< 30 October	1 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 speedy delete per G3/G5. Prolog (talk) 17:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pro Evolution Soccer 2012[edit]

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

Unannounced game which falls under speculation/original research. Does not meet general notability guidelines. Reliable sources search turns up zero hits. PROD was declined. --Teancum (talk) 00:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support as per nom and WP:CRYSTAL - X201 (talk) 13:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Waiting to see about sources on this one - the release dates didn't just appear out of thin air, for example. But PES 2011 came out last week, so this is still a bit premature. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support through complete lack of references, WP:CRYSTAL and hoax editting behavior :refer 2011 Formula Four season and may be preparing another hoax piece here. Surely there are appropriate grounds for a Speedy? --Falcadore (talk) 07:10, 3 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 Greg Fitzsimmons. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 22:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear mrs. fitzsimmons[edit]

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

Non-notable book lacking GHIts and GNEWS. Appears to fail WP:NOTBOOK ttonyb (talk) 23:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable book. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to its author Greg Fitzsimmons per WP:TOOSOON. The book won't be published until next week. If it then develops a following and becomes notable, the redirect can be reversed and sources added to make a proper article. --MelanieN (talk) 16:35, 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. extransit (talk) 09:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matilda Buffalo Turf[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY, unreferenced, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, borderline WP:SPAM. Prod contested by creator. Top Jim (talk) 22:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Top Jim (talk) 22:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Top Jim (talk) 22:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is almost blatant advertising, and it fails notability requirements. --Slon02 (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Could find no other references, other than one forum post and wiki mirrors. Note that this was also CSDed under Matilda Buffalo Turf Grass; the only sources given there were vendors selling the grass apparently. Kuru (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has been extensively cleaned up from the original submission, which was similarly larded with external links to vendors selling the grass. Top Jim (talk) 16:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article is an advert, and I can find no coverage to indicate that this is a notable form of turf. -- Whpq (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is completely unverifiable. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:21, 4 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) Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quadripoint[edit]

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

This page is rank original research and synthesis, being a trope on the idea that there is some sort of relevance to how many boundaries meet at a given point; there is no real topic here, only a listing of geotrivia, much of it "near misses" and "close calls" and what-if speculations. The term occurs in international law, but it is only descriptive and if anything belongs in wiktionary; this article is somewhere between overglorification, geo-bagging and golly-gee word-mongering. Recent activity both on the talkpage - here's an example - and also in the article itself - here is an example - point to a confabulation of relevance and importance, and also to a grasping-at-straws attempts to make this sound like a bona fide academic field. I've already removed various sections/contents/statements that were rank speculation or redundant but more keeps being added. Apparently the term also occurs in geometry but even in that field it would not warrant an article in its own right (and no mathematical content is present). Attempts to cite "quadripoint theory" turned out to be in reference to the theory that such a point existed in relation to ONE African boundary dispute (the Caprivi Strip), and in maritime boundaries (which are not really points as they are on water); the genesis of this article appears to have been fascination with Four Corners in the US, and I found it when someone made an article on Four Corners (Canada) as if it were a named place, and as if it existed (it doesn't, it's a "near miss"). After watching this article grow, and grow weeds, and spawn words and concepts, there's only one way it can be seen - original research and synthesis. Oh, and meaningless trivia....not even accurate or honest in many cases, if you examine closely its content..... Skookum1 (talk) 22:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The term "quadripoint" is used in books from a variety of publishers (see Google Books search). Thus, we can see that the concept of a quadripoint predates this article. As to whether the places cited in this article as being subnational quadripoints really qualify as such and whether it is original research to say they do, that should be dealt with through normal editing rather than deletion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentThe concept may exist, but that doesn't mean that there is any rationale for an article. Wiktionary defines words; Wikipedia explores topics. But in what was is this a topic? "Normal editing", I think you'll find on examining the article's history, has been notably absent, instead there's been a constant amassing of trivia, and ongoing games with wording trying to create meaning for something that is meaningless. and making claims that quadripoints exist where they don't. Over and over and over. Whatever's in those books, that's fine, in pure mathematical terms "a point shared by four polygons" is pretty simple; but is it worth an article? And does it justify a global search/listing-hunt for things that are, or are almost quadripoints? And justify, also, the ongoing attempt to portray these as if they were important, or meaningful - even mystical? The case of the alleged Canadian quadripoint (which is only illusory on large-scale maps, there is no such point on the ground), which kept on being rewritten and deleted and rewritten "so it could be included" is clear evidence of synthesis and original research. Describing what the term quadripoint means; that's simple enough - extrapolating it to some term-spawning, definition-wrangling massive listing, that's not, and it's synthesis. Period. Put the definition in Wiktionary; but this article is [[WP:Undue weight} on an otherwise unremarkable geometric "object". Even in international law, where it has occurred, it's only meant descriptively, not as something important, i.e. a definition of an idea.Skookum1 (talk) 06:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not getting anywhere in multiple discussion threads is not a good reason to start an AfD. Not all valid content of this article can be accommodated in Wiktionary, for instance the diplomatic incident about a possible quadripoint between Namibia, Zimbabwe, Botswana, and Zambia. The possibility that no such point currently exists is also no reason to delete, viz. Time travel, End of the Universe, and many others. --Pgallert (talk) 10:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Pgallert's rationale. Bazonka (talk) 21:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Time travel and the End of the Universe are substantial topics. A point shared by four polgyons is inconsequential. The core issue here, otehr than OR and Synth, is WP:Undue weight.Skookum1 (talk) 21:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on how you define time, time travel can be a concept as irrelevant as bald kings of Spain. And if WP:UNDUE is the issue, please adjust the weight in the article. NPOV and UNDUE are not usually deletion arguments. --Pgallert (talk) 08:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment "adjusting the weight in the article" means deleting almost all of its content, as there are only a handful of such points, and they have no real meaning, nor any commonalities in fact in terms of their political import. It's fine and dandy to see all the "keep" votes here, made on the premise that the article needs editing and the OR material needs to be kept out, but I don't see anyone who's supporting it doing anythning to improve that situation. Right now it's a mass of trivia and overblown gobbledygook with far too much weight given to the abstract idea that such points are inherently significant (even when they do actually exist).Skookum1 (talk) 20:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't have a strong opinion on keep/delete, but the Canadian quadripoint absolutely is one. The Nunavut Act says: "Commencing at the intersection of 60°00'N latitude with 102°00'W longitude, being the intersection of the Manitoba, Northwest Territories and Saskatchewan borders;" http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/N-28.6/FullText.html Dze27 (talk) 22:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply The text of the Nunavut Act is wrong, then, because there's a 400m boundary between NWT and MB; Nunavut and Saskatchewan do not touch. The reason is the different definition/survey of the SK-MB boundary; the Act made an assumption which is not borne out by facts on the ground, and it's not the first time legislators ahve put into writing something that's incorrect.Skookum1 (talk) 22:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment excuse me but the only thing that is wrong about the nunavut act is your personal gloss upon it
  - Comment No, not at all; the Nunavut Act says one thing, but the facts of the matter are that the MB-SK border doesn't end at the point that the Nunavut Act says it does. As I said, it wouldn't be the first time inaacurate wording was used in legislation. There's a NT-NU monument at one location, but there's a MB-SK-NWT at another; they cannot be the same point, and are at least 400m apart: note what this footnote says. User:Egull or someone tried to add a line speculating that a future Boundary Commission would hopefully resolve this, but that's just speculatiion and wish-for-wannabe-ness. I tried returning to one of various google/sat maps that less than a year ago showed the stretch of MB-NT boundary, but at the moment can't find one; it could very well be that Googlemaps and AcmeMapper have updated their databases to reflect what the Nunavut Act says, but in doing so they have cartographically "moved" the MB-SK boundary. All that being said, it's only a side issue for the inherent original research/synthesis nature of this article, or its bloated contents. Undue etc may not be reasons for deletion, but non-notability is, and I submit that the inclusion of the US Four Corners state boundary with the very different diplomatic controversy over the Caprivi Strip, or the treaty-state of Monsenet, or Ararat, constitutes synthesis, by speaking of them as if they were all related or somehow significant otehr than being points on a map. And the citation that the Canadian spot is "sometimes known" as is only backed up by one citation, which mirrors wiki-copy and could be considered a wiki-echo, i.e. from the time when someone had fabricated the "Four Corners" name and applied it to the alleged NT-NU-SK-MB convergence - a Wiki-ism which has found its way into the real world and bounced back on us. Tell a lie often enough and it becomes true, I suppose, but to me that's a little too much liek Canadian me-too-ism, Like "Dancing with the Stars in Canada" or "Canadian Idol" or any number of bad comedy/sitcom knockoffs. Again, lots of people here seemn intent on wanting the article to stay on so long as it's edited better....but I don't see any action on that front, and I still see in the article a whole lot of meaningless bunk.Skookum1 (talk) 20:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you have been misinterpreting for too long the substantiating geocoords the act gives in very round degmin & certainly not degminsec let alone anything still more precise for the location of an actually stipulated preexisting demarcated boundary intersection point

& your gloss makes these coords somehow contradict compromise & even vitiate the express & unmistakable delimitation they actually support & clarify provided only that they are not stupidly & wilfully misapplied with a gratuitous & spurious precision that was never intended for them

pfly at least has personally seen the light of this tho the article text is still laboring under some of the earlier delusion

your insistence that a mbnt border exists is not supported by any facts but only your lingering delirium

i suspect your fever will break as soon as you quit belittling & disregarding the actual nuances of the topic at large

the question of whether a particular boundary or boundary point exists or not is not trivial inconsequential irrelevant or unimportant as those who are presently trying to build a bridge across the zambezi at bwnazmzw at least well appreciateEgull (talk) 10:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey now, I was not going to post here, mainly because Skookum is my friend and I have no desire to take sides here in the stark AfD light, whatever my opinions on it might be. But let's not say I've "seen the light". My understanding of this Canadian four corners thing is somewhere between Skookum's and yours, Egull. Let's just leave it at that for now. Thanks! Pfly (talk) 10:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanx you are my friends too & i only spoke in personal terms as much as seemed necessaryEgull (talk) 12:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. If there's OR and synthesis then remove it. Leave what is reliably sourced. -- œ ^™ 18:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the OR keeps on being reinserted, expanded, rejigged and more and more non-relevant "citations" are added constantly. WP:Undue weight and direct relevance are what's the issue; the overblown article indicates that this is an important, somehow penetrating topic; it's not, it's a geotrivia obsession. As for "glossing" the so-callec Canadian quadripoint, the facts on the ground - on the map - are very clear, no matter what the (mistaken) wording of the Nunavut Act. The MB-SK boundary does not conform to the Nunavut Act, and long predates the NT-NU boundary. This isn't about a bridge over the Zambezi, it's about what the map says; and NB there have been repeated attempts to rewrite the Canadian passage to pretend that the piont actually exists physically, and that originally it is what is now the redirect Four Corners (Canada) which was written as if that were some important placename/concept in Canada, whereas really it was just a "me too" spin on the Four Corners in the US, as well as being somewhere between a fabrication and wishful thinking. I had a look at the "scholar" link above, and it's all to do with the Caprivi strip boundary, and only as a descriptive term; it does not occur in a treaty, nor in legislation, it does not have special properties (as other geometric objects like, say, a triangle do). Strip away all the original research content and you're left with a brief item on UT-NM-CO-AZ and the Caprivi strip, and the mojonera de los cuadros estados in Mexico. All else is synthesis and original research and "prima facie quadrisecondary conjunctions with their admittedly slight substantiations" and "change sexipoint to sexapoint perhaps if not also septipoint to septepoint" and "subnational" gobbledygook (are we to be faced with innumerable listings of US counties and UK counties?) I just removed the "multiple points" section as clearly "quintipoints" and "septipoints" are not just off-topic but also meaningless extenuations of an already meaningless concept. NB in the see also there's List of sets of four countries that border one another which is also an OR-synth geotrivia compilation, very much a companion piece to this one, and I've placed OR and Synth tags there as well.Skookum1 (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment excuse me again but i really dont know & cant guess what ground or what map you are talking about your facts being on

you are right that mbsk predates ntnu & thus doesnt conform to the nunavut act

but the nunavut act & ntnu do expressly refer & conform to mbsk

when a new delimitation designates & incorporates an existing boundary point then that point becomes a point of the new boundary

it is not even strictly necessary for the marker of that point to be replaced or revised so as to reflect its added function & dimension

