel AfD on Chinatown patterns in North America I have also added OR and fact tags on Chinatown, Flushing and Chinatown, Brooklyn, as they also appear to be "invented" uses of the term Chinatown, and are not what those locations are actually called.Skookum1 (talk) 02:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:SYNTHESIS. Abductive (reasoning) 04:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, that the gentleman in Canada, who is 'not clear on the concept' of Suburban Chinatowns has added Flushing to his quest to eliminate the term. If one goes to the first page of the excellent text book [ttp://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1412905567/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_2?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=1566391237&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1CMBYVTSDBX2T84Q8S2V] the term and the experience is very well explained. As explained in the article, the "Valley Blvd. Corridor" is the highly visible experience of parts of cities that contain Suburban Chinatowns. DR. Fong's highly respected and nationally award winning text: The First Suburban Chinatown: The Remarking of Monterey Park, California (Asian American History & Culture [12] has been denigrated by editors Skookum1 and Grayshi, who have obviously not bothered to open it, much less read it. They have simply decided unilaterally that there is no such thing as this commonly used designation.
- Comment. This "gentleman in Canada" is insistent than using "Chinatown" for modern-era Chinese commercial and population concentrations is NOT valid, NOT appropriate, and is NOT "commonly used". In Monterey Park's case, even the Chinese community does not use, or want, the term "Chinatown", which in Greater LA means ONE PLACE ONLY (Chinatown, Los Angeles). Your pretense that what you are creating/expanding is valid according to Wikipedia guidelines is specious and repetitive in its enthusiastic support for writing original research essays in order to expound a neologistic meaning for the word "Chinatown".Skookum1 (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"History of Asians in the San Gabriel Valley [13] by Dr. Susie Ling is

an easy and enjoyable read discussing the subject of 'Suburban Chinatowns," quote: Professor Susie Ling of has just written a very interesting and informative history of Asians in the San Gabriel Valley, which dates back even earlier than the 1965 Immigration Act and how the first suburban Chinatown in the country developed there, [14] with further extapolation, and apparently not even perused, has also been denigrated by the above two editors who unfortunately have closed minds. As a former teacher, I am appalled at their obstinate and ignorant conclusion and refusal to budge on their mission. As someone who drives down the "Valley Corridor" every day, (yes OR) I invite them to take that journey or or what do they want? Pictures? to open their eyes and maybe their minds. Unlike Grayshi's claim, my degree in Sociology is perfect to discuss this portion of Society. The disrespect for my 14 years of study is quite beyond Civility. I only discovered this article a few weeks ago and was about to improve it, 100% when assailed by these individuals with their own agenda. In glancing at Skookum1's ANI files, I find he has driven other editors away from other articles several times. I Invite you to peruse those before any decisions are made. Simply, I am quite confident in my knowledge and education including "Surburban Chinatowns" and refuse to be driven away. There is no consensus here anyway, and I again invite anyone to at least glance at the references I have provided. I know this is a bit long, but time is "a wastin". TY for your consideration. DocOfSoc (talk) 06:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment re your comment "Simply, I am quite confident in my knowledge and education including "Surburban Chinatowns" and refuse to be driven away." You are not a reliable source (see WP:RS and it's already clear that you're not a verifiable source WP:VS because you're constantly making original research/synth conclusions and expansions. YOUR definition/meaning of Suburban Chinatown does not have a consensus, and that you will "not be driven away" indicates your stubbornness and intent to keep on with your essay-writing/travelogue campaign. You've been playing WP:Own with this article since you started expanding it, and have ignored regular content guidelines and run willy-nilly in writing more and more OR and Synth. A consensus may not be reached here, but these don't run on consensus, they are decided (properly) on what's right and what's wrong. And your claim that places that aren't called Chinatown should be called Chinatowns because you think so just doesn't wash.Skookum1 (talk) 20:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. Granted, there's a lot of OR-like essay material there, but much of it is factual and descriptive of physical locations. I suggest that we removed the unsourced opinions, and build the article from a solid base, leaving the article to supplement Chinatowns in Canada and the United States. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or name change per Hong Qigong below. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the others who have said keep, I think that there should be at least some time given for a rewrite prior to damanding it be deleted. Please let's give the editor an opportunity to do the rewrite she wants to do. It's her time she's using so let her do it. I see no harm in this option. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment. You're supporting the bad problem, Crohnie- that the work that DocOfSoc "wants to do" is nothing but original research and confabulation.Skookum1 (talk) 20:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment It seems to me a lot of people here aren't comprehending one of the core issues/problems with this article - the original research/synthesis claim that new-era Chinese commercial and residential areas are, in fact, "Chinatowns", which isn't borne out by any of the citations and in fact by more than one of them is rejected. If there's to be a rewrite, then all the "junk" material taht's little more than a directory of commercial areas as opposed to real Chiantowns should get junked, and the historic Chinatowns that DID EXIST in Riverside, San Luis Obisop etc should be included. And again, thre's the content-fork issue - why does Southern California need its own article on Chinatowns?? Even REAL Chinatowns (not wannabe ones)? List of Chinatowns in the United States#California adn Chinatowns in Canada and the United States already cover this. This article was written as an original-research "personal reflection or essay" and dnoes't meet any criteria for notability, and defies and overrides all of WP:Or and WP:Synth by allowing the use of "chinatown" in the nouveau/neologism manner it's being used here (which it isn't by the public, or by the media or indeed by the ccommunities named/affected).Skookum1 (talk) 00:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have yet to give one ciataion to back up your null hypothesis. You continue to just repeat ypurself. All of the above paragraph reeks of OR and personal opinion. I am curious to know, how, sitting superciliously up in Canada , you know what the locals call the pieces of Chinatowns i.e. "The Valley Corridor." I would really like to know, since my hypothesis is well grounded and the much respected editor Ohconfucius stated his opinion most intelligently and knowledgeably. BTW Nouveau/neologism is a tad redundant. DocOfSoc (talk) 08:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 07:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Encyclopedias should be for solid facts, not for essays. True, there are lots of Chinese people living in Southern California. Also true that lots of them own businesses, and there are places with many Chinese businesses in close proximity to each other. Also true that areas where this is common can be identified by census data, newspaper stories, and other reliable sources. Putting it all together to create a topic like "Southern California Chinatowns" seems like original research and not the stuff of encyclopedias, which should give the facts on topics that others have already found to be notable. -Steve Dufour (talk) 11:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ (struck as an accidential double iVote. --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC) ) As I ripped into the article for several hours, I found a very nice essay, obviously written by someone for whom English is a second language. I made a large dent in starting to bring the article up to standard, but I realized that Skookum1's and Grayshi's problem was not the unfortunate essay itself, but that they are against the entire concept of "Suburban Chinatowns," a personal opinion is a pretty lousy reason to delete an article with a possibly bright future.[reply]

Steve if you would please look at what I achieved in one whole night, you might change your vote to keep. It still needs a ton of work, but it is doable and hey, it's my 'hood! ;-) DocOfSoc (talk) 14:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment. That it's "your hood" is no reason for you to author essay-like content which is not encyclopedia in nature, and which extends the normal meaning of "Chinatown" to places that aren't CALLED Chinatown (T. Fong is not enough, and YOU are not a reliable source). You're defending the existence of this article because "you've put a lot of work into it", but it's the wrong kind of work. And your claim that Grayshi's and mine's (and not just ours) position that you're misusing the word "Chinatown" in a neologistic/synth fashion is NOT "personal opinion". It is FACT. "Chinatown" means A PLACE CALLED CHINATOWN, or at best "Little China" or "China Alley" or "Shanghai Alley". It does not mean strip malls marketed at new-era Chinese immigrants, especially for areas that have other-ethnic business and residents. Re-branding places with epithets concocted by synth/OR is not Wikipedia's job, but you're certainly making it yours....somewhere here (which I can't find just now) you also fielded YET ANOTHER new term "pocket Chinatowns" and now apparently want to map every bit of Chinese commercial presence in the SGV. That you can't see that that's original research, especially when you apply the name "pocket Chinatowns", is even worse than your attempt to "prove" your "hypothesis"...even that you use those words is a demonstration of WP:SYNTH.....Skookum1 (talk) 20:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please write a book about your community, you might even make a few bucks selling copies. I hear that Amazon has a good self-publishing program where they print up and send out books as they are ordered. -Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your work has done nothing to address the main issues of the article and the idea of "suburban Chinatown" itself. In fact, you've turned the first few sections into full-on essays with tones that are inappropriate for Wikipedia. Write about these "Chinatowns" in the SGV area in a book instead, as Kitfoxxe said. …Grayshi ^{talk ■ my contribs} 20:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment It's why I deleted those sections outright....you'll note that my inclusion of the historical chinatowns in the cut-down version was blanked in the UNDO by DocOfSoc, who clearly doesn't care about the hsitorical Chinatowns and is more intent on painting collections of wonton restaurants as if they were legitimate, named "Chinatowns". I'm not going to engage in an edit war, but the trimmed, FACTUAL version is what this article should be if it remains; otherwise it needs renaming to Chinese commercial and residential districts in Greater Los Angeles.Skookum1 (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why don't we just change the name of the ARTICLE to "Chinatowns of the San Gabriel Valley" and let me finish the darn thing. SGV is a huge