& reading degmin as if it were degminsec is a gloss in any case but please take the trouble to observe that the ntnu delimitation given in the nunavut act does include a few coords expressed in fullblown degminsec rather than only degmin when referring to boundary points & segments for which such exactitude really is intended & needed

& please also note that the common device of following coords with a clause of verbal specification beginning with the word being occurs in the ntnu delimitation 3 & only 3 times each of which happens to be one of the 3 & only 3 places where the delimitation designates & incorporates a preexisting boundary point

of necessity 2 of these 3 are the initial & terminal points of the delimitation as a whole which would otherwise have been left flapping in the wind at both ends

as for whether the quadripoint topic is or is not about or inclusive of a bridge over the zambezi i would only submit that any real lucidity we can bring to bear on the matter could only serve to help that bridge get built because its only real problem & hurdle is the existence of the muddled boundary quadriconvergency it is trying to leap

but congrats on your decision to wipe out what you call the multiple points & what i call the greater pluripoints with the understanding that all multipoints whether tripoints quadripoints or beyond are equally multiple points

for it is just as true that those of the quintipartite & still greater combinations arent the same thing as quadripoints as it is true that quadripoints arent the same thing as tripoints

so right on & good on yer & i think we might be getting somewhere —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egull (talk • contribs) 18:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Apparently the only international land border examples are Mount Ararat, maybe, and where Namibia, Angola, Zambia and Zimbabwe meet. But there is the Four Corners in Canada, the Four Corners in the USA, and presumably many other examples of sub-national quadripoints. So what? Just a dictionary definition? Probably. I can't find any sources discussing the concept, and the article does not cite any, just definitions and examples. But it is a link that could lead readers into browsing other subjects, if the inbound links are made. I count 34 potential inbounds. An article on an oddball word that gets readers browsing works for me. It badly needs trimming though. Less words and more pictures. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment wanting to keep an article simply because it has a lot of "inbound links" from pages where mentions of its trivia have been peppered, all so that there might be more readers for your own articles....that's not a very good rationale. And "less words and more pictures" says it all....Skookum1 (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is very little to say on the subject beyond a dictionary definition and examples. The article is much too wordy for such a lightweight concept. But a reader may see the obscure word "quadripoint", click on it, see links and maps, and click on one of them. Not a conventional, rules-based argument for keeping a dicdef, but in this case maybe valid. I am basically in favor of keeping to encourage browsing, no other reason. The reader starts with Arizona and in two clicks ends up in Namibia. The article should be a sort of junction, emphasizing the links. Repeating myself. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - "I was reading about Jim Chee, and I clicked on a link, and another link, and I ended up reading about Botswana-Namibia relations". More people should read about Botswana-Namibia relations. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is almost impossible to avoid "researching" while writing Wp articles. One constantly needs to make decisions. This is anyway a rather narrow field, but still of interest to many. Jakro64 (talk) 12:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It's not a field. It's a wiki-ism.Skookum1 (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- comment yes & thank you all my friends especially you jakro for coming out here on this creaky old limb with me

& for taking that gratuitous hit on your bum in my stead haha & i hope you will be able to soothe it by going over & sitting on our stunning new ltplru trinational quadripoint monument for my sake too & sending us a fresh picture

i also appreciate the self imposed limitations of wikipedism

it is all wonderful & i hope the contemplation period can & will be prolonged

if indeed i might register such a vote now for continuing discussion about whether & if so how to continue the article

which otherwise appears to be subsiding if not expiring

but as i have been asked now for a second time to desist let me say i am also perfectly content to have crowned my own efforts with the recent last few contributions & photo suggestions tho they are indeed not my own creations dear pfly fyi & fwiw

i could only but would gladly provide you with such pix of quadripoints nobody ever heard of if they are really wanted which i doubt

for the monumental & fairly pivotal azconmut pic tho i hope wikipedia will listen to reason & let us use it

unless we are no longer us that is

in which case i will also understand

& i trust my old friends gregg & brian butler of mbntnusk fame are reachable if wanted

& the crazy mexicans could perhaps be paid off if they are still alive

& i think i know someone whod give a bedenl moresnet pic to match your stunning pastel schematic & likewise a bwnazmzw pic our departed bwnazmzw authority might have died for so to say

& theres also a lovely jungholz binational quadripoint photo op i am aware of btw & which i forgot to include in the collection

but i think having pointed out the major probabilities & having originally found or directly contributed 3 quarters of what still remains of the actual substance of the article i think i will leave it to yourselves & others to pick up & advance the pieces of our communal original & enthusiastic research & synthesis if indeed any more is are truly wanted

i promise you the van of the pursuit of multidimensional reality is a delicious place to be but of course youd have to want to be thereEgull (talk) 14:02, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Bloom[edit]

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

No reliable sources found for a long time, endorsed by an admin piksi (talk) 21:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources are in the article, and I can't find anything about him online. I found one ABC interview, but that's about his ideas, not him. All other references that I can find are about other men with the same name. Bearian (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bloom has written for the Washington Post, Wired, the village voice, Wall street journal, etc. He is a notable figure. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is a indeed very famous, at least as a writer. I know this is not the best of references, but just take a look at amazon: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=howard+bloom. If we are missing references for him its about time we start making them, or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.68.119.102 (talk) 08:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It doesn't matter that he has books published in Amazon. A lot of people have and they are in no way significant authors. I have been looking for sources all over the net, and none of them have been reliable. Most of them were either made by Bloom himself or pointed to a random website which simply claimed a lot of things without backing them up in any way. No reliable sources have been found for a) "launched the careers of Stephanie Mills and Chaka Khan" b) "Howard Bloom Organization, Ltd., the largest public relations firm in the record industry" c) "His clients included Prince, Michael Jackson, Bob Marley..." In the older revisions of the pages there are claims of "He is a Visiting Scholar in the Graduate Psychology Department at New York University" and "He is founder of the "International Paleopsychology Project" (also nothing notable found on the net or in scientific journals). How surprising, that these claims have disappeared in the newer versions as no sources could be found? It seems that whenever a claim in the Bloom article is found to have no proof, it is removed and soon some new claims start popping up. People have been asking for proof for so long, and proponents have had plenty of time to present them, yet they havent. So: delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piksi (talk • contribs) 15:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is sort of weird, but I'm commenting here because I'm sitting across from Bloom in a coffee shop at this exact moment and looked him up on Wikipedia since his book is for sale in the coffee shop. (Bloom comes in here a lot and I do as well so I've seen him pretty often, but I've never spoken to him). Anyhow that's not the point. Having just read the blurbs on the back of his book I would have figured that there's probably a lot of secondary source material on this guy (thus surprised it was up for deletion), but like others I'm really not finding it. Per the GNG I don't think he meets the guideline for notability, particularly since I think we need to err on the side of not having too many BLPs on marginally notable folks. If I'm missing some sources I could be persuaded to change my !vote, but my feeling right now is that this ought to be deleted. No offense to Mr. Bloom or this coffee shop. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Funny story. Anyways, here are some secondary sources: WSJ, science 2.0 (see Science 2.0, DH, another, village voice, daily news.....

This only took my five minutes. Bloom has been cited as an authority figure by numerous mainstream sources and is a published author. Notability has been established. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The links you supply include a piece Bloom wrote in the WSJ, a tangential mention of him in a publication, and a number of interviews with not particularly notable organizations. The only link which supplies any real information about Bloom is from the Village Voice, though that is a short piece announcing a talk and is probably based on a press release. Here's the thing--Bloom comes from a marketing background, and his basic info is all over the web, but it all seems to be based on copy that he himself wrote up. The general notability guideline calls for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I'm just not seeing "significant coverage." Doing an interview with a web site about his book is not "significant coverage" and neither is a blurb in the Voice about a talk. Like many Wikipedians, when it comes to BLPs I tend to err on the side of not having bios of marginal figures. Despite the grandiloquent--and almost always unsourced--claims about Bloom such as an absurd reference to him as "the Darwin, Einstein, Newton, and Freud of the 21st Century," there really has not been very much said about this guy other than blurbs on book jackets and boilerplate info sent out to people who will interview him. To me that makes him fairly "marginal" and thus my inclination is still to delete this. (A final aside: to be honest I simply don't trust all of the information out there about Bloom, which for the most part seems ultimately to be sourced only to him. See this earlier version of the article largely written by Bloom himself--which describes him as instrumental in bringing about many key cultural and media trends of recent decades--for an example of why I'm a bit skeptical.) --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Village Voice not notable? What? Recognized by mainstream science organizations? Half a dozen published books? Bloom easily meets the basic requirements for notability. Wikipedia doesn't care if you don't trust the information. See WP:VNT. The authenticity of sources can always be debated in talk, but there is simply too much data to write it off as "marginal." Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes yes, I do know about verifiability and all that. As I said above my point about not trusting the info was an aside—it's not the basis for my !vote. I did not say that the Village Voice was not notable—in fact the clear implication was that it was notable—rather that it was the only link you supplied with (minimal) coverage of Bloom in a secondary source. But the GNG calls for "significant coverage." Obviously part of why these AfDs are discussions/debates is that opinions can vary on what constitutes "significant coverage." I do not see "significant coverage" of Bloom, particularly because I have a higher standard for this when it comes to BLPs. It's completely fine if you disagree.

One other thing I'd point out: I'd actually be more inclined to have articles about Bloom's books rather than Bloom himself, assuming the books have received enough attention to warrant it. We already have one on The Lucifer Principle. With fairly marginal living authors I think it often makes more sense to discuss their books rather the authors themselves, which is again a view I take from my reading of the BLP policy. (Incidentally, Bloom has apparently published exactly three books, not half a dozen. This interestingly titled item has apparently never been published.) --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I count seven secondary sources, not one. BTP, you explicitly said you as an editor don't "trust" the material cited in reliable sources. I'm sorry, but this doesn't matter. Bloom easily meets the general guidelines of notability, his books have been cited and praise by serious journals and newspapers. He has been interviewed by mainstream organizations. What more do you want? It's too bad the article relies exclusively on primary sources so I can see why an editor would see a cause for deletion, but there are more than enough sources available to clean up the article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are not seven secondary sources. A Wall Street Journal article written by Bloom is not a secondary source. Interviews about his book from minor web sites don't help much either because they don't give us biographical information about Bloom. You're missing my argument here even though I've spelled it out more than once. I do not see significant coverage of him, meaning articles or books written about Bloom. That's what we need. And I have no idea why you won't take my word for it that the fact that I'm skeptical of some of information about Bloom is not the reason I'm arguing in favor of delete. It's something I pointed out specifically as an "aside" which is why I used that word. Whether or not the info on him is actually trustworthy, I think there is too little coverage to justify an article. Obviously we disagree so I don't think there's anything else to say about it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Look, I am sorry if I am not knowledgeable enough about Wikipedia’s Standards (I’ve only edited statistics articles in the Spanish Wikipedia), but I believe (again, these are my beliefs only) that ANY author who has published ANYTHING with an actual recognizable ISBN number deserves to have a page on Wikipedia. As far as I am concerned, this is the only information we can check to be true, so that is the only information we should keep about Howard Bloom. The books are not even e-books (which many indie authors use as medium) they are paperbacks/hardcovers. They also are sold directly by Amazon, so there must be a publisher (Prometheus Books) with some information for Howard Bloom, we could ask them (I don’t know if we are supposed to go that far). Even the Amazon review seems to acknowledge the guy. Just for the record, I haven’t even read anything about him, but I have heard plenty. The Amazing Atheist (YouTube’s most famous atheist) invites him several times to have a Q/A and everyone gets excited when he does. Also look at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0jXIVVckr4. Again, these are not arguments in favor for keeping the guy, but he certainly has some fame (look at the amount of reviews that his books have!), and keeping him for the sake of his books seems reasonable to me. I've made an account on Wikipedia, I go by freakycreator. For reference, I also posted this: "He is a indeed very famous, at least as a writer."--Freakycreator | talk | contribs 17:56, 7 November 2010 (GTM)
All of the sudden I am a skeptic. Look at a quote that I took from Bloom’s bio in the publisher’s site: Howard Bloom (Brooklyn, NY) has been called "the Darwin, Newton, and Einstein of the 21st century" and "the next Stephen Hawking." This is preposterous. I want to know why there aren’t more references about this guy if he is supposed to be the next Darwin for crying out loud. --Freakycreator | talk | contribs 17:56, 7 November 2010 (GTM)

The Darwin/Newton quote came from a British TV station supposedly, though I would question whether it is being reported in its full context. Even if Bloom is a genius, it's obviously ridiculous. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pity, as he sounds quite interesting, but there just doesn't seem to be the material out there to justify retention. Aside from a single interview which isn't really about him we seem to have only primary sources and passing mentions. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:03, 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 00:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Haller[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. St Anselm (talk) 21:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article does nothing to prove notability. --Slon02 (talk) 21:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Heck, the article scarcely asserts notability. And it's been tagged without remedy for three YEARS now? Sheesh. Fails WP:GNG. Ravenswing 17:00, 1 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 00:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outside curve (slice) (Football)[edit]

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

The tag says merge, but I don't think anything here is worth saving. Redirecting this to Curl (football) is pretty much the same as deleting this article, thus the AfD. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 21:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Curl says it all, and nobody's going to search for this title. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A redirect is pointless, nobody would ever search for this. I also agree that it doesn't seem to have content in need of keeping. --Slon02 (talk) 22:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is the same topic as Trivela. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - um, what?! Giant Snowman 12:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems to just be a GUIDE too. —Half Price 17:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Alexf^(talk) 15:17, 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 all as a matter of process since all involved articles turned out to be plagiarized from a copyrighted source; this sets no precedent for future articles however. —Soap— 21:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Muhaymin[edit]

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

Also:

This needs discussion. Do we need an article on each of the "99 names of God" ? (some of these short, unreferenced things came in recently) Thanks. (apart from that, some of them are copyvios) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's mostly OR. To take a look at the Al-Jabbar page as it was, and then imagine a page about an English word or name written in a similar style. You can say that jabbar means "irresistible" or "all-compelling", but to say that it means "The One who compels each and every thing according to divine will, yet is never compelled" is to see things that just aren't there in the original text, and can never be proven true or false because it's just an opinion of what possible extensions of meaning there might be. Perhaps individual articles could be written, but I doubt it, and they really can't be written in this style. —Soap— 21:37, 31 October 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. A plain reading of the discussion sugegsts that while there are a lot of assertions of sources no sources discussing specifially the subject of the article have been presented in the discussion despite several requests. In the light of this the arguments that this is synth/OR without specific sources appears to be sufficiently compelling Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas and the Taliban analogy[edit]

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

No such analogy has ever been claimed. This is clearly an article created to prove a point, as part of the longstanding attempt to disrupt Israel and the apartheid analogy; this article even copies the structure of the latter. RolandR (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is tightly sourced and its more than clear direct parallels have been made between the Taliban and Hamas. In Israel and the apartheid analogy, very few of the sources actually use the word "analogy" when comparing Israel and South African governments. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As unfortunate as that article may be titled, the difference is that Wikipedia doesn't have multiple articles on that topic. I don't see The apartheidization of Israel and/or Israel and the South Africa analogy, but I do see Hamas and the Taliban analogy and Islamization of the Gaza Strip, both largely the work of the same editor and covering mostly the same topics. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article lists numerous scholarly sources, which in one way or another, make this specific analogy. It's unfortunate that nominator was unable to assume good faith behind the article. It may have used Israel and the apartheid analogy as a format for this article, but that should speak the strength of that article, something nominator should undoubtedly support.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. —RolandR (talk) 00:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article was clearly created to make a point, but that doesn't negate the value of the article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the comparison to the Israel and the apartheid analogy fails as there are sources actually discussing and focusing on the use of that analogy. Here, there are people who, rightly or wrongly, have compared Hamas to the Taliban. But there arent any sources actually discussing that comparison. The most cited source on that page is by a Dr^{[citation needed]} Aaron Klein in the prestigious publication WorldNetDaily. Besides other sources that are misused, mostly by taking a sentence out of context, there are a bunch of people using or denying a comparison between the two. It is true that such a thing exists at the article on the apartheid analogy, but that is best dealt with by fixing that article so that it doesnt just serve as a repository of people who made the comparison. The main reason to delete this though is WP:SYNTH. A combination of sources using an analogy is being presented as a topic covering the analogy. None of the sources are actual secondary sources covering this analogy. They are using the analogy, which makes them all primary sources combined into a topic by a Wikipedia editor seeking to prove a WP:POINT. nableezy - 04:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your understanding of what a "primary source" is is curious, to say the least. Scholarly articles with citations are secondary sources, not primary sources. News articles based on interviews with other people are also secondary sources. Opinion articles are primary sources, but the policy clearly states that they are admissible as a source regarding opinions of the author. Marokwitz (talk) 06:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on how you use the source. They are secondary sources for what they actually are covering, but you arent using them like that. You invented a topic, this "analogy", and then used sources that are using the analogy, not covering it. The sources here are the subject of the article, not secondary sources covering the subject. And using the word "scholarly" for a source list that has the WND website cited 7 times and a book published by WND books also cited goes beyond absurd into just funny. nableezy - 13:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've got to withdraw my support. Closer analysis of the papers reveal that they just don't support the article, they are in the context of "these are both conservative Islamist groups" or "people will elect anything after enough bad government". Sure, the two groups have a lot in common but there isn't enough good material to support the article, unlike the "Israel and Apartheid" article this was based on. The Israel article suffers from SYTNH but not as much as this. Sol (talk) 05:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why is it not surprising that same person who insisted to keep "Israel and the apartheid analogy" is also insisting on deleting "Hamas and the Taliban analogy"? The article is much better sourced than Israel and the apartheid analogy, and the overall topic is more notable. The specified reason is not a policy based reason for deletion. As the 37 rock solid references attest, the topic is widely covered by both scholarly and journalistic sources from nonpartisan parties as well as both sides of the I-P conflict. All the provided sources specifically make an analogy or deny the analogy between the Hamas and the Taliban. Marokwitz (talk) 05:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a single source discussing the "analogy"? Just one source actually discussing it and not using it. nableezy - 12:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep. Per Malik and Sol, and the nearly unanimous keep !votes. And the sources discussing and focusing on the analogy.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification -- per Malik's statement in his !keep vote regarding "the value of the article", and per Sol's statement in his !keep vote that "there are a slim few scholarly papers on the topic (which the article might want to reference)" and that "there is some meat here".--Epeefleche (talk) 23:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name one of those sources you say exists. nableezy - 12:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are many given in the article, for example "Hamas, Taliban and the Jewish Underground: An Economist’s View of Radical Religious Militias", "The Talibanization of Gaza: A Liability for the Muslim Brotherhood", "The Hamas Enterprise and the Talibanization of Gaza", "Palestine: Taliban-like attempts to censor music", "The Fundamentalist City?: Religiosity and the Remaking of Urban Space", "HAMAS AND GLOBAL JIHAD: THE ISLAMIZATION OF THE PALESTINIAN CAUSE", " Fears of a Taliban-Style Emirate in Gaza", "Gaza turns into a Taliban state", In addition this article contains explicit uses of the analogy by Israeli, Palestinian, and other officials such as Dan Meridor, Benjamin Netanyahu, Mark Regev, Samir Mashharawi, Richard Kemp. More than enough to establish notability, far more so than 99% of the articles on Wikipedia. Marokwitz (talk) 13:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ive read 3 of those, working on the rest. The problem is they dont discuss an analogy, they use it. To combine sources using the analogy into an article on an analogy is synthesis of primary sources. In other words, original research. nableezy - 13:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources provided discuss the analogy, list supporters of the analogy, rejections of the analogy, as well as voice opinions regarding the validity of the analogy. Marokwitz (talk) 14:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you quote a single source that actually discusses the analogy as opposed to just using it? nableezy - 21:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The notability guideline is "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The topic is "Hamas and the Taliban analogy". Now let's see if we have significant coverage of the analogy by reliable sources independent Hamas or the Taliban. Let's take for example professor Nezar Alsayyad, who writes in her book "The Fundamentalist City?: Religiosity and the Remaking of Urban Space" that a growing number of analysts have denounced openly the "systematic, massive and explicit efforts" at Talibanization led by Hamas in the Gaza Strip. This is a direct reference to the fact that other scholars are making the analogy of the actions of Hamas and Taliban. Or take Berman, a world renown economist from UC San Diego National Bureau of Economic Research, who noted that both groups gained support by providing providing social welfare, and developed into effective and violent militias; both received subsidies from abroad; both underwent increases in stringency of practice as they gained power; both require members to undergo a costly initiation rite of personal sacrifice; and both changed their ideologies drastically and at great cost to members. Both of the above books are most certainly not primary sources, they are secondary scholarly sources based on dozens and hundreds of citations. Should I continue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marokwitz (talk • contribs) 06:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you should, up until the point where you actually quote from a source covering the analogy and not just using it. The sources you mention re secondary sources for the article on Hamas, but here you are using them as primary sources. They are covering Hamas, not an analogy. nableezy - 13:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, sources "using" the analogy based on an what other sources say, are still secondary sources. They are directly discussing the analogy between Hamas and the Taliban. Berman is not affiliated with Hamas or Taliban and describes the similarities between them based on primary sources, in a scholarly article that was published in the peer reviewed Journal of Public Economics, and was widely cited in other works. The article is not covering Hamas, it's about an economic model for understanding the behavior violent miltias. Claiming that he is used as a "primary source" is simply ridiculous. And Alsayyad, (Who is the editor of the book) is clearly not "using" the analogy, she is discussing the increasing use of the analogy by other analysts. Marokwitz (talk) 14:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - of course it is offensive that someone would compare any people to known terrorists, but people do so. Wikipedia is a mirror of society. Whether this is notable is not so clear to me. Bearian (talk) 17:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