collection of "pocket" Chinatowns" HUGE! I write for Wikipedia. I have been published BTW, not my intent here, but gee Thanks! DocOfSoc (talk) 12:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Really, like, way too much detail for an encyclopedia article. This is more like a neighborhood guide. You could have articles on, for instance, Polish communities in the Chicago area, Korean communities in Washington state, French Canadian communities in New England, and on and on with any combination of ethnic group and geographical area. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Notification I hope someone notices that DocOfSoc and Crohnie have both voted twice. DocOfSoc voted early on with "Strong Keep" and again this morning voted "Keep". Crohnie voted early on with "Temporarily Keep" and again a couple of days ago with "Keep". How many votes does one get to make? Lazuli Bunting (talk) 16:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notification I have removed the bulk of ALL the original research-cum-essay materials from the article, which have been extensively expanded by DocOfSoc during the course of this debate. The article in its current state lists only the main LA Chinatown and now (for the first time) mentions the historical Chinatowns in Bakersfield, San Luis Obispo, Calico, Riverside etc. It still remains a content-fork but (for now, pending probable attempts to re-insert the original research material...) and is redundant with other articles, but at present it is at least what its title says it's about, and isn't a guide to Chinese shopping areas or Chinese populations in various cities, which it shouldn't be. Teh rationale that says these areas are Chinatowns is equivalent to saying that Chicago is a Polishtown or Boston an Irishtown, or the Upper East Side in New York a Jewish ghetto.Skookum1 (talk) 22:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notification Skookum1 practically BLANKED the article and turned it into a useless stub which I have reverted. Articles under discussion are not to be wantonly destroyed. It apparently needs to be protected until this discussion is completed.DocOfSoc (talk) 06:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC) In re-reading what I am attempting to construct, I do suggest the title be changed to "Chinatowns in San Gabriel Valley", a significant enclave of this population.DocOfSoc (talk) 07:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I did NOT "practically blank" it or "turn it into a useless stub", I made it conform to its title and stripped away all the very extensive original research/synth and OFF-TOPIC materials you have persisted in adding and expanding while this debate is going on. What you have done by reverting my correction of the article is to persist with turning this article into Chinese commercial and residential areas in Greater Los Angeles, and that's all it is, and as such it's an essay, not properly cited, and built on "and oh gee, there's some more stores over here". Your ongoing equation of one author's parabolic usage in combination with an incomplete dictionary definition to yield "Monterey Park = Chinatown" is utterly and totally WP:SYNTH and WP:Original research.Skookum1 (talk) 18:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Several neighboring cities in the San Gabriel Valley have evolved into a concentrated population of Chinese nationals and Chinese-Americans. Numerous sources refer to Monterey Park and its neighbors as a Chinatown. It might be possible to find a better title, but the topic is legitimate and covered in reliable sources. Will Beback talk 04:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment A lot of those "numerous sources", here and in the LA Chinatown and Monterey Park articles, were Wiki-clones. Other than Fong, who else were you thinking of?Skookum1 (talk) 04:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I have posted ten sources, none of which are wikiclones, on talk:Monterey Park, California, which call that place a "Chinatown". The San Gabriel Valley is unusual in that it has an enclave of Chinese people which is spread acorss multiple cities. That's why this article makes sense. Will Beback talk 02:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- CommentThis has been discussed ad nauseum. I have presented numerous sources besides the nationally recognized Dr. Fong, just scroll up, they are NOT wiki clones. You just continue with your extremely narrow personal opinion. As I have said, I am rewriting this article as a separate entity, entirely different from my original concept of integrating it. DocOfSoc (talk) 05:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I've had a long look at the "national" sources you're talking about, and none are in contexts validating the use of "Chinatown" as a common descriptor for such places, only in an abstract analytical/comparative sense that IS NOT COMMON USAGE. The nouveau use of "Chinatown" for suburban areas with Chinese-language stores is NOT the proper usage, and there are cites which dispute that usage and over and over again in all metropolitan areas "Chinatown" refers to somewhere specific, and is not used in a general sense. And again, "your original conception" of this article is a rambling essay talking about populations, the number of stores etc, and there are cites to that effect; there are NOT valid, contextual citations proving that referring to places like Monterey Park as Chinatowns are common usage. OR EVEN HOW PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE REFER TO IT. Oh, except for you, since it's your "'hood".Skookum1 (talk) 18:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - PS - COMMENT Your attempt to close this discussion yourself is one of the most extreme examples of gall and wiki-arrogance I've ever seen, and a rather vulgar display of WP:Own, as are your complaints that you want to "edit it in peace" (meaning you want the right to keep on building your original research empire). Add on top of that your dumping a definition of "confabulation" in the middle of a discussion on my talkpage about a completely different topic, in reply to a now-confused editor who thought you were responding to him......talk about bad karma.....Skookum1 (talk) 18:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentYou (DocOfSoc) and others here keep on claiming that there are valid ciations for the usage, but as per my comments on the talkpage about Rowland Park, nowhere in the cites given for that section does it say that Rowland Park is a Chinatown, or is CALLED Chinatown. You just keep on adding more and more original research and want to be left in peace to "edit" (add) yet more, claiming that one cite about one place extends across the board as you see fit to extend it. That's WP:Synth, and WP:OR, and continues to be.Skookum1 (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- These comments from User:maven of Media are worth noting by all those who assert that the references given for this usage are valid.Skookum1 (talk) 22:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that pointer. The cited book calls Monterey Park a new Chinatown.[15] Will Beback talk 02:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But, like Fong, it's a paradigm, more of an adjective, a transitory usage. And it says nothing about Rowland Heights. Other sources say, as I remember in one, that they're not comfortable using "Chinatown" for Monterey Park, or that (as maven of Media notes) Chinatown as a name does not refer to just any commercial area with lots of Chinese businesses; if that's were the case twenty neighbourhoods in Vancouver would be "Chinatowns", and they're not, not in name, not in concept. That some authors indulge in the neologistic usage meaning "a concentration of Chinese strip malls and tract-housing residents", that's not the most common usage, and it's certainly a disputed usage. Not even residents of Monterey Park refer to their town as Chinatown or as a Chinatown (and that would go especially, I imagine, for people of other origins whose home it is also). The mingling of the two concepts gets really fuzzy - "oh there's a few Chinese stores at hte corner of such-and-so" is the kind of thing this article is getting peppered with, all contingent on the SYNTH decision that a few references -= including those taken out of context or as in one case was a food section culinary travelogue - as validations for a usage that MOST PEOPLE DON"T ACCEPT OR USE. How to cite that? Ask Monterey Park city council what their citizens think, and what they call their place....this page and others like it anyway wind up as listings of which restaurants and stores are where; it's also a WP:Wikipedia is not a directory problem as well as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. There's a BIG difference hetweeen a figurative sense of Monterey Park, in some writings, being referred to as "a new Chinatown" (and they probably cite or feed off each other), and a sense of somewhere like Chinatown, Los Angeles or Chinatown, Bakersfield which really ARE "Chinatowns in Southern California" - not just mis-applications of the term, based in a figurative usage, as if it were ordinary English WHICH IT's NOT......Skookum1 (talk) 03:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand the confusion here. One way of defining "Chinatown" is to say that "A Chinatown is an ethnic enclave of overseas Chinese people". Another to define it is "A Chinatown is a place called 'Chinatown', regardless of its demographics". I'm basing my opinion on the first definition, and one sources that say these communities are Chinatowns and have ethnic enclaves of Chinese people. If we use the second definition, then we'd need to remove several articles from Category:Chinatowns, including Van Wesenbekestraat, Golden Village (Richmond, British Columbia) and all of Category:Historical Chinatowns in British Columbia. I think that interpretation is too narrow, and doesn't reflect reality or reliable sources.

Further, the issue of whether to call the article "Southern California Chinatowns" or something different is not what we're here to decide. "Chinese enclaves in the San Gabriel Valley" would work just as well, though with a change in scope. The topic is identifiable, referred to often in various ways in sources, and worth an article.