not that it makes a difference really, but which one of the two do you consider "known terrorists" that the other may be "offended" by the analogy?--brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article contains much information showing that the nomination rationale, "no such analogy has ever been claimed", is false. The comparison with Israel and the apartheid analogy is valid, but this article comes out better in the comparison because it describes a significant POV, as opposed to the other one, which describes a fringe POV. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 18:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources state over and over that such an analogy exists, and then proceed to confirm or deny it. Motives for deletion are more than suspect.--Geewhiz (talk) 05:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it is an impressive looking article, all nicely formatted with inline citations to sources that look respectable. But that is just a facade that if wiped away reveals serious problems with this article regarding original research. For example, the first source cited, The Talibanization of Gaza: A Liability for the Muslim Brotherhood, cited six times throughout the article, never once uses the word "analogy". The article (which oh by the way gets some very basic facts very very wrong) does not one time discuss such an analogy, it says that Hamas is guilty of what it calls "Talibanization". That is, the article uses this analogy, and from this, and sources used in exactly this way, we create an article about an analogy. The sources dont discuss this analogy, they use it. The article then synthesis those separate sources using such an analogy into an article that is supposedly covering an analogy. There arent any secondary sources actually dealing with the supposed topic of the article. Yall can have your lil article, but dont bring that questioning of motives here. If you want to question motives, the article's creation is a good place to start. nableezy - 05:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nab -- you're just repeating yourself. Clearly, everyone else who has commented with a !vote here -- everyone -- sees it differently. I doubt your repeating yourself will sway the overwhelming consensus here to shift to your side.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not "everyone". I certainly agree with Nableezy's comments, as should be obvious from what I wrote when I submitted this AfD: that this was a pointy article and that no such analogy had ever been claimed. RolandR (talk) 08:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone who !voted. The response to your nom, absent his !vote, has been a 100 per cent, snow rejection.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my language, "everyone" means "every single person, without exception". Yoy clearly speak a different variant of English. RolandR (talk) 11:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what variant of English would read "everyone else who has commented with a !vote here" to include someone who did not in fact comment with a !vote. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be ridiculous. This is not a vote, and it is abundantly clear that I have called for the deletion of this article. RolandR (talk) 14:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roland -- again. You nominated the article. Others then !voted. In my variant of English we actually read the words "who !voted". We don't insert a period, where there is none, after "everyone". And ignore the words "who !voted", which are written in wiki's variant of English. Or substitute the words "called for deletion" for the words "!who voted". Hopefully that clarifies somewhat my use of this strange language called English, with which I am struggling to gain some measure of confidence.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That wasnt a repetition, that was an expansion. I covered a specific source used extensively in that article. I dont think what we have is a representative sampling of the community and I can only hope that those uninvolved in editing the topic who have yet to look at the AfD read the comments and then read the sources and make a determination as to whether or not this impressive looking article is actually entirely OR based on synthesis of what are effectively primary sources. I may do so the same for other references used. I might be less tempted to do so if I dont have to read half-assed questioning of motives. nableezy - 05:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do not tempt Nableezy. Who knows what could happen! This place is so funny sometimes. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Weak Delete: WP:POINT is strengthened by the absurd title used here (Israel and the apartheid analogy was a disagreeable compromise constantly under requests for renanaming). The real subject is Comparisons of Hamas and the Taliban. And not all common comparisons are notable. Per the unsigned comment quoting the notability guidelines ("a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"), the subject here is analogies/comparisons between Hamas and the Taliban. Anyone who makes such analogies (not just the Taliban and Hamas) is part of the subject; the question for notability is whether third parties find this analogy notable. Someone refuting point and notability concerns must produce one or more reliable source doing just that. Until that happens, I'm in favor of deletion.--Carwil (talk) 13:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Epeefleche. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to have a multitude of sources? InternetIsSeriousBusiness (talk) 14:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - This editor was subsequently blocked as a sockpuppet of banned user:Ledenierhomme.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This topic may be notable, and perhaps should be covered in this encyclopedia. However, in topics that are contentious like this, secondary sources are required. That means that it is not enough to have 100 sources that say "Hamas is like Taliban". Instead, we need a few scholars or pundits who analyze the analogy, such as: "Professor Z discussed person A (who said 'Hamas is like Taliban') and professor Z said blah blah". I scanned through the sources in this article, and most appear to be primary sources (the people that actually made the analogy in the first place). The bottom line is this: if we cannot find scholars and pundits that are analyzing the analogy, then it is not noteworthy enough to be in the encyclopedia. Can some editor find some secondary sources? --Noleander (talk) 18:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If few secondary sources are available, one option is to merge this Hamas/Taliban material into Human rights in the Palestinian Territories. A precedent was set for such mergers in Summer 2007 when quite a few "Apartheid analogy" articles were created in response to Israel and the apartheid analogy. Those articles were all nominated for AfDs (a list is here... China, France, Jordan, etc.) It looks all were deleted, although a few were merged into "Human Rights in ..." articles. So that raises the question: should this Hamas/Taliban material be merged into Human rights in the Palestinian Territories? --Noleander (talk) 20:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete/merge. This is a propaganda piece pretending to be an encyclopedic article, created to make a WP:POINT, with a preposterous title, no doubt inspired by Israel and the apartheid analogy. The best contribution here so far has been from Carwil, who is correct in saying that no-one has yet provided any reliable secondary sources actually discussing the subject of the article (the "analogy") as opposed to using it (that is, making comparisons). The article, if it is to be kept at all, clearly belongs under another name such as Hamas and the Taliban, but only if such a comparison is notable, that is if sufficient sources can be found discussing the comparison. I think a much better solution would be to merge any worthwhile content into another article (or articles) as Noleander suggests. On the subject of comparing the two, one might look at the juxtaposition of the two shahada flags at the top of the article. This is like comparing two churches by displaying pictures of their respective crosses, non-notable and a blatant example of OR and synthesis. A bad start, which sets the tone for the rest of the article. --NSH001 (talk) 22:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per reasoning of many of the above. Greg L (talk) 22:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hamas and the Taliban are both Islamist groups so it is expected that there are similarities that have been pointed out. But I'm not sure that we should create an encyclopedia article. I could probably create an article on American Beer and the Water analogy if that was enough. I think Noleander makes a good point about the necessity of secondary sources. But even then I could write an article on Canadian Federalism and the Belgian analogy or the Canadian Federalism and the Swiss analogy without any trouble. Journalists and academics make comparisons all the time. It is the easy thing to do. But I'm not sure that every one justifies a WP article. I won't "vote" or non-vote or whatever it is called because I'm not sure what convention is. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does not seem an outlandish comparison in a number of aspects as shown in the article. The criticism section is rather one-sided at the moment, probably because the pro-P editors only try to have the article deleted at the moment, but that's something that can be fixed through editing. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article also lacks parallel comparisons with other Islamic states in a number of these critical aspects, for example Saudi Arabia also has a "morality police", and so does Iran for that matter, even if it's called something else [1]. Those issues should be added for a WP:NPOV perspective. See also Hezbollah, Hamas United by Tactics, Syria is no different from Hamas or Hezbollah, and Hamas, Hezbollah are part of a global Left for other aspects; if the last one sounds too implausible, see Islamist-Left Alliance A Growing Force for details. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as irretrievably POV. This article is NOT sourced properly. If you check the sources, most sources that are used repeatedly are conservative and/or Pro-Israeli. For example, the publications of the Hudson_Institute are used several times - which is more or less a neoconservative organisation. World Net Daily, CBN News, a writer from the Mossad-founded International Institute for Counter-Terrorism and so on are all conservative if not something stronger. There is reliance on non-experts - the World Music Forum, a blog, an economist and people who should never be used as a source in an encyclopedia on any topic, like Melanie Phillips. Many articles make a comparison with the Taliban, but very few make a detailed comparison. They use "Taliban" as a shorthand for strict conservative enforcement of Islamic law, as becomes apparent if one actually checks the sources. Saudi Arabia enforces Islamic law strictly and conservatively. There is simply not enough academic, independent analysis to support this article. Israel and the apartheid analogy is just a case of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And we treat articles as notable as AfDs based on sources such as Electronic Intifada. The fact that a source may have a "bent" does not mean, ipso facto, that it is not an RS. Even if the "bent" is other than yours or mine. And othercrapexists, as the guidance states clearly, indicates that such comparisons are fine to make, as long as they are not the sole reason proffered. Which is not the case here.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this article is POV in the sense that it describes the different POVs on the topic. There are plenty reliable secondary sources in the article, perhaps take the time and check more thoroughly. Freemuse is an international human rights organisation, not a "forum". It's just as reliable as Human Rights Watch or Amnesty, as is - reliable for their own opinions. This article cites them for their opinion, not for factual material. Marokwitz (talk) 08:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the topic as framed is not POV, it should be possible to replace most of these sources with more neutral ones. There are lots of topics where one side of a divide choruses a theme without it (a) being properly represented in neutral sources or (b) meant to be a serious analysis, and these are precisely the kinds of articles we shouldn't have. When sourcing comes almost exclusively from one side, with a few independent looking non-experts (World Music Forum?) to cover one's blushes, it's a red flag. I have no idea what your reference to electronic intifada is about - it sounds like you're annoyed at something that happened somewhere else on wikipedia. Let's stick to this article.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not being sufficiently clear. Let me keep to one point. If the source is an RS, or an RS for it view, then that's that. We don't say: "Oh, it's a liberal rag -- no good on this issue". Or the opposite. We don't say -- the Village Voice is NG, the Wall Street Journal is NG, Al Jazeerah is NG, we need a blend between The New York Times and The Boston Globe. That's not how it works. --Epeefleche (talk) 07:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually "we" do that plenty and then some on Wikipedia. Or rather plenty of Wikipedia editors exclude significant views from article because they don't agree with them. Just have a look at Talk:William Connolley for a sample. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

reply to Marokwitz You've not got POV policy correct there. An article is never considered POV because it mentions various POVs. It is POV if it promotes a particular point of view that misrepresents consensus or is undue. This includes how we name articles. Unacceptable examples would be Similarities between Barack Obama and a communist, Welsh deviousness and Friends shot by Dick Cheney, all of which would have opinions cited in supposedly RS sources to back them up. There are lots of Wikipedia articles on insinuations about Palestinians, Israelis, Muslims and Jews out there waiting not to be written on the same grounds. I feel this article, as it is titled and currently sourced, is one of them.

You ask me to check the sources more thoroughly. I am, and have been, checking the sourcing thoroughly. Here is a survey of the first third or so: The first source is by an official of the Israeli anti-terrorism unit. The second is published by the Fatah Palestinian authority and compares Hamas to other Islamists in general, not particularly to the Taliban. The third is from Freemuse, which may do sterling work, but they're a minor human rights organisation, and they're not experts on shades of Islam, let alone Islamism. it would be no problem if it's cited once or twice, but the Freemuse piece, along with a piece from a right wing website by Aaron Klein, who thinks Obama, funnily enough, is a communist (is this what you meant by good secondary sourcing?), is the most cited in the entire article - seven times. The fourth is - hey presto - a book from a mainstream publisher. It is used to source statements that the analogy is false. The fifth is a congressional report - not bad. It sources a statement that the analogy is false. Sixth Xinhua - good source, stating opinion that Hamas will not be like the Taliban - that the analogy is false. Seventh is AP - good. Article covers the rejection of the analogy. Eighth is Bloomberg - very good. Nothing about the Taliban, only about Islamisation. Not a support. The next few are Haaretz and Jerusalem Post, all respectable RS, but which don't make any connection between Taliban and Hamas. Then there's HudsonNY, which isn't RS, frankly, and then an economist, who isn't an appropriate expert, and who doesn't make an analogy at all, but the stunning proposition that the Taliban and Hamas are both Islamist, and that as Islamists they may follow a similar logic. The list of people is a hodgepodge - it's OR to put them together and to say that they represent a significant, coherent body of opinion. We need secondary sources for that for this to be an independent article.

The academic books presented do not support the analogy at all. The book Crossovers only cites that well-known Hamas supporter Mahmoud Abbas; the writers themselves do not validate the comparison, and do not appear to consider the comparison noteworthy. The OUP book The Taliban Phenomenon is too old to be relevant to this debate. Hamas: The Islamic Resistance Movement does not make any comparison, but it cites a few people (Hamas supporters Netanyahu and Mark Regev) making the comparison, as well as academics disputing it, but most notably, does not have a section in the book at all making the comparison. The book The Fundamentalist City?: Religiosity and the Remaking of Urban Space appears to mention Hamas and the Taliban in the same breath once. It mentions both Hamas and the Taliban lots, but not together. Hamas in politics: democracy, religion, violence, from Columbia University Press makes no comparison. Indeed, it is used to source a denial of the comparison. In short, as far as I can see, not a single academic imprint presented makes any analytical attempt at an analogy, and barely any decent RS cited - just people quoted by them in passing. That should ring huge alarm bells to any genuinely interested in preserving NPOV.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

reply to Epeefleche You seem to be implying that if a source is RS, then it is as equally valid as any other RS. That is actually how it doesn't work. World Net Daily barely gets into RS (I personally wouldn't touch it), CBN News probably not, the Hudson Institute is only RS for its own views, not as a statement of academic opinion and so on, and the problems they present in terms of bias on this topic all lie in the same direction. It's simply not intellectually honest to ignore such an issue. This is how it actually works with RS: Time Magazine's opinion on Hamas is quite a good RS, but not as good as, say, the Professor of Middle Eastern Politics at Harvard's latest book. RS depends on context. I refer you to my reply to Marokwitz: the better RS doesn't go into the analogy or has people denying it as often if not more often than people asserting it, and the best RS doesn't seem to mention it at all, save for individual quotes someone can find on google books. This article assembles quotes (it's funny how all the books are available on google) and tries to turn it into an encyclopedic topic. POV and RS.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Switch to full delete Wikipedia is extremely thin on political comparisons, because compare and contrast between two things is generally not very encyclopedic. Where they do exist they go across entire categories, unless the comparison itself is highly notable. Marokwitz seems to have been the only one to seriously respond to the request for outside sources discussing the analogy, but the problem several of us have mentioned remains. Numerous other comparisons of Hamas to Hezbollah, Iran, and (to a lesser extent) Saudi Arabia, exist, and there is no special reason why this one is more notable. Suggestions: salvage notable material and merge it to a section of Hamas#Criticism or Islamization of Gaza (in the short term) and ideally eventually to Comparison of Islamist movements.--Carwil (talk) 15:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, we do have an article on Islamofascism, which is eminently an analogy, and probably even more offending to some. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but highly notable. Offensiveness is not a guideline for inclusion/exclusion, but notability is.--Carwil (talk) 15:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I very much agree with the idea to have a Comparison of Islamist movements article as an aim, as a way of salvaging what material there is here. I also agree that Islamofascism is a good example of when controversial articles should exist because of conceptual notability. (As a pedant, I have to point out that Islamofascism is not an analogy, it's a portmanteau, and is not intended as a comparison, but as an identity.) VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or Merge into Islamization of the Gaza Strip) - Several requests have been made above, asking for secondary sources. None have been supplied. The WP Arbitration Committee has repeatedly stated Wikipedia articles rely mainly on reliable mainstream secondary sources as these provide the requisite analysis, interpretation and context.... Primary sources may be used to support specific statements of fact limited to descriptive aspects of these primary sources. In contentious articles, secondary sources (that analyze the primary source speakers) must be the basis of the article. After a few reliable secondary sources establish notability, then primary source quotes can be included in the article. I will switch my vote to Keep, if someone can provide some secondary sources. --Noleander (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Islamization of the Gaza Strip. The supporters of this article seem to want to arbitrarily restrict what comparisons can be made by slicing the topic too thinly. I don't think we need separate articles on every pairwise comparison/analogy of radical Islamist movements as proposed. The supporters of this article sometimes cherrypick only the Hamas-Taliban aspect from sources which make a broader comparison. The ((POV title)) template would adequately describe the issue with the current article. Rather tellingly, the article on the Islamization of the Gaza Strip is about half the the byte size of this one. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this merge proposal is wrong for the following reasons:

The analogy of Hamas and the Taliban has been done based on other factors unrelated to the Islamization or to the Gaza strip. For example the way they gained power, and similarity of tactics and strategy.
The article about Islamization of the Gaza strip includes attempts of Islamization by groups unrelated to Hamas. Marokwitz (talk) 16:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The articles cover mainly the same topics, making this one a WP:CFORK. The forking is largely obtained by instantiating the Taliban as the reference fundamentalist Islamic movement. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I showed above, there are other similar comparisons on the same grounds, with Hezbollah in particular for warfare tactics and social plans. It would be silly to create an article for each pair of movements as you argue. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps some Wikipedia context and history might be valuable here as I make a final point in the last paragraph of this post.
We’ve once had an editor who was fond of going about Wikipedia and, whenever there was a link to Anwar al-Awlaki (the terrorist who has publicly stated that the score won’t begin to be settled until at least one million Americans have been killed), he would parenthetically write this after Anwar’s linked name: (a controversial conservative muslim scholar). As I recall, he was one of the early tag-alongs who came onboard with Jimbo. As he was also an admin, he must have felt some measure of insular impunity from the consensus of the community. In the wake of such behavior, he retired from Wikipedia, which is probably a good thing.
I mention this because in all things on Wikipedia, we need only stick to the point and cite most-reliable sources. The editor who was fond of describing Anwar al-Awlaki that way liked to point to a op-ed piece written in Newsweek (as I recall) by a college student who was working on his Ph.D. in Middle Eastern Studies. In that op-ed piece, the student wrote about how Anwar’s connection to al‑Qaeda were, as I recall the wording, “more speculative than real.” But quite some measure of time had transpired since that Newsweek article was published; al‑Qaeda had since released a number of audio and videotaped threats of Anwar promising jihad. Nevertheless, that editor insisted that the student’s op-ed opinion (that the Western intelligence agencies must not have their facts straight and had jumped the gun in painting Anwar as a poopy-head deserving of being the subject of a targeted killing) be included in the article even though the op-ed piece was dated past irrelevancy. That editor’s actions clearly amounted to impermissible POV-pushing; it is not a new phenomenon on Wikipedia and terrorism and religious-related articles get more than their share.
My point is that Wikipedia’s articles live and die by the strength, veracity, and timeliness/relevancy of its citations. We can’t have editors cherry-picking op-ed pieces by Kill the West Gazette nor by some college student club of young-Replublican Nazi sympathizers in a newsletter they pass out on the campus as the basis for creating an article, let alone using as a citation in an existing article.
The issue here is whether the ‘Hamas and the Taliban analogy’ is an intrinsically non-notable bit POV-pushing. This question can easily be resolved by closely examining the first citation in the article, which is referenced five times in the article: “The Talibanization of Gaza: A Liability for the Muslim Brotherhood”, by the Hudson Institute, which is a notable international think tank. That Hudson Institute paper itself has 70 citations. Whereas I have little doubt that some editors here can find fault with the results of the think-tank article, that article is real and is the product of an RS. Nor can we allow ourselves to be dragged down into atomic-level nuances of whether the Hudson Institute article is flawed or not unless a complaining editor can prove that he or she is a notable original source who has been quoted in reliable secondary sources; we are all mere wikipedians. So… scrutiny of the Hudson Institute paper clearly shows that the concept of drawing analogies between Hamas and Taliban ideology is not some obscure, fringe concept formulated in a tavern by a couple of beered-up fools; the issue is obviously sufficiently notable and real for there to be a Wikipedia article on it. There are plenty of other articles on Wikipedia that are controversial, like Race and intelligence; that doesn’t prevent us from having an article on the subject. That explains my Keep vote, above. Greg L (talk) 16:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the existence of that paper implies the topic cannot be adequately covered at Islamization of the Gaza Strip; 70 citations is not much. I can find papers with thousands of citations, which don't have separate articles. E.g.: Caspi, A.; Sugden, K.; Moffitt, T. E.; Taylor, A.; Craig, I. W.; Harrington, H.; McClay, J.; Mill, J.; Martin, J.; Braithwaite, A.; Poulton, R. (2003). "Influence of Life Stress on Depression: Moderation by a Polymorphism in the 5-HTT Gene". Science. 301 (5631): 386–389. Bibcode:2003Sci...301..386C. doi:10.1126/science.1083968. PMID 12869766. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Hudson Institute paper is far more notable of an RS than those upon with many other articles upon which Wikipedia articles are based. The only difference here is the added element of being controversial. And did you think that establishment of notability stops at the first citation in the article? Seriously, I just laughed when reading your comment. It reads like “I don’t know why you say the Earth is ‘big’; just look at the Sun!” Goodbye; I’ve said all I need to say and your post just gave me an epiphany. Greg L (talk) 16:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not more notable than Science (journal) in my view. (Hudson Institute, seriously?) You seem to imply we need a separate article for every topic that appears in a title of a paper from the Hudson Institute. Such a position would be clearly ridiculous. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greg, your arguments don't add up. Sorry to be grim, but articles by David Irving have lots of citations. It doesn't make them good or reliable. The Hudson Institute is not some well respected independent organisation (where on Earth did you get that from?). It's a neoconservative think tank that is generously funded by benefactors verging on the radical right, like Richard Mellon Scaife, PNAC funders the John M. Olin Foundation, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the Earhart Foundation and so on. It's not a great RS on this topic, no matter how many times editors claim it is. Just as being pro-Palestinian/ anti-Israeli is de rigeur for large parts of the European Left, pro-Israeli (and anti-Palestinian) views are part and parcel of the American neoconservative make-up, such that we should treat such sources with far greater care than is being done here. For people not to acknowledge even a speck of a problem in using such sources is puzzling, if not downright odd. For you to laud it as good RS, well... As for controversy, it's true that controversial articles exist on wikipedia, but being controversial is not a criterion for inclusion.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm waiting for Why Republicans are climate skeptics based on Hudson Institute's latest paper [2]. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. I am interested in studying all forms of crazy-crap ideology. Greg L (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, "The Talibanization of Gaza" article is not in Google Scholar, and there are zero Google Books references to it. Where did you count the 70 citations? Tijfo098 (talk) 22:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable secondary sources have been presented that adress THIS topic in the requisite detail for an article. Writing our articles on the basis of highly unreliable WorldNetDaily is not acceptable and must stop. Hipocrite (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Malik Shabazz. the article seems to present both sides of the issue, stating that hamas disagrees with the comparison. also, after reading through peoples !votes for deletion, the main theme seems to be questioning the sources. while many have expressed their opinions on the POV of some of the references used, none so far have debunked the sources themselves. i.e. people who agree with fox news may disagree with the BBC's POV, but that doesn't imply that the BBC cannot be used as a reference. many of the sources clearly draw links between hamas and the taliban, whether agreeing or disagreeing with the comparison, thus justifying the title and existence of this article. WookieInHeat (talk) 22:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, sources drawing comparisons between Hamas and the Taliban is not a justification for the title or existence of the article. It may be reason to include information on those comparisons in the articles on Hamas or the Taliban, but not for the making up of a topic. This comment demonstrates why this article is simply original research. The article takes as its sources articles making these comparisons and then says that the analogy itself is the topic of the article. There are not any sources discussing that topic, that is no source actually discussed such an analogy as a topic. This is why we have policies on original research, so these things dont happen. I suggest you carefully read WP:OR. nableezy - 23:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"No, sources drawing comparisons between Hamas and the Taliban is not a justification for the title..." - Nableezy