As for the Monterey Park city council, go ahead and ask them. Here's their website: City of Monterey Park : 市議會. Will Beback talk 08:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

big deal, the Cities of Vancouver, Burnaby, Richmond, Toronto and so on also have Chinese-language pages, and Chinese-ethnic councillors....I searched for "Chinatown" on teh MOnterey Park site, and there are six instances, all of them referring to the Chinatown Service Centre, which is located in Chinatown, Los Angeles, although there's a branch addressed listed in Monterey Park. None of this is proof that Monterey Park is a Chinatown or, again, called a Chinatown. It only means there's a service organization in Chinatown, Los Angeles that has a branch office in the San Gabriel Valley. And yeah, there's a good case to remove Golden Village from the Chinatown listings, particularly because the city and residents of Richmond didn't want the designation, and because "Chinatown" in Greater Vancouver refers specifically to the old downtown, historical Chinatown (even though most Chinese people and businesses aren't there). Likewise I trimmed those other articles of their rambling original research material on Agincourt and Markham and Richmond Hill which had been included (and shouldn't have been). And as for Category:Historical Chinatowns in British Columbia articles in there have sections describing, or mentioning the historical Chinatowns, and yeah there's an issue whether places like Richfield or Circle City, which for many years were 100% Chinese, are Chinatowns or "places with significant Chinese populations". Barkerville, which is in that category, has a large Chinatown (as part of its museum-town) and the historical fact is that the REST of Barkerville was where most Chinese lived; Chinatown is just where the benevolent association halls were. Lillooet, Penticton, Nanaimo, New Westsminster - all had bona fide Chinatowns (Penticton's was called Shanghai Alley, Lillooet's included a street named China Alley). So what do you mean all of that category should be deleted?Skookum1 (talk) 19:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW the Chinese characters you've submitted don't - repeat don't - say "Chinatown" (see the characters on the Chinatown page). They say the Chinese rendering, presumably phonetically, of "Monterey Park".Skookum1 (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by a "bona fide" Chinatown? If an settlement is a Chinese ethnic enclave, is it a "bona fide" Chinatown, regardless of name? Or, is the only real "Chinatown" a place called "Chinatown", regardless of who actually lives there? Will Beback talk 22:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Skookum is referring to the actual definition of a Chinatown in the historical sense, as in a recognizably distinct area of a settlement that people would commonly call by that name.. If you go to the Spadina "Chinatown" in Toronto, there really is no question, same with the (flagging) Vancouver one. I haven't really seen a reliable definition for "ethnic enclave" mentioned here, and that is why this came here in the first place - assuming the "D" is "AFD" could mean discussion. Does the article serve it's named purpose? Franamax (talk) 02:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep though I would recommend renaming it to something like "Chinese communities in the San Gabriel Valley" to make the title more in line with the content of the article. Whether they're called "Chinatowns" or not the concentration of Chinese in this area is a notable topic and the article needs improvement, not deletion. Kmusser (talk) 18:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment' Without being a travelogue or a directory, that's hard to do - and still, does it warrant a special page separate from Chinatowns in Canada and the United States or List of Chinatowns#California? Otherwise a plethora of articles on Chinese commercial areas in the Puget Sound region, Chinese commercial areas in the Bay Area, Chinese commercial areas in Florida, etc etc...Skookum1 (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not hard to do, we have plenty of articles on ethnic enclaves that are just fine, just because this one needs help doesn't mean it can't be done, see Poles in Chicago or Cuban migration to Miami. As you've so passionately pointed out "Chinatowns" and concentrations of Chinese aren't necessarily the same thing so I'm not sure on whether the existence of the lists of Chinatowns is relevant. There probably could be similar articles for other regions, whether other Chinese enclaves are notable would have to be judged on a case by case basis - this one is the largest in the U.S., has several books written about it and is clearly a topic of academic study. If Chinese in the Puget Sound region has gotten similar attention from academia or the press it probably should have an article.Kmusser (talk) 21:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's odd about this being the largest - there's an ongoing campaign on various Chinatown articles to maintain that New York's agglomeration of Chinese settlement areas is 'the largest Chinatown". If this wsre retitled Chinese commercial areas and residential settlements in Southen California, fine, BUT IT's NOT. And with this "restoration" of material deleted earlier by an IP User, apparently from LA and familiar with Rosemead, Rowland Heights etc, has restored "junk" material, mostly uncited, a lot of it travelogue and "oh, from here to here there's chinese stores". The citation on the Temple City section is only a link about the concentration of bridal shops there, which is indeed all that section is about; yet it's included because the restoring editor maintains it's a Chinatown; as if bridal stores serving Chinese customers were sufficient proof. Also in look at the refs on teh SF Chinatown page I noticed http://www.chinatownology.com which lists chinatowns worldwide, and doesn't name Monterey Park or any other ethnoburb, and spells out a definition of Chinatown that's at marked difference from the one being asserted OR/Synth-style here. Change the article name ot something more accurate; fine; but this title should not be a redirect to it - if it's not deleted outright it should be a listing of bona fide historical Chinatowns (E.g. Bakersfield, Riverside, San Luis Obispo, Calico etc). Until the thesis that "Chinese stores = Chinatown" is dispensed with, the original research content of this article will continue to bloat and grow. And yeah, there's History of Chinese immigration to Canada and a US counterpart article (both need trimming and maybe splitting; the former tends to be about Head Tax redress and ongoing current immigration policy changes/issues). Chinese commercial and residential areas in Greater Vancouver -- sheesh, don't you see where this is headed? And is such content really encyclopedic, and how is it kept from being a travelogue and business directory/promotion (= spam)?Skookum1 (talk) 21:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I should have said most concentrated, NYC and the Bay Area have larger total numbers but Chinese remain a small percentage of the total population, here the percentage Chinese is much higher with Monterey Park being the highest at 41%. I absolutely agree that the current title is misleading. Disregard the current state of the article - why wouldn't ethnic enclaves be an encyclopedic topic? Yeah people need to watch it to keep it free of spam, the listings of businesses need to go, but that applies to every article that's a geographic location. Kmusser (talk) 22:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        List of named ethnic enclaves in North America is problematic/ see its talkpage. There's also a discussion at WP:CANTALK about what to do with list of Chinese cities with large Chinese populations and related matters.....Edmonton and Winnipeg have huge Ukrainian concentrations - but are they "Uketowns" or ethnic enclaves? International Falls is heavily Swedish, the Lakehead has a large number of Finns...does that make them "ethnic enclaves"? Vancouver's North Shore has a powerful, highly visible Persian element - that doesn't make it "Little Tehran", nor would anybody in their right mind describe West Van or North Van as ethnic enclaves. Trail is famously Italian in origin; but it's not an ethnic enclave.....anyway look at that ethnic enclave page; someone just added Chicago as a "Native American" one because it has 50,000 native residents....but I dread to think of applying DocofSoc's criteria for "Chinatown" to Greater Vancouver, wherein every corner store and group of Chinese restaurants at, say, 152nd and 88th in Surrey, would be included in the article....Skookum1 (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Do you mean the Safeway or BC Liquor? The Save-On Foods or Blockbuster Video across the Fraser Highway? Cobbler, tend well to thine last. Images on request. Franamax (talk) 02:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while since I've been in Surrey, I just picked street numbers out of my head....I know somewhere along 108th just shy of Guildford there's a Chinese corner store/market and a few other businesses maybe on the south side, maybe at 150th; that's the kind of thing I'm meaning; maybe I could have better said Joyce & Kingsway or Knight & Kingsway, or that one complex at 41st and Granville - someone had at one point tried to have Metrotown on the Chinatowns lists, by the way - by DocOfSoc's loose definition, Oakridge, South Fraser and First and Renfrew and several other areas should be in article named Chinatowns in Greater Vancouver....Skookum1 (talk) 04:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have to decide that, that's for outside Reliable Sources to determine - ethnic demographics is not an especially obscure subject, what do books on the topic use as a definition of an enclave? That's what we should be using as well. And besides that not every enclave would necessarily be notable, we'd still need to apply the same notability criteria that we do to everything. Somehow I don't think 152nd & 88th would have books written about it. Kmusser (talk) 03:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinatown patterns in Canada and the United States is pertinent to this AfD; that AfD was argued on many of the same points, re the same kind of rambling travelogue/directory content. It was launched by Grayshi, who is Asian and Californian himself (herself?), and is among those here saying "delete".Skookum1 (talk) 19:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment DocOfSoc asserted in an edit comment that this morning's blankings of original research/badly cited content were an "obvious sock puppet" (DocOfSoc has since restored all said blankings)....I looked up that IP account via geolocate and it's in Chester, New York (see here). So who's "obviously" in Chester, New York, who would have "created" their IP address "for this purpose"??Skookum1 (talk) 22:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't the place to deal with sock issues. That said, the IP also seems interested in Vancouver.[16] Geolocation can make mistakes and editors can use proxies to hide their location. I suggest that everyone try to calm down and avoid making accusations against each other. Will Beback talk 02:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All this debate tells me that there's some fundamental value to article. I say leave it be. jengod (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the above user is the original creator of the article and was WP:CANVASSed by DocOfSoc to comment on the AfD. …Grayshi ^{talk ■ my contribs} 21:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- comment The existence of a lengthy (generally repetitive) debate is no validation for the "fundamental value" of the article anyway.Skookum1 (talk) 22:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I guess for the same reason that someone in Canada is obsessed with the destruction of the term: "Southern California Chinatowns". :-D DocOfSoc (talk) 01:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/reply I'm against the destruction of the English language, and nouveau word-uses meant to advance a campaign; the campaign being to brand what are properly styled ethnoburbs with a label that has a very specific history and locational context in North American culture. I'm not against the destruction of the term "Southern California Chinatowns" so long as it's about ACTUAL CHINATOWNS. You seem totally disinterested in the historical, REAL, Chinatowns that have a history and an identity and went by that name - but are insistent that new commercial and settlement colonies are Chinatowns because you took this one author, added context from another, referenced the locations of some stores, and ignored the fact that Monterey Park does not promote or identify itself as a Chinatown. "Someone in Canada" is from a place, and more than one place, where Chinatowns are and were historical realities, and where there is also widespread new-Chinese settlement/commerce. Only one of the many places they predominate in is "Chinatown". ONLY ONE. ~~Get it?~~ Chinatown is a name, and a particular type of commercial/cultural concentration and it doesn't include suburban strip developments or tract housing. Richmond makes a point of not calling Golden Village "Chinatown" (there had been a historic Chinatown, at least one, in Steveston at Richmond's SW tip, however. Both of my home towns had Chinatowns Mission and Lillooet, and so did New Westminster where I've also lived, and here in Penticton there was Shanghai Alley, which is one of the "variant names" Chinatowns in their heyday were called. Victoria and Vancouver still have Chinatowns, both of which I'm familiar with; half a dozen major neighbourhoods, commercial and residential, I can think of in Vanouver (City of Vancouver) alone meet your criteria of "waht constitutes a Chinatown", as do vast areas of Richmond, some of Surrey and Coquitlam, and increasingly in the Fraser Valley towns and in Kelowna. But none of the new "concentrations" are called Chinatown, nor would anybody, including the businesses and residents who work and live in them, would think to either. Chinatown is a place, an identity. Not a rebranding campaign. The IP user you accused of being a sockpuppet took out stuff,as I had before him, which had nothing to do with Chinatowns, it had to do with where Chinese businesses and facilities were; Temple Park is cited only by a bridal shop, and the section seems to exist to promote that bridal "district" seems important enough for you to restore that you insult the people trying to take it out as both WP:OR and WP:Spam, which is exactly what it is. "Someone in Canada" tried to turn this article into what its title says it's about, and you reversed that, screaming "vandalism", and then went back on your campaign of expanding this article with things that don't have to do with anywhere named Chinatown, or which anybody considers a Chinatown (unless they subscribe to your view that you can reinvent words as you please - highly ironic given your habit of throwing dictionary definitions at me when you see words that make you uncomfortable and claim I'm not using them right). I use English just fine myself...."Someone in Canada" could deal with an article that's about the REAL historical Chinatowns in Southern California, and could tolerate Chinese commercial and residential areas in Southern California, by whatever terminology "concentrations", "districts", "enclaves" etc. But a bridal shop, that's not an enclave, whatever were you thinking? Monterey Park itself, LA County, and the State of California do not call Monterey Park a Chinatown, nor Temple City. Yet you insist that they are, because you've decided your new meaning for the word is how it is, and everybody else is holding you back etc etc. Have a good read also at WP:PSTS, which your friend Obfucious posted at the AfD on the now-deleted "Chinatown patterns in North America" article, which was exactly the kind of stuff you've been building here - only repeated...and you wanted to add it to the Chinatown, LA article.....but you just don't grasp WP:OR or WP:Synth or WP:Undue. Calling me names is no solution for your lack of comprehension of these.Skookum1 (talk) 04:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let's get out of this slanging match and impugning motives; let's get to work on the article. I have just taken out a chunk of OR, and now would challenge the nom to analyse in detail, section by section, what of the remaining sourced information needs to go because it is synthesis or other OR. That should be an easy job, because much of it has sources apposed. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 10:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and Expand. Some of the reasons cited for deletion are that these areas and neighbourhoods are not really "Chinatowns". I'm not going to get into that discussion, but from what I see of the existing content, I don't see why the information cannot just be incorporated into Monterey Park, California or San Gabriel, California separately. However, I understand there may be a greater need to have an article on the Chinese American population in California. So I suggest that the article be renamed to expand its scope, something to the effect of Chinese Americans in California, or Chinese population in California, etc. It can include history as well as demographic content. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Hong, for common sense; there were numerous REAL Chinatowns in several places in Southern California, but when I tried to introduce them into this article it was undone as "vandalism". As you can see by the other redlinks farther up I've suggested a name change would be sufficient, though the article would still need to be patrolled for ongoing original research and spam-like content about bridal shops and supermarkets. I wonder, though, are there articles on Hispanic Americans in California and African-American populations in California, or for that matter Canadians in Los Angeles (which is actually a notable and very citable topic....). how many articles are needed on Chinese history and settlement anyway? Will the same editors determined that this article should survive also build an article on Jewish settlement in California or Jews in California?? (surely a very notable topic, especially re Hollywood).Skookum1 (talk) 18:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is plenty of academic work done on those subject matters which you mentioned, but as with any topic here on Wikipedia, the more narrow the scope, the less editors there are who are willing to do the legwork to read the sources and write the article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/semi-warning The acrimony seems to be settling down here, but nevertheless I've gotten really bored with the endless shuttle-diplomacy involved in trying to get it that way. So yes, I am at the point of issuing blanket threats to all and sundry. For now, I'll ask that involved and uninvolved editors please try to complete this discussion by only addressing the content issues, not those of motivation, competence, understanding, you-are-a-total-jerk-iness or anything unrelated to what we all can agree (or disagree) that we wish to present to our readers. Can I ask that much? Franamax (talk) 02:29, 12 November 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 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deale Chamberlain[edit]