Main Entry: comparison
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: contrasting; corresponding
Synonyms: allegory, analogizing, analogy, analyzing, association...

hence the title "Hamas and the Taliban analogy". WookieInHeat (talk) 23:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

anyway, if your argument is that the title constitues WP:OR, why are you pushing solely for deletion instead of a name change or even a merge? a WP:COI with the subject couldn't be clouding the venerable nableezy's judgement, could it? WookieInHeat (talk) 00:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wookie, please avoid such pointless personal attacks (it's the second I've seen you make in the space of a day on this topic area), and please do us all the courtesy read the policies you link to. Unless you are making the quite extraordinary claim that Nableezy is a member of the Hamas or Taliban leadership, COI simply does not apply here. Furthermore OR is perfectly acceptable as grounds for deletion; it happens all the time. Your arguments for keep misrepresent the objections. The point about sourcing is that the sources which are not questionable do not present the analogy in anything other than solitary quotes from Hamas' opponents in a sea of words saying something else. If you read the sources, there is a clear argument that Hamas is islamising in Gaza (I wouldn't be against the merge proposal above), but that is not the same as "Talibanising". Gathering random quotes from people who don't like Hamas and putting them together without any secondary source uniting them is original research, as is a side-by-side comparison of Hamas and the Taliban, without reliable secondary sources doing the same thing. I suggest you read WP:OR carefully and then come back and explain how this article is not original research, citing policy. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 00:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i've made no personal attacks, i think you are mistaking sarcasm for incivility. also, i am normally quite cordial, in fact i challenge you to find one other editor with a complaint about my civility in their dealings with me. nableezy is the exception, i merely feed the attitude he gives those he disagrees with right back to him; in this case his condescending remark that i "carefully read WP:OR".
secondly, you really should take your own advice and review wikipolicies before lecturing others on their content. WP:COI states right in its lede: "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups." nableezy displays his affinity for the palestinian cause, and by association hamas, on his talk page.
finally, as to my comments not addressing the issues raised for deletion. the very first sentence in my very first post here says "per Malik Shabazz" which covers WP:POINT; the only issue raised by the nom. the rest of my comments have been about my reasoning for supporting "keep". cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 01:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dont care if I get blocked for this, the line nableezy displays his affinity for the palestinian cause, and by association hamas demonstrates that you are an idiot. nableezy - 01:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wookie, did you make it through WP:COI to the part where it encourages people with political opinions on issues they edit to place them on their talk page?

Quite a few of us have raised WP:Notable as our central issue with this post, and suggested merging. However abrasive he may be, making the discussion into a one-on-one by asking, as you did, "why are you pushing solely for deletion instead of a name change or even a merge?" is neither necessary or appropriate. At least four of us have suggested a merge, and this is one collective discussion. I would invite you and others to either justify the analogy's notability by finding reliable secondary sources discussing the analogy's significance, or to address the issue of the merge.--Carwil (talk) 01:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and being encourage to display your political affinities on your user page nullifies the COI? if i displayed an "i support the GOP" userbox on my userpage and went around trying to delete negative information about george bush, what would you call that? second, i am aware others have raised the "merge" suggestion. i wasn't talking about "the four of you" who suggested a merge, i was talking about nableezy. my curiosity about nableezy's motivations are not unfounded nor are they a personal attack. WookieInHeat (talk) 02:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear me Wookie, that's poor wikilawyering. "Interest" in Conflict of Interest is not the same as political belief. It is personal, material interest (personal repute, financial gain etc.), as the policy page makes abundantly clear. Activity on climate change, abortion or the Holocaust would be frozen if we took COI in your sense of the word. Furthermore, equating nableezy's affinity with "the Palestinian cause" with support for Hamas is just another deliberate personal attack. nableezy has indicated it was insulting; your indifference to this speaks volumes. Please show some respect to the editing community by focusing on arguments, not on editors.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