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

Youth football player who does not meet WP:ATHLETE or WP:N guidelines Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia:ATHLETE#Association football says "Players who have appeared, and managers who have managed, in a fully-professional league (as detailed here), will generally be regarded as notable." Chamberlain has only played youth/reserve football, as far as I can see. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 13:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – From what I see, he is not notable. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. fails NSPORTS. article created by blocked sock with history of creating non-notable youth footballer articles, often with false or exaggerated info. --ClubOranje^T 10:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 18:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have removed the Senior career section from the infobox, as he appears to have only played youth/reserve football for both clubs (and the reference for the loan to Leeds explicitly states it is a Youth loan) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as he fails both WP:GNG, and WP:ATHLETE. --Carioca (talk) 19:59, 8 November 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 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Yong (footballer)[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer who has never played in a fully professional league. Apparently he was playing for Peterborough aged 8 and for Cambridge United aged 13 Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:ATHLETE or WP:N guidelines. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 13:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Two other ex-Norwich City trainees have pitched up at Richmond Athletic and should have the same fate as Jordan Young: Joe Green (footballer) and Kori Davis. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as he fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --Carioca (talk) 19:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This looks like 3 guys on holidays who decide to have a kick-about with a New Zealand local team! - nothing notable now or in their footballing career.--Egghead06 (talk) 07:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. player fails WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG criteria. only ever played reserves and academy, never played for 1st team. --ClubOranje^T 10:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 18:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:38, 12 November 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. Courcelles 10:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baldwin, Hoar and Sherman family[edit]

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

Article appears to be largely original research, and it is more about genealogy than about the supposed topic. This collection of people is characterized in the article as a powerful American political family, but I've found no evidence of any reliable source ever describing this collection of people as a political family. (The main source for the article seems to be the Political Graveyard, which is not a particularly reliable source.) Yes, many of these people were related (it's not clear that all of them were) and some of them were prominent politicians, but that doesn't add up to a "powerful political family" -- a genealogical connection is not the same thing as a familial alliance. There is encyclopedic value in some of this content -- for example, Roger Sherman's notable sons-in-law need to be discussed in the article about Roger Sherman. and the discussion of the Hoar family at Samuel Hoar#Hoar family is worthwhile, but linking all of these people to one another -- not to mention linking them to both George W. Bush and John Kerry -- is genealogical trivia. Wikipedia is not a genealogy publisher. Orlady (talk) 04:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. —Orlady (talk) 05:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. —Orlady (talk) 05:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —Orlady (talk) 05:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A powerful lot of WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH going on there. Ravenswing 13:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Ravenswing, also Wikipedia is not a directory for the many loosely associated people in this list. Hekerui (talk) 16:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, although the edit history show me as the creator of this article, the intention was simply to divert the large volume of content from the more general List of United States political families. I have no real concern with whether the article is kept or deleted. Most of the content was added to List of United States political families by several anonymous IP users and subsequently expanded in similar vein by AaronB0413 (talk · contribs). older ≠ wiser 20:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Genealogical trivia, original research, no encyclopedic value. —Kevin Myers 01:29, 6 November 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 Minor places in Middle-earth. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cirith Ungol[edit]

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

A fictional place with apparently no real world significance. Perhaps this belongs as part of a "Places in Lord of the Rings article" or something like that? D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although I am a fan, this probably belongs in a LOTR fan wiki. It would be almost meaningless to someone who hadn't read the book. -Steve Dufour (talk) 03:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Minor places in Middle-earth; merge some of it to Mordor. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 05:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 07:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 07:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is complicated because doing anything with the Cirith Ungol page requires us to consider what to do with Two Watchers and Cirith Ungol (band). My own view is that Cirith Ungol is a plausible search term and so it certainly shouldn't be a redlink. First, merge and redirect the existing content of Cirith Ungol to Minor places in Middle-earth. Then redirect Two Watchers to the same place. Then replace Cirith Ungol with a disambiguation page that points to Minor places in Middle-earth and Cirith Ungol (band).—S Marshall T/C 08:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Minor places in Middle-earth and add a hatnote there for the band ("Cirith Ungol redirects ...."); two items isn't enough for a dab page. Merge the little that's not Two Watchers plot details to Minor places. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic has great notability, being covered in the numerous works of criticism and analysis of LotR. The place is an important setting in the work and there is not the slightest case for deletion. The nominator seems to understand this too as he proposes a merger/rename. Per WP:BEFORE, AFD is not the right place for issues which can be addressed by ordinary editing. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I suggested the article would be better for a project "in the work." Steve Dufour (talk) 12:12, 8 November 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 G3 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide (song)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Suicide (song) (2nd nomination)