look guys, lets try to take it down a notch, we are getting distracted from the issue at hand. if you have a problem with something i've said, feel free to take official action. otherwise i think we should just let it go. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 02:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More on sources: According to the blog that this article uses, the Hudson Institute piece is also a blog. Which clearly makes it not RS for anything other than the writer's opinion; it cannot be used to form any argument of notability for the analogy. Which this article does. Wookie, or any of the other editors apparently supremely content with the quality and use of sourcing, could you cite OR policy on how the singular lack of secondary academic analyses and the cobbling together of a list of "people who said X" without a secondary source discussing how people often say X does not cause OR problems for the article?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- The article is well sourced, and keeps a neutral point of view of this comparison. However, I believe we can find a better title for this article along with the Israel and the apartheid analogy article. --Hmbr (talk) 12:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikifan12345. --Mbz1 (talk) 21:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Epeefleeche and Markovitz. It seems to be well sourced and very notable. Whether on not one likes the title, the article is about the Hamas and the Taliban analogy. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 04:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Original Essay with clearly POV intent. Carrite (talk) 12:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, on wiki creation, OR, point. Other possible articles along the same line would be 'Israel and Nazi Germany analogy', 'George W. Bush and Adolf Hitler analogy', and an end-less amount of similar essays. This is not the apt way to approach a rename debate of Israel and the apartheid analogy. ('and' should virtually never figure in an article title) --Soman (talk) 02:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are times when "and" intersection articles are appropriate. The important factor is existence of secondary sources. For example, the Israel and Nazi Germany analogy has numerous secondary sources which provide context and analysis (including the ADL, Alan Dershowitz, the European Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism, Antony Loewenstein, Nur Masalha, Antony Lerman, Ron Rosenbaum, and Abraham H. Foxman). The lack of secondary sources on the Taliban/Hamas topic indicates that it is not quite ready for its own article (although it could be a section in Islamization of the Gaza Strip). Perhaps after a few years, there will be sufficient secondary sources, and then the Taliban/Hamas topic could be its own article. --Noleander (talk) 04:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? No secondary sources which provide context and analysis ? This article cites a wide array of reliable sources which discuss the validity of the analogy (some claiming it is true and some claiming that it is false) and report on it's use: the Journal of Current Trends in Islamist Ideology , The Journal of International Security Affairs, Inside Hamas: the untold story of militants, martyrs and spies, Palestinians: Background and U.S. Relations. By Jim Zanotti, Xinhua, the Associated press, Bloomberg, Haaretz, AFP, Jerusalem Post, the Hudson Institute, The Weekly Middle East Reporter, the Journal of Public Economics, Crossovers: Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism, The Australian, Circunstancia, Focus on terrorism, The Spectator, Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, The Washington Times, "Radical, religious, and violent: the new economics of terrorism", The Fundamentalist City?: Religiosity and the Remaking of Urban Space, Adkronos, National Review, Journal of Contemporary Islam, "Banned: a Rough Guide", The New Humanist, the Congressional Research Service (CRS), "Defense Update", "HAMAS and Israel: Conflicting Strategies of Group-Based Politics", "Hamas Rule in Gaza: Three Years On" - Crown Center for Middle East studies, Hamas: The Islamic Resistance Movement By Beverley Milton-Edwards, Stephen Farrell, "Hamas in politics: democracy, religion, violence" By Jeroen Gunning, The council of foreign affairs, The Daily Hurriyet, as well as Khaled Al-Hroub, one of the world's top experts on Hamas. Very few articles in Wikipedia have such high quality sources. Marokwitz (talk) 14:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really. None of the academic texts analyses the comparison in any way whatsoever. That they typically contain a single quote (not from the authors themselves) in a whole book, and their textual availability on google books, suggests they were found in a hurried trawl without the compiler reading them (or worse, not giving a monkeys about what the sources actually say so long as a veneer of RS is provided, but I shall assume the former). The economics article is a modelling of Islamism, not an analogy between Hamas and the Taliban's current actions. The other RS (and the dodgily-funded Hudson blog is not RS) merely quote people who have asserted or rejected a comparison. Assembling a miscellany of quotes like this without secondary analysis either of the idea or of the phenomenon of people making the analogy is original research. No amount of repeating source titles will undo that. (And no, Aaron Klein, a conspiracy theorist and birther who believes Obama is a muslim "Manchurian candidate" (I kid you not) secretly plotting a communist takeover of America , is not RS either, except for his own rather exotic opinions, and I would argue by extension, World News Daily in general, which recycles such conspiracies also is not.) It's very important on Wikipedia not simply to give the appearance of having proper sourcing, but actually to have proper sourcing. Just looking at the titles reference list is not enough. One has to check what the sources on the list actually say. Your comment that "Very few articles in Wikipedia have such high quality sources." made me smile. At least you have a sense of humour about all of this.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources above are disussing the analogy directly, either positively (making the analogy) or negatively (criticizing the analogy). The requirement for notability is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and significant coverage was established. The notability guideline does NOT require that the topic of the article would be the main topic of the sources, though it is the topic of many of them. So for example Berman's economic model (which is not about Islamism, it is about extremism, and tries to create a unified model for the behaviors of Hamas, the Taliban and the Jewish Underground) which is an academic and widely cited work , is a fine source. None of the above sources were taken out of context or distorted in any way. WoldNetDaily is not used for citing any facts in this article, so it's reliability as a source is irrelevant. Sources quoting people who have asserted or rejected a comparison are also fine, this is why they are called "secondary sources". In fact, if both Benjamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas agreed on something important enough that Ahmed Yassin and Mahmoud al-Zahar needed to deny, then this makes the article notable on it's own (Joking of course).Marokwitz (talk) 16:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:POINTy article obviously created in response to the Israel and the apartheid analogy article - the difference being that this one is nothing more than a collection of quotes mostly from Hamas enemies or from op-eds, rather than from credible human right NGOs, historians, major international figures and other reliable third-party sources. Gatoclass (talk) 06:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? No notable international figures? I must be looking at a different list.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No independent, third-party international figures. Israeli politicians and Fatah officials can hardly qualify as disinterested parties on the topic of Hamas. Gatoclass (talk) 04:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh -- I thought you said there were no comments from major international figures. Not that it matters. There is no such requirement that for the views to be notable, the party be "disinterested", as far as I can see.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The views of such people can be notable, but they can't be used to establish the notability of a topic. Otherwise we would have countless articles on what politicians and political commentators said about their political opponents. Obama and the Marxist analogy, that sort of thing. Gatoclass (talk) 10:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. And the material would not lack but what would lack are valuable secondary sources. This analogy would not be more acceptable than this one. Noisetier (talk) 12:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:OR. This article gathers newspaper quotes where both the word Hamas and the word Taliban can be found but the links don't go further (except maybe ref.4 but instead of words, links are 2 paragraphs.). This article lacks scholar references (specialists of the Islamist movements, political scientists, ...) of different sensibilities who have analysed this "idea", have nuanced it, and have given the common points and the differences between both the Hamas's regime in Gaza and the Talibans' regime in Afghanistan. At best, this "idea" could deserve a few words in Islamization of the Gaza Strip. But without scholar references, this article can be considered for nothing more than a not-published original research, which is not admissible on wikipedia. Noisetier (talk) 21:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research, specifically for overuse of primary sources. I agree with nabeezy's analysis. The topic of this article is an analogy, so every source that makes the analogy, but does not talk about others making the analogy, is a primary source. JFlav (talk) 03:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't understand this nomination or the "Delete" votes at all. Isn't it discussed by eminent journalists, analysts, politicians, and Hamas themselves? How is it then not notable enough for an entry? Merging is a different question - tons of Wikipedia articles could be merged and I wouldn't be opposed to that. But there's lots of good information here, why remove it? OmarKhayyam (talk) 13:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Omar - I see you're very new on wikipedia - welcome. The problem is that (a) it isn't discussed at all. It looks like someone went and trawled the internet for sources where "Hamas" and "Taliban" appear together, and then formatted the sources nicely. Alas, the content of those sources which pass muster (and quite a few don't) simply don't provide any analysis of the article subject. It's a bit like dressing up a dog in pink and insisting it's a barbie doll. (b) Collections of quotes might mean nothing at all (cf. confirmation bias), so wikipedia requires good secondary sources (real-life independent experts) that have analysed the pattern of such quotes - and such a source has not been found. We have a rule called no original research, which this article violates, amongst other violations.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't Prof. Yezid Sayigh of Brandeis University count? Mahmoud Abbas? Khaled Abu Toameh? Chris McGreal reporting for The Guardian from Gaza City? Turkey's Hurriyet Daily News? Benjamin Netanyahu? Mark Regev? And whether or not this or other articles violate "Original Research" is I'm sure open to interpretation. Surely many Wikipedia articles are "original research", and it's just a case of "mob rule" as to which ones get designated as such. I just don't like the idea of such a huge swath of sourced content being removed is all. OmarKhayyam (talk) 16:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know the article very well but maybe not wikipeadia working principles. Yezid Sayigh, the first one you name, hasn't written an article about this analogy. The paper referenced in the article asks the question "Erdokan or Taliban" but he doesn't develop this thesis and just describes how Hamas manage Gaza strip. The question remains : where are the (reliable) secondary sources that develop this analogy thesis ? The article is currently an Original Research gathering numerous quotes from here and there. Noisetier (talk) 16:48, 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. Tone 12:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gair mumkin[edit]

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

Contested csd; currently this is nothing more than a poorly worded dictionary definition. Perhaps should be transwikied. A direct copy of [3], although it appears to be ((PD-India)) as a law or judicial opinion. No prejudice against a better worded article. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as completely unsuitable for an encyclopedia article. I believe the correct link for the source is this. The one in the nomination leads to something else. Regardless of whether the material copied is public domain or copyrighted, it is not an encyclopedia article nor will it ever be without a complete rewrite from scratch. There is no explanation as to what "Gair mumkin" is in this article. Nor based on what I can make of the text that is there that this text even defines of discusses it as a topic. -- Whpq (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Whpq. Not even a definition, more like a quotation from a legal code, without any explanation of how it relates to the article title. --MelanieN (talk) 16:42, 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 . I'm calling WP:SPEEDY#A7 on this one. There's no compelling indication of importance in the article. Marasmusine (talk) 20:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gage Marshall[edit]

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

The sources currently in the article are either primary sources or, as with [4] does not even mention the person. Moreover, I could not find any other coverage about this person while doing a couple of basic searches. Notability is not established. –MuZemike 20:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) –MuZemike 20:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —–MuZemike 20:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO, can't find usable coverage for this person. --Teancum (talk) 13:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Why are we even debating this? It's obvious that it was created by a 15-year-old about himself - and was immediately set upon by vandals, probably his friends. I refuse to assume good faith here; I think they are just playing games, using Wikipedia as their template. There is zero verification; the only sources that actually mention the subject are his blog and his twitter account. --MelanieN (talk) 16:52, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010-11 Sheffield and Hallamshire Senior Cup[edit]

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

Following this discussion and this AfD amongst others, I believe that this county competition does not warrant season articles.

The following articles are also listed for deletion:

2009-10 Sheffield and Hallamshire Senior Cup
2008-09 Sheffield and Hallamshire Senior Cup
2007-08 Sheffield and Hallamshire Senior Cup
2006-07 Sheffield and Hallamshire Senior Cup
2005-06 Sheffield and Hallamshire Senior Cup

—Half Price 19:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. —Half Price 19:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per consensus at previous AfDs into parent article. Giant Snowman 01:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - there's nothing to merge here except the finalists, which has already been done. Bettia (talk) 07:40, 1 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 00:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stacy's Music Row Report[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

Non-notable blog of a non-notable blogger. There is a lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources about both. See recent close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stacy Harris and first Afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/STACY'S MUSIC ROW REPORT. I've searched various combination of "Stacy Harris", "widely read", "newsletter", and "Nashville in reference #2 (which is 13-years-old now) to verify the claim to notability and I come up empty. Given Harris' abilities at self-promotion, I think additional sourcing needs to be provided in order to pass the "verifiability, not truth" clause for inclusion. Location (talk) 19:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I too have been unable to locate any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt: given the creation of a second article about this non-notable (and never likely to BE notable) blog. Ravenswing 17:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Website is non-notible, lacks sufficient coverage. Kaldari (talk) 18:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above. No sources found to demonstrate notability. Ravensfire (talk) 04:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Author doesn't meet notability, nor does her report. -- Whpq (talk) 17:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, not notable. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:58, 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. /ƒETCH COMMS / 02:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 European Junior Judo Championships[edit]

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

This is an article with questionable notability. Junior championships are not usually considered notable for individuals, so I wonder if the championships themselves can be notable. Logically, how can they be notable and yet winning one doesn't confer notability? I'm really looking for community consensus. Papaursa (talk) 19:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because the same logic applies. All of these articles lack sufficient sourcing, but my real question is about notability.

2009 World Junior Judo Championships

2010 World Junior Judo Championships

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 19:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Collection of red links trhoughout the article (and I mean 100 links are read and only the town organizing it had an article). So it means it is filled up with non-notable persons, thus an event hosting them is also non-notable. I would say the Template:EJC Judo must go as well.Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 23:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the previous comments. I also see that the original author has removed the AfD tag from some of these articles. Astudent0 (talk) 12:26, 2 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) Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colombo Street[edit]

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

A thoroughly non-notable street. I prodded the article with the rationale of "No evidence of real significance, let alone notability", but the prod was removed without comment by the author. Nyttend (talk) 18:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. A couple of sites support its claim to be the main street of Christchurch [5][6] (though apparently nothing newsworthy happens there). Clarityfiend (talk) 21:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's actually the main street in Christchurch.[7] It runs right into the the Cathedral. Also, nominating an article of a major street in the 2nd largest city of a nation within 8 hours of article creation is not helpful to editors and only serves to discourage new ones.--Oakshade (talk) 06:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No actual evidence has been provided for its being the most important street in Christchurch, and anyway I wasn't the one who originally called for its deletion or the one who restored the prod after the creator removed it. Nyttend (talk) 14:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[8] From the Christchurch "City Layout" section:

"Colombo Street is the main street running nort-south to the Port Hills." (emphasis mine)