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

Was nominated for deletion once before, but was speedy kept for purely procedural reasons (the nominator happened to be a sockpuppeteer). However the argument for deletion was valid, and the consensus appeared to be Delete while the discussion was going on. This article doesn't provide any proof that this song even exists, let alone is notable enough to deserve a page of its own. According to McCartney's bio, his first two songs were "I Lost My Little Girl" and "When I'm Sixty-Four", the latter of which (according to John Lennon) was written "during the Cavern days", Cavern opening in 1957. Thus, he couldn't have written a song called "Suicide" in 1956. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

G3 as hoax. It really took five years for this to get called into question?!? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:04, 5 November 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. Davewild (talk) 18:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dang Thi Minh Hanh[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability is questionable - no significant awards or contributions to fashion, insufficient/total lack of 3rd party verifiable sources. Reqluce (talk) 01:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We need to ask a Vietnamese speaker about this one. I would be somewhat opposed to deletion until a Vietnamese speaker has looked at it because we might be using the wrong search terms. Should we be looking for Minh Hanh? Anyway, I've asked an uninvolved editor who (I think) speaks Vietnamese to have a look.—S Marshall T/C 09:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- - "Dang Thi Minh Hanh" is the relevant search string. Apparently there is a newspaper ref in teh top 10, not withstanding the spelling error YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The only reason that this article lacked sources is that the nominator removed them. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch... Phil Bridger's absolutely nailed it. The nominator did indeed remove the references from the article before opening the AFD. Speedy close.—S Marshall T/C 00:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In defense of the nom, the links had gone bad (but the articles nonetheless easy to locate). However, the edit summary Removed NON ENGLISH source as per WP: VERIFIABILITY suggests a misunderstanding on the part of the nominator. decltype (talk) 07:42, 9 November 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. Courcelles 10:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concession (webcomic)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Extremely heavy on the trivia, extremely light on the sources. The only non-primary source is Cracked.com, a humor website. Absolutely no relevant hits on Google News or Google Books. It won an Ursa Major Award, which says absolutely nothing for notability since that very award had its article deleted for lack of notability. Last AFD, in March 2010, also resulted in deletion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with above, looks like one editor was a devoted fan of the series, but this subject seems far from being notable based on the information in the article. --NDSteve10 (talk) 07:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'll be honest, as an Inclusionist I simply don't understand the purpose of blocking content on an infinite plane of resources like Wikipedia. Aveilleux (talk) 22:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOTABILITY completely. We need significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources in order to write an encyclopedia articles. Only secondary sourced material is a single sentence based on trivial coverage of humor website Cracked making fun of the alleged pedophilia themes of the comic, which probably runs afoul of WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP as well. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 01:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apart from the Cracked article, there are no reliable secondary sources of some kind in the article which indicate notability. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 23:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete Although the Ursa Major awards have lost their own notibility (which I think is stupid in its own right but won't get into here), it is still an outside source, it is an award recognized by the furry community and demonstrates, well as the Cracked.com article, how Concession has generated positive and negative publicity both in and out of the community it was made for. Two outside sources should be sufficient I think. Honestly, I just think this is another furry witch hunt, just like the Ursa Majors, trying to remove anything 'furry' from Wikipedia. But it is my opinion and hopefully a good one, that the two outside sources should be enough to keep this article on Wikipedia. --DarkMask(talk) 21:54, 10 November 2010
Don't Delete Really, I agree with the above. This is all just a furry witch hunt to get everything furry off wikipedia. --Xandrez192 (talk)23:39 EST, 15 December 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 04:39, 16 December 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 R.E.M.#Accelerate: 2006–present. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 00:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse Into Now[edit]

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

WP:HAMMER and the previous AfD on (the correctly capitalized) Collapse into Now. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Way too soon for an article; wait until the album's received more in-depth coverage. I'm sure some fanboy just wet himself over being the first person to post this info on Wikipedia... Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to R.E.M.#Accelerate: 2006–present as there is not enough information for a decent (non-stub) article, but it is a valid search term. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to R.E.M.#Accelerate: 2006–present, as suggested by Armbrust above. The band article is where a near-future album should be discussed until an album article can stand on its own.--DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:16, 8 November 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. Courcelles 10:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer Johnson (film producer)[edit]

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

Unable to find WP:RS indicating notability for this psychiatrist/holistic healer/film producer, at this time. I do see an Examiner.com story on him, but I see that is so unreliable that it is in fact a blocked site here and I am not able to even link to it from this AfD. Google it if you wish and you'll see from the cached copy that it was written by Corey Williams (producer), whose own Wikipedia article was created by the same editor this one. So we may be looking at a WP:COI problem, too. I'm not sure about that, and anyway COI is not my basis for nominating here. thank you, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The file uploaded with the article is also an indication that the editor has a personal interest in its contents. The article seems to fail WP:BIO, and also has some possible issues with WP:BLP. --NDSteve10 (talk) 07:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dekete Now that the article belongs to Wikipedia, and if it were possible, COI "might" have been dealt with through regular editing... however, shortness of film-related career[17] and lack of coverage for his other works are indicators that this article is simply WP:TOOSOON. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Courcelles 10:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Merryman[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP, no indication of notability, and no coverage in independent sources found. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The nomination seems exactly right to me. I don't understand why you didn't WP:BLPPROD though?—S Marshall T/C 00:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:N. --Monterey Bay (talk) 01:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: Agree with above, should have been a WP:PROD --NDSteve10 (talk) 08:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Pancake (talk) 11:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It should have been a WP:PROD. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 18:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:48, 8 November 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. Now we're going to make it extra secret. (OK, real reason, no RS'es, no article.) Courcelles 10:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

C.O.T.SS - Children of the SS[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

Short version: This secret society is too secret for Wikipedia. Long version: Attempts to verify this against the sources cited comes up with a rather different reality to the one that this article purports to describe. Here are the actual news coverage from the two dates cited:

Testa, Dan (2010-04-07). "Backlash as Holocaust Skeptic Begins Showing Films at Library". Flathead Beacon.
Testa, Dan (2010-05-05). "Nazi Films Inflame Tensions in Kalispell". Flathead Beacon.

Read the sources and compare to the article. Need I say any more? Uncle G (talk) 00:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. At least two of the sources cited don't even mention this organization, as indicated by Uncle G's links above. I am skeptical of the idea that this group even exists. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's no space limit here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.100.234.225 (talk) 03:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC) — 184.100.234.225 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep The Organization Odessa is still open to debate on the belief of it's existence. The little research I did turned up some verification to the existence of The Children of the SS. The David Irving diaries referenced mentioned some of the material covered in this subject. Hopefully others will be able to contribute to this article and bring forth further references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markanth (talk • contribs) 05:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC) — Markanth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I've just read the article, which was worthwhile: "Martian Bormann" was hilarious. But I really don't think we're enhancing our encyclopaedia by giving a platform to this content.—S Marshall T/C 09:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per being unverifiable. Smells like a hoax to me. -- œ ^™ 11:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Extraordinary claims, described in very detailed terms, not backed up by the referenced sources. This is a hoax. Delete. Thparkth (talk) 14:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Racepacket (talk) 00:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverifiable at best, almost certainly a hoax. Edward321 (talk) 14:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If we can't verify the organisation's existence, we certainly shouldn't have an article on it. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baba Zumbi[edit]

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

While Zumbi is a member of a notable group (Zion I), he is not notable himself. His discography consists only of mixtapes, and there is a shortage of references to secondary sources with live links in the article. (I try to assume good faith about dead links, but a new article really shouldn't have any.) —C.Fred (talk) 01:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 5 November 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Namira Salim[edit]

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

This article relies upon blatantly false information to establish notability. No one by the name of the subject flew in space in 2009 as the article states. Also, I am extremely worried by what looks to be an extremely close paraphrase of the references provided. -MBK₀₀₄ 06:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources, yes she did; she was shortlisted as one of the 100 space tourists who were designed to go tour space with the commercial space liner Virgin Galactic. And if this was false information, there are hundreds of reports from popular media about this subject which greatly contradict your findings. Mar4d (talk) 09:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the year may have been put wrong; there are some old sources which mention 2008 while others specifically talk about Virgin Galactic starting operations by 2009. It must be established when this batch of 100 tourists actually went; Mar4d (talk) 09:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article mentions the same mission on which Salim was designated; it says here "Even though Virgin Galactic executives have said they expect the company to be first to take a group of tourists into space in 2008, it looks like 2009 is a better bet." I am quite sure the first space liner was launched in 2009; Mar4d (talk) 09:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is false information, I challenge you to find just one new article from this year that states that she actually flew to space in 2009. You will not find one! The articles being referenced for these facts are at least two years old. Also, before guessing about the scheduling of Virgin Galactic, why don't you actually read the Virgin Galactic article. The space ship the tourists will fly on has only just begun its test flights! The referenced information is false, it uses promotional materials for events which have not happened yet. The subject of this article does not meet the notability requirements until she flies in space. -MBK₀₀₄ 09:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps you can also answer my question of how she "presented" the first national flag "sent into space" to the Prime Minister during an EU-Pakistan summit. Mar4d (talk) 10:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was sent into space on a small unmanned Rexus rocket, as per the source I've referenced below. ChiZeroOne (talk) 11:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This woman cannot have flown in space as described for the simple reason Virgin Galactic have yet to fly any tourists into space, the development of the full commercial vehicle (SpaceShipTwo/WhiteKnightTwo) has taken longer than expected due to a number of set-backs. As said by User:MBK004 (talk), testing has only recently begun as you can see from the respective pages, as far as I'm aware not yet even above the Kármán line. There is a reason you can only find 2-3 year old stories claiming she will be an astronaut, and not "hundreds of reports" of the actual event, because it hasn't happened. Unfortunately other comments misleadingly imply support for the above,

"On June 3, during an EU-Pakistani Summit in Brussels, Namira Salim presented the Prime Minister with the first national flag sent to space."

See [18], "The flag was flown to sub-orbital space on a special test flight of the Rexus 6 Sounding Rocket". I.e an unmanned flight.

In short the article is fundamentally misleading, and the subject would appear currently of questionable notability. If kept then the article would require sorting out. ChiZeroOne (talk) 10:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I seem to get the point now. However, the article should still be kept as she is notable. The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (Pakistan) has officially dubbed her as Pakistan's 'first astronaut' and the media has constantly portrayed her as a 'role model.' Besides, she's also known for her expeditions and being the only Pakistani to have travelled to the North and South Poles and skydived from Mount Everest. In other words, she's clearly a noteworthy explorer. I'll also change the lead now as it contains false information. Thanks once again, ChiZeroOne, for getting to the bottom of this. Mar4d (talk)

Weak keep as the factual inaccuracies seem to have been addressed. However I still have notability concerns, and the copyvio/plagarism/paraphrasing concerns also remain. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 16:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep; Namira Salim's achievements are real and authenticated. Nevertheless more reliable references are needed.Rirunmot (talk) 23:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the article is to be retained, it needs to be rewritten. Previously deleted as a pastiche copyright violation by User:Marduking, it has been recreated with pastiche content copied from some of the same sources. It came due for admin review today and has been relisted to allow more time for this to be addressed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources available at this Gnews search. Noted in the press for her still not happened yet astronaut career, but also for being the first Pakistani woman to the North and South poles, and a bit for her art work. The current article needs to be zapped, but I would hope to get round to re-writing it in the next few days. Bigger digger (talk) 13:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:The current version is both copyvio and flawed on a number of levels, and I'm not convinced that the points made about this have been adequately addressed. I have no problem with there being an article about the subject, as long as their current notable achievements are given due weight and are the primary thrust of the article/lead. Talk of the aspiration of becoming an astronaut should be relatively limited, with care taken that statements do not mislead. Whether this version gets deleted and a new one created, or someone is allowed to re-write this one, I suppose is up to the admin. ChiZeroOne (talk) 13:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Injury and Violence Research[edit]

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

Obscure journal published by an Iranian university. No secondary sources so much as mention this journal. If Google Scholar is to be believed, nobody has ever cited any article to appear in this journal. Deleted by prod and recreated. Abductive (reasoning) 09:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note. User:Crusio has brought it to my attention that this journal was nominated before Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"Journal of Injury and Violence Research" and closed as no consensus. I was not involved in the previous discussion. Abductive (reasoning) 09:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete It might squeak by under Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) because it is indexed at Index Copernicus [19]. It claims (at its website) to be indexed at Index Medicus for the Eastern Mediterranean Region but I couldn't find it there. It is also listed at Google Scholar but its articles get few or no citations. I don't think that's enough. --MelanieN (talk) 18:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the Wikipedia:Notability as there is not significant coverage outside of directory listings. Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) is an essay rather than a guideline and does need careful reading its not just whether its listed its the "impact factor" which is important and none of the references seem to establish that.--Salix (talk): 20:49, 6 November 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. Davewild (talk) 18:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two-Timing Touch and Broken Bones[edit]

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

Song hit number 44 in UK, but didn't chart anywhere else, shown here. Its use in a video game is pretty trivial. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 13:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Charting in the top 50 in the UK is a clear sign of notability. Edward321 (talk) 02:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Traditionally, it's the top 40 that's a big deal, so I'd say number 44 in only one country is borderline. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Hives discography per WP:NALBUM. Song is not notable and thus it should be redirected to the album, on which the song can be found. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Hives discography, as per WP:NSONGS, which states that: "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song." If the redirect is reverted, an admin can always protect the page. Redirect Tyrannosaurus Hives to The Hives discography, since it doesn't have enough content to meet WP:NALBUM--hkr Laozi speak 17:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - could probably be expanded on somewhat, and I would like a shot at it. Hopefully it doesn't get deleted beforehand... - Theornamentalist (talk) 00:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment rewrote and added refs/info. I think it may be enough for an article. - Theornamentalist (talk) 23:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Now - While I still question notability, The Ornamentalist has made a good article out of it. The info about the music video (which charted much higher than the song) helps. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Theornamentalist's improvements. --Europe22 (talk) 17:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Hives discography. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Supply and Demand (The Hives song)[edit]

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

This song did not chart in any country, noted here. Similar discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Die, All Right!/Supply and Demand D O N D E groovily Talk to me 13:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Hives discography, as per WP:NSONGS, which states that: "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song." If the redirect is reverted, an admin can always protect the page.--hkr Laozi speak 17:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge then~~ Delete - ~~The single's release date and track listing should be merged into the album article, Veni Vidi Vicious; no separate page is needed.~~ Delete as unnotable. SteveStrummer (talk) 20:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Merge and Delete is not an option per Wikipedia:Merge and delete. This is a matter of complying with our copyright conditions, so we can't ignore it like everything else. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You could opt for just a merge, the resulting redirect doesn't need to be notable, only useful. While being useful is not a reason to keep a separate article, it is a perfectly valid reason to establish a redirect, as per WP:REDIRECT#KEEP criteria 5.--hkr Laozi speak 04:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Hives discography. Hivesmania is long over :-) --Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:03, 12 November 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 Tyrannosaurus Hives. As per guideline. Davewild (talk) 18:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Little More for Little You[edit]

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

This song only reached number 113 in UK, and otherwise didn't chart anywhere, noted here. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 13:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to parent album, according to the Official Charts Company it didn't chart at all, so shoulld be redirected to Tyrannosaurus Hives as per the guidelines at WP:NSONG. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Hives discography. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abra Cadaver (song)[edit]

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

This song did not chart in any country, noted here. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 13:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Hives discography, as per WP:NSONGS, which states that: "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song." If the redirect is reverted, an admin can always protect the page.--hkr Laozi speak 17:39, 5 November 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 on main article, merge sub-article into it. Black Kite (t) (c) 02:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Webometrics Ranking of World Universities[edit]

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

Adding the following article to this AfD as being a specific year instance of the ranking; if the overall site/ranking is non-notable, then each individual year's ranking must be as well.

Website is a ranking of Universities based on "web presence." While it does appear to be a useful site, and run by a reliable research body, but I can't find any indication the ranking itself meets WP:GNG or WP:WEB. Google News Archive shows exactly 1 hit; Google produces a number of hits but all the company itself, blogs, or school press releases; Google Scholar produces a handful of hits, but the mentions either seem to be in passing or to be written by the same scholars that run the Ranking site. As such, I don't believe this ranking/website meets WIkipedia guidelines for notability. If other reliable, independent sources exist, of course, the article could be kept. If the article is deleted, some of the info could be merged into Cybermetrics Lab, the research group running the Ranking system. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the Webometrics Ranking of World Universities, 2009 article should be bundled into this nomination. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 06:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bundled above. Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both. See sources at Google Scholar and references to the article itself. [20]. The listing is one of the major listings of university standings; it presents a different perspective from the ones based on reputation or publications. (its not copyvio, because the actual listing is the bare summary--the actual paper is much more complex. Though I consider the paper notable in its own right quite apart from the actual rankings that resulted from the method, it would make sense to present them together. DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As mentioned above, the Google Scholar articles were primarily written by JL Ortega, who is one of the creators and administrators of the Webometrics site. Thus, they don't count as reliable, independent sources (to me). I can't access scholarly jounrals, but based on what shows up in the searches, those that weren't written by Ortega appear to mention the site only in passing. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment May I suggest to all of you to have a look in here About the ranking, please pay special attention to the bottom of the page in which there are 4 published articles in reputed journals on the field regarding the ranking and its methodology. If the fact that our ranking has passed through a peer review process from the scientific community, it is not enough for you to consider that it is a reputed source in the field of university rankings, then I don't really know what a reliable resource could mean to you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webometrics editor (talk • contribs) 12:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC) Webometrics editor (talk) 12:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: All four of those appear to be written by employees of the very organization that publishes the Webometrics rankings. I don't see that they add anything to the notability discussion. JohnInDC (talk) 12:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request: I've just started engaging with the Webometrics researchers on my talk page, and I think that it is at least possible that we might be getting somewhere. I don't know if this will eventually result in a notable article, but I think they're recognizing that Wikipedia notability means something quite different than a commonplace notion of notability, and I'm pointing them now to what they need to do to meet our standards. I'd like to request that this AfD be re-listed to give this dialogue a little more time to continue; barring that, I do request that, if the closing admin does decide to go ahead and close and delete, that the main page (not the list pages) be userfied under my account so that I can keep working with the group until I'm sure there's no where to go. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: One argument being made by the individuals in the company is that, since they rank over 12,000 schools, they often rank schools that are not covered on any other list--especially schools in South America, East Asia, etc. A Google Search does confirm that this is mentioned on many school websites, although each mention appears to mostly be only in passing. Thus, I wonder whether or not it is possible for a very large number of passing mentions is enough to override the need for several significant mentions? I myself am not decided, and leave the question to others, here. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep main article, merge annual lists into it. The company members are partly right in their claim that for the bottom-placed institutions, Webometrics is often the only list they are in. I have added some refs for the case of Namibia where the company is a well-known brand among academics. I can also vouch for its importance in the rest of sub-Saharan Africa--other developing countries might be in the same situation. Searching in the appropriate languages might discover more refs and subsequently a fulfillment of WP:GNG. --Pgallert (talk) 08:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I don't how that argument can help their case. They could rank all universities in the world, but if it's a non-notable ranking, then it wouldn't make any difference. Evenfiel (talk) 12:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point they're claiming is that these universities in areas like South America, etc., that are not covered by the "big" surveys instead actually use the Webometrics survey to enhance their reputation. Note, for example, the citations that Pgallert added from Namibia as what I assume are a common example. I haven't heard from the COI team recently, but I feel like I'm leaning a little more towards keeping (only the main article, not the yearly articles). In essence, I'm wondering if this survey is notable, but it's just our WP:Systemic bias that keeps us from seeing it. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:37, 8 November 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 Mandsford 16:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Leone[edit]

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

Not by any means the first, or last, person, to be indicted for having sex with others knowing they were HIV+. Notable? (brought here from ANI). Possible merge target at Criminal transmission of HIV. I am neutral. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Close this AFD The user want the page merged not deleted, a message about merging can be added instead. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 00:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the nominator just wants the deletion discussion occurring at ANI to occur in the proper location for deletion discussions instead. Having said that, I'm also perfectly neutral on this myself; so eventually this can be closed if nobody actually favors deletion. Do let it run a bit first, though. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It would be possible to make a strong case for redirecting to criminal transmission of HIV based on WP:BLP1E, but as so often, that depends on how you parse it. There was one conviction but many incidents of criminal infection. And when the criminal act is newsworthy enough, BLP1E loses its force, which is why Mark David Chapman has his own article. Arguably this has made enough headlines. Besides that, the sources are eminently reliable and Leone pleaded guilty. The article has a reasonably neutral point of view and BLP doesn't mean we aren't allowed to tell the truth when we can prove it.—S Marshall T/C 00:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This guy is nowhere near as notable as Chapman. Marshall, your arguments sound to me like you're putting truth ahead of notability. I have no doubts (at this point) about the sources being good. But I'm just not sure about notability. I don't know exactly where the line is, I'm not sure if anyone does, but this seems borderline at best. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We know he's notable because if you look at the bottom of the article, you'll see a list of all the reliable sources that have noted him. Nothing borderline about his notability. The issues to consider here are WP:BLP and WP:BLP1E.—S Marshall T/C 08:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BLP1E does apply here. At most this fellow might warrant an entry in an article on the criminal transmission of HIV, but certainly he doesn't warrant one of his own. MtD (talk) 01:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. While it might be permissible to discuss this individual in an article on the criminal transmission of HIV, because there are verifiable facts here that might illustrate a notable subject. Under no circumstances should their be a redirect - if we agree he's not notable enough to justify a personal record in this encyclopedia (BLP1E) then we should not have a redirect which simply links his name to a crime (and would do so without a reference). Not notable means he's not someone we note -and if you look him up by name, you'll find him not noted. Using him as a verifiable illustration in another article (if indeed that would help that article) is another thing entirely.--Scott Mac 02:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and do not merge. Clearly individually notable: unusually extensive crime, unusually wide coverage of it. this is just about opposite to the sort of situation BLP 1E was intended for. DGG ( talk ) 03:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but I don't have a particular problem with a merge/redirect to an article detailing cases of people convicted of criminal HIV transmission. BLP is not applicable here: the man is an admitted and convicted criminal, there's RS coverage enduring for 4 years. Jclemens (talk) 05:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think Jclemens makes a valid point about persistent coverage. It certainly is notable although may not quiet rise to the status of John Hinckley it is unique in its nature. JodyB_talk 11:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without merging. Subject is covered extensively in reliable sources. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and don't merge. Independently notable, and BLP1E not a factor here given the depth and duration of coverage. Thparkth (talk) 14:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - relatively few people have been convicted of criminal transmission of HIV, and it seems at least in this case that is enough to make Mr Leone notable. This is a possible merge target into Criminal transmission of HIV (or a related list), and while I wouldn't object to a merge, I don't think it's required by WP:BLP1E. Robofish (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Black and White Album. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

T.H.E.H.I.V.E.S.[edit]

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

This song did not chart in any country, noted here. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 13:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - All info plus the photo (with an updated fair-use rationale) could be merged as a helpful subsection of The Black and White Album, no separate page needed. SteveStrummer (talk) 04:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC) Delete - Delete as unnotable. SteveStrummer (talk) 03:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Black and White Album, as per WP:NSONGS, which states that: "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song." If the redirect is reverted, an admin can always protect the page. There's not a lot of content to merge.--hkr Laozi speak 17:46, 5 November 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 Ys (album). (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 00:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only Skin[edit]

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

Song fails WP:NSONG. Wholly-unsourced quote is too long and too insignificant to merge with Ys (album) or with artist's article. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ys (album) per notability criteria for songs. This song may be not notable, but it is a valid search term. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ys (album), as per WP:NSONGS, which states that: "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song." If the redirect is reverted, an admin can always protect the page.--hkr Laozi speak 17:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to redirect, as nominator. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 03:25, 6 November 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. Courcelles 10:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ProjeLead[edit]

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

No indication that the product meets WP:notability guidelines. The one independent reference given is a French website to promote open sources programs and is for a product called Adheo - ProjeLead is just a tag on the article. The article seems to consist of not much more than a list of features. Google searches do not show much for either ProjeLead or Adheo. noq (talk) 15:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1- ProjeLead is Adheo. Adheo has been renamed as ProjeLead in summer 2010 (please check this out www.adheo-solution.fr) 2- Reference only in French. Yes framasoft article is in french, but the ProjeLead is french and just started been offered in english so the product is not yet known in the anglophone world. 3- the notability criteria should applied evenly. As you can see on this wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_project_management_software) 50 products are already referenced on wikipedia, not sure the notability applies to all of them. Plus ProjeLead has been adopted by dozens of organizations which should constitue a serious reference. I am open to discuss and help you prove that this article has its place on wikipedia. Thnaks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Incognito75 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. You will need to show that this page meets the notability guidelines. noq (talk) 11:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My point is not to say other stuff exist, it s to say that reviewrs should apply objective arguments.

Anyway, I just added another reference about Projelead (formerly known as Adheo, PMS). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Incognito75 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Note that this is another web based project management software that offers collaborative features. Promotional in tone, the websites cited are not reliable sources and I found no better. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please while you are there work on the 50 other products referenced in this page : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_project_management_software At least the cleaning will be more accurate. Thanks for the hard work deleting other people's work.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete blatant promo. Wile E. Heresiarch (talk) 06:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No redeeming value to balance the fact that this is an advert. No hits on google beyond "this exists" to assert notability. Sven Manguard _Talk 05:46, 12 November 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. Merging elsewhere is a possibility, though I have taken the step of moving the article to the correct title. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Landrigan[edit]

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

An executed murderer, no evidence of any real notability or reasons why this persons crimes warrant them being in an encyclopedia. E. Fokker (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I feel the author of the article is trying to make a POINT. Could be heading for a fail regarding WP:SOAPBOX. Peridon (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability:

This persons crimes are of little significance. His execution and it's method are of import.

The case of this executed murderer was twice before the supreme court. His case went before the supreme court in 2006 because the court needed to make it clear that one cannot instruct one's attorney to offer one case and then claim that said attorney did not proffer mitgating evidence. The case next went before SCOTUS for review because the means of execution was imported from outside the US and the complainant claims that the thiopental does not conform to USDA standards.

The case is also of international importance because the EU have made it clear that they do not want to contribute any of the drugs used in US executions. The Brits have already launched their inquiry into which of their pharmaceutical companies sold the thiopental to Arizona.

The actions of foreign powers attempting to influence US justice with trade practices is also if importance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithcure (talk • contribs) 23:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC) — Smithcure (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If they don't know which company supplied it, you can hardly say "actions of foreign powers". A chemical company is not a foreign power, no matter how big it might be. You also say it is not illegal for EU nations to export this chemical to non-EU nations. Unless I've missed some news, the USA is a non-EU nation. Therefore, there was no need for any EU government to know about the export. Also, you state at one point that the chemical 'came' from 'Great Britain'. Great Britain is not a member of the EU. The United Kingdom is. Then again, you say later 'may have come from'. I have tagged both these conflicting statements as needing citation. You say "EU have made it clear that they do not want to contribute any of the drugs used in US executions" - you also say it is not illegal. "Instead it is on a list of essential drugs of the World Health Organisation used widely, for anesthesia, induced comas and psychiatry" is a quote from the eubusiness reference you give. Thiopental is still used in hospitals but other methods are now preferred in many. See Sodium thiopental. There is a lot of confusion in the article, and I still think a POINT is being made, or there is soapboxing here. Wikipedia is not the place to put articles that are not encyclopaedic, and I fear that this one is near to or over the boundary. Peridon (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that it is the subject's execution - which has received national coverage in all the major media outlets, as well as international coverage - and not his crime that make him notable. Passes WP:BIO/WP:BASIC: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." With that said, I do believe there needs to be further discussion in a proper forum regarding the application of WP:NOTNEWS, what is "routine news coverage", and how much consideration is given to news sources in biographies of criminals and political candidates. Location (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. As a biography, this falls under WP:BIO1E, but that could be fixed by renaming to "Execution of Jeffrey Landrigan". All that distinguishes this from thousands of other murder-and-execution stories is that two legal issues went to the Supreme Court, one about adequate trial representation and one about the source of the lethal chemical used, supplied from the EU which has a list (not including this chemical) of goods which may not be exported because they might be used for capital punishment. The question is whether those are (a) significant legal or constitutional issues which warrant an encyclopedia article, or (b) merely desperate, ingenious but unsuccessful legal quibbles devised by lawyers anxious to find yet another appeal reason to string things out. I incline to (b), hence my delete !vote. To say that this is an issue of "foreign powers attempting to influence US justice with trade practices" is, to put it mildly, nonsense. JohnCD (talk) 17:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's usually best to start by looking for sources. This, this, this and this are examples of the sources that belong in this article. JohnCD is correct to say that the article should be renamed Execution of Jeffrey Landrigan because of WP:BIO1E but his analysis omits part of the significance of Landrigan's execution, which is about allegations of British and/or European involvement in capital punishment in view of the European Convention on Human Rights.—S Marshall T/C 11:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But neither the article's sources nor your four new ones say anything about "allegations of British and/or European involvement in capital punishment in view of the European Convention on Human Rights", or about "foreign powers attempting to influence US justice with trade practices." None of these issues was raised in the appeals: the lawyers' case, which the Supreme Court rejected, was only that the imported drug "might not meet U.S. FDA standards and could cause unnecessary suffering."

The only indication in the sources of anything beyond that is an unattributed statement in one of the newspaper reports that: "There is speculation that the purchase of the drug from a British company could be illegal because it leads to profit from the supply of drugs used in an execution." (My emphasis). That is pretty thin, given that

the substance is a legal and widely-used anaesthetic, is only one of three drugs used in the execution process, and is not a prohibited export.
the same report quotes the Supreme Court saying: "There was no showing that the drug was unlawfully obtained, nor was there an offer of proof to that effect".

It seems that none of the lawyers or judges concerned raised any of these "significant" issues; there may be some attempt, possibly by anti-capital-punishment campaigners, to whip up a controversy after the event, but the sources cited, including your new ones, fail to show any significance. The article's only justification is the statement "Landrigan's execution is significant because one of the drugs... had to be imported from abroad". Yes, it had to be imported, but no, that does not make the execution significant, and the sources do not support that statement. JohnCD (talk) 20:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By "significance" do you mean notability? Because that has a tolerably precise definition. Something's notable if there are reliable sources that have noted it. And British national newspapers rarely care about American executions unless there's something of international interest about them. I've linked the sources, they're reliable and they're about the subject, so there's an article to be written.—S Marshall T/C 22:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. (We've had this discussion before, but I forget where). Multiple reliable sources do not mean that an article is necessarily appropriate. If sources alone were enough, every murder, every scandal, every celebrity affair would qualify, and we might as well merge with Wikinews. See the actual text of the WP:GNG:

"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not.

Part of WP:NOT is WP:NOTNEWS, expanded on in the essay WP:109PAPERS. If this is just a standard murder + failed legal appeals + execution story, it will be in lots of papers but will not be encyclopedically notable. The only thing in this article that purports to lift it above that is the statement "Landrigan's execution is significant because one of the drugs... had to be imported from abroad", which is not supported by any source. The importation is sourced, but the significance is not. JohnCD (talk) 23:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The significance of using an imported drug, or the source of that drug, in the execution is most definitely implied in that fact that it has been reported on by national and international sources (e.g. Murderer Executed in Arizona and Legal bid to stop export of 'execution drug'). When the coverage of someone or something is reported nationally and then internationally, that suggests something beyond the "routine news reporting" clause of WP:NOTNEWS. Location (talk) 23:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Yeah, I've had this conversation with various people before. This "presumption" business is treacherous. The benefit of a simple, bright-line notability criterion is that any editor can establish for themselves whether a topic is a fit one for an article. This is what enables people to create content without going through a committee process first, so it's important and not lightly to be set aside. A consensus of editors can override the presumption, because a consensus can override most things on Wikipedia, but with respect, right now this "consensus" of (I think) three editors is on quicksand, because the sources support what I'm saying.
This source is about the human rights implications of the execution. So is this source. This source is a national British newspaper calling for the company supplying the drug to be named and shamed. This source is a different newspaper (although admittedly a tabloid) saying the same thing. Unsurprisingly, Amnesty International has something to say about it. This source says "This is the first situation in which Arizona was short of stock of the drug and the state acknowledged to acquire the chemicals of lethal injections from another country." This source raises the same point.
The fact is, if all those sources had been in the article in the first place, it would never have come to AfD.—S Marshall T/C 23:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Sources => notability" is certainly a nice, simple bright-line rule, but it isn't what the policy says, for good reason: it would let in all sorts of unencyclopedic fluff, contrary to WP:NOT. "Footballer's new girlfriend shock!!!" "Footballer's girlfriend's new hairdo sensation!!!" Seriously, do you think Wikinews has any independent role? It would also let a campaigner get something in by stirring up an artificial storm about a non-issue to get headlines, which is what I suspect is going on here. JohnCD (talk) 10:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... this isn't in exactly the same category as "footballer's girlfriend's new hairdo sensation!!!", is it? Admittedly, the Metro is a tabloid, but I've also quoted The Guardian and Location has quoted The Independent. These are serious newspapers. The BBC also have an article on the subject. How much evidence of serious overseas interest will it take to persuade you? Or are you simply unpersuadable?

Wikinews certainly has an independent role. It publishes original research including interviews and reader comments, and structures information differently. Are you seriously suggesting that the existence of Wikinews exists prevents Wikipedia content creators from using news sources in an article?

As for your final remark, I think we may need to agree to differ about what is, and what is not, a non-issue.—S Marshall T/C 15:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, about this article we shall have to agree to disagree, and leave space for others to give their views. If you want to carry on the general conversation perhaps we should take it to one of our talk pages. This is certainly a different case from the girlfriend's hairdo, which I introduced as an extreme example to show that your position of "if there are sources there should be an article" doesn't really stand up. Some subjects can be sourced but are undoubtedly non-encyclopedic, and the argument is about where to draw the line; it doesn't help to deny that there is any line. JohnCD (talk) 22:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Sodium thiopental. Subject is non-notable per WP:PERPETRATOR, with zero coverage beyond the single issue of his execution. The shortage and subsequent import for his execution is certainly worth including in Sodium thiopental, and perhaps Lethal injection#Sodium thiopental. Top Jim (talk) 06:17, 9 November 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 per WP:NSONGS and WP:ATD Jclemens (talk) 01:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie (Rocky Horror song)[edit]

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

I like the song...but it doesn't cut it in the notability department (WP:NSONG) CTJF83 chat 21:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 5 November 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 per WP:NSONGS and WP:ATD Jclemens (talk) 01:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Sword of Damocles (Rocky Horror song)[edit]

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

fails WP:NSONG CTJF83 chat 21:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Rocky Horror Picture Show (soundtrack). Corvus cornix_talk 21:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 5 November 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 per WP:NSONGS and WP:ATD Jclemens (talk) 01:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Can Make You a Man[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG CTJF83 chat 21:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 5 November 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 per WP:NSONGS and WP:ATD Jclemens (talk) 01:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Planet, Schmanet[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG CTJF83 chat 22:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 5 November 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 per WP:NSONGS and WP:ATD Jclemens (talk) 01:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wild and Untamed Thing[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG CTJF83 chat 22:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable song

-- nips (talk) 00:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 5 November 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 Nobody proposed keeping the article, and nobody felt that it was notable enough for a stand-alone description. There are suggestions that this could be part of a page about border-line notability Linux applications, but there is no page at the moment. Mandsford 21:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SLAMPP[edit]

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

Delete, no third-party coverage to establish notability. Yworo (talk) 23:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Merge all such borderline-notable Linux distributions (including SLAMPP and currently AfD'd Santa Fe Linux) into new page Minor Linux distributions, making this new page somewhat similar to pages like List of minor characters in the Matrix series - a list of entities which don't really merit their own article, but are notable enough to be mentioned in the context of another article. Ipsign (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipsign (talk • contribs)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tricky. There is very limited evidence of notability. [21] When a magazine has a Linux distribution on its DVD, there is usually an accompanying article, but I could find no evidence of this. I think we should have a list of borderline notable Linux distributions in which each can get a short section, related to List of Linux distributions. Maybe create that and merge the article there. Hans Adler 07:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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