And it was you who nominated this article for deletion within 7 hours of it's creation. [9] --Oakshade (talk) 16:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because no solid evidence was presented for it being anything significant: an article that doesn't deserve to stand shouldn't be forgotten about, as this one would have been if I'd only removed the speedy tag. Moreover, claims of being a main street leading to ___ aren't claims of importance, and anyway unsourced claims of being anything aren't good enough for notability. Nyttend (talk) 22:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To me "is considered the main road of the city" is presented as being anything significant. --Oakshade (talk) 00:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Street is notable per location and company. HeartSWild (talk) 10:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Company? Nyttend (talk) 14:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - May be notable in being the main road in Christchurch. Dough 48 72 19:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Being a main road doesn't really make it notable. If someone can prove that important events have happened here then I will probably change my mind. Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep expansions and reading Grutness' essay has made me reconsider. Adabow (talk · contribs) 07:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Moderately strong keep. Notable, historic street, main street of a city of 300,000 people, which means it easily reaches the WP:50k level. It's linked from a considerable number of other articles, too (eighteen, to be precise). Needs expansion, not deletion. Will start that expansion. Grutness...wha? 07:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that similarly prominent streets in other major New Zealand cities (e.g., Princes Street, Dunedin, Lambton Quay, Queen Street, Auckland) are assessed as Mid-importance by WP:WPNZ. This one should be likewise. Grutness...wha? 07:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. If you'd asked me which Christchurch street is the most notable, I would have said 'Colombo Street' without any hesitation. Steeped in history, development of the city often happened on Colombo Street first, it goes through the central city square that is the undisputed city centre, it's the longest straight main street in NZ. In recent history, it was one of the first three bus priority corridors in Christchurch, and is now one of the two areas that suffers most through earthquake damage (the historic strip shopping area through Sydenham; the other one being Manchester Street in the central city). It's also the only street that I know that has its weekly traffic peak on a Saturday night at 11 pm (but heh, that's WP:OR. Granted, any editor not familiar with Christchurch wouldn't know this from the shape of the article when it got prodded. I have no doubt that the article will soon be something much more substantial. Schwede 66 18:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Print references such as Wises New Zealand Guide and Canterbury visitors guide describe it as the main street. dramatic (talk) 20:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - major street in an important-enough town, with sources available. TheGrappler (talk) 00:44, 7 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. Tone 12:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Searchlight Triple Divide Point[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Searchlight Triple Divide Point

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

Not notable. This is a single point on the earth where three different water sheds meet. The only links for Searchlight Triple Divide Point are on Wikipedia or a shadow. While this may well be defined by the USGS, there are about 3,000 features there. I'll contend that on this Wiki, not every peak and wash and point where three watersheds meet is notable. If someone thinks that we need to keep this information, I would not object to the creation of a list article about these. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence is provided to indicate that this is a notable location. Unlike, say, Triple Divide Peak (Montana), it sounds like the watersheds that meet at this point are relatively small, and there may be hundreds of non-notable locations like the Searchlight one. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note—First, Article has been RETURNED to an original form (WHETHER VEGASWIKIAN, cares is improbable-HE NOMINATED A MUSH ARTICLE-(vandalized))..the technique of the VANDALIZER, User:Hike796, first make article into a "mush" of a NON-article, reduced to sentences, and tagged everywhere..(with citations).. then get an ALTER-ego (Vegaswikian) to NOMINATE.. see the example of User:Hike796 on my recent article (NOW RETURNED to its ~ approximate original form).. his "imitation 4-Hatnote Disambiguation article" was here:-(Indian Springs) [10] ; (a 4 article search did not find use of "indian" or "springs")---The present article, and leaving his latest tag (ONLY) is here: (Article).
And note: if Hike796 returns Searchlight, or Indian, or wherever, (Searchlight article now slighty modified/corrected)..I have saved 2nd versions to easily Re-Make the original article before his VANDALIZATION.----
Plus..User:Hike796 just modified his Category:Ivanpah-Pahrump Watershed to modify this region.. the TRIPLE DIVIDE POINT is in the SE...(and there is one in NE, as article shows). and is in category of Ivanpah-Pahrump-Wat.----(a category User:Hike796 created)...
ALSO to be preciese a Redirect Article Page should be made: Category:Ivanpah-Pahrump-Eldorado Watershed... (there are 3-valleys involved)... --(from Author-of-article-Searchlight Triple Divide Point)--.. --Mmcannis (talk) 17:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.---For the Central Nevada Desert Basins-(Author Hike796)... the basins will have Triple Points at various corners, depending on length, direction, or Basins.. the Ivanpah-Pahrump Watershed (with Eldorado Valley) has 6- Triple Points, (at least), Mojave National Preserve region southwest.
And...... the Fact of the Searchlight Triple Divide or IMORTANCE, is that it is the Great Basin Divide border sitting on the Colorado RiverMmcannis (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article has again been returned to a VANDALIZED form. The article is located here-[11].. (from history of page)Mmcannis (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it LEGAL to alter an article like that to get it DELETED?Mmcannis (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly learn about WP:AGF. I resent your false charge that I'm someone's alter ego and clearly I do care about the quality of the content here. But this is not the place to air those issues. This discussion is solely about a decision on the fate of this particular article. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sooo.... Your answer is OBVIOUS, if you can get away with it,,, GO FOR IT...(Thanks for the update)Mmcannis (talk) 19:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability. Kmusser (talk) 19:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.-(Changing a "No Voting status")-(I want to join the cabal). Even though the previous Page has a referenced Peak, describing two dry washes northwest into the watershed, and..a SE, and NE Triple Divide-( 2 Triple Divides) in a valley in the Great Basin, bordering the Colorado River, we should hide these facts.Mmcannis (talk) 23:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The referenced peak doesn't even have a name, how is it notable? Not every random point on a map deserves an article and there's nothing special about triple divides, they're all over the place.Kmusser (talk) 00:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lack of notability. I can see in the page's history see Hike796 turned it into "mush", but even the unmushed versions don't seem to show why this triple divide is notable. Just being a triple divide along the Colorado—Great Basin divide doesn't seem notable to me, at least not for those facts alone. If there were reliable sources describing it as important somehow, then sure. I can't quite recall, but I think there may be some (slightly) notable triple divides between the Colorado, Great Basin, and Columbia/Snake watersheds. Sorry Mmcannis, I do sympathize with your frustration about the vandalism. (and by the way, to editors having trouble with Hike796, note nearly all his/her edits are marked "minor", which can be easy to overlook or not see on watchlists, etc. I know this is off-topic for this AfD, my apologies) Pfly (talk) 02:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of sources. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:15, 4 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 00:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 European Junior Judo Championships - Women's 44 kg[edit]

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

This unsourced article consists of a single line saying that there was a junior European judo championship in 2010 with competitors in this weight class. Even listing the competitors and giving results wouldn't show notability. Junior events are not generally considered notable. Papaursa (talk) 17:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they're also about individual weight divisions at junior world championships. Note that world is misspelled in all of the article titles.

2010 Wold Junior Judo Championships - Women's 44 kg

2010 Wold Junior Judo Championships - Men's 81 kg

2010 Wold Junior Judo Championships - Women's 57 kg

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 17:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete same goes for this as 2010 European Junior Judo Championships. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 23:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all junior championships for one continent are not notable. LibStar (talk) 03:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Individual divisions of junior events aren't notable. Original author seems to have removed the AfD notices from some of these articles. Astudent0 (talk) 12:21, 2 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. Tone 12:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert C. Suggs[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP since early 2008, a search for sources only found results relating to Robert Carl Suggs. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could not find any sources to verify notability, so the article fails WP:GNG. --Slon02 (talk) 23:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with Slon02. No notability.--BenOneHundred (talk) 09:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found several third-party referecnes that meet WP:RS criteria in my search. Additionally, this individual is notable for the position(s) he holds at the institution(s) of higher learning. A concerted effort should be made to properly source the article. HeartSWild (talk) 10:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 14:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Some searches that may help:

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

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Phil Bridger (talk) 14:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Yep, I went through some of the same searches Phil did, and turned up bupkis. A simple "Robert C. Suggs" on G-Scholar turns up a heap of references for a similarly named ethnologist, but this guy? No. I would be interested in seeing the references HeartSWild claims to have found, but failed to put into the article. May I ask what elements of WP:PROF HeartsWild claims this fellow fulfills? As far as his positions go, the criterion is "The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society." (emphasis mine) The small colleges at which Suggs served scarcely qualify as "major academic" institutions. Ravenswing 17:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A simple google searched revealed many articles about this Robert Suggs to me. I'm not sure why others are having problems. HeartSWild (talk) 13:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps you would be so good as to share links to those references with us. You keep claiming that you are finding references to the subject no one else can find, while at the same time saying that a concerted effort ought to be made to source the article. What's preventing you? Ravenswing 13:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unable to find any reliable sources independent of the subject to establish notability. This unreferenced BLP does not meet WP:GNG or WP:PROF. J04n(talk page) 23:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had assumed that being provost of a university would make him automatically notable, but WP:ACADEMIC says not: "Lesser administrative posts (Provost, Dean, Department Chair, etc) are generally not sufficient to qualify under Criterion 6 alone, although exceptions are possible on a case-by-case basis (e.g. being a Provost of a major university may sometimes qualify)." --MelanieN (talk) 23:40, 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. Tone 12:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Vanags-Baginskis[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP since early 2008, a search for sources came up empty. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. —^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 18:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - based on the above ((find)) searches, there doesn't appear to be significant coverage in reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 19:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unable to find any reliable sources independent of the subject to establish notability This unreferenced BLP does not meet WP:GNG or WP:Notability (people). J04n(talk page) 23:39, 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. The argument that proper sources may be found at some point in the future seems like a last-ditch attempt to save this article. Unless and until those sources can be found the article can and should be deleted. Furthermore, the article will be create-protected. Any future attempts to re-create the article should be made by creating a userspace draft that addresses the concerns raised here and at the last AFD. Iff that is done I or anther admin can remove the protection and re-create the article. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asia Pacific Football League[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a procedural nomination, rather than tagging the article again for WP:CSD#G4. This article was deleted following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asia Pacific Football League in May 2007. It was created again within a few months and deleted under WP:CSD#G4. A few months later, the original creator launched the article again. There is still nothing to source the article except primary sources (and those long defunct), nothing to suggest notability for this organization that never took off. The content is not precisely the same, but it has not altered in any substantive way to address the issues raised at the original AfD: there is still no sign of reliable sourcing to verify that this meets WP:ORG. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Not worthy to be deleted. There is plenty information on this topic (despite some of it being deleted) and notes the only known attempt to create an American football league in Asia. Besides, someone already tried to delete it, it was decided to be kept. Why do this again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick lay95 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 31 October 2010

— Note to closing admin: Rick lay95 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only prior AfD on this article closed with "delete". The second creation was speedily deleted. Where did somebody already try to delete it and it was decided to be kept? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. When (and if) the League ever actually forms, then it may deserve an article. But until then, it does not.--Hongkongresident (talk) 00:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete When-and-if passed more than 10 years ago. Although I think this is interesting, and that it would be a great "previously untold story" in the pro football history magazine Coffin Corner, I couldn't find any indication that its press releases and website were actually noticed by the media in the U.S. or in Asia. At best, it got a page in the Dallas Business Journal. Never-before-published information is, by definition, not notable and can't be kept on Wikipedia. At most, it's a lowlight in the career of Preston Pearson. Mandsford 02:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Rick. --BenOneHundred (talk) 10:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "Plenty information on this topic?" From where, exactly? There's not a single independent reliable source on this. ZERO hits from Google News, either current or on archives. Never mind failing the GNG, I say it doesn't meet WP:V. At all. Ravenswing 17:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references. -DJSasso (talk) 11:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ I am attempting to obtain articles from the Dallas Business Journal and the Honolulu Advitisor. You should hold off on anything until they get back to me with the articles in question. Both papers said they would get back to me within the next week on articles about the APFL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick lay95 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 2 November 2010 — Duplicate !vote: Rick lay95 (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.

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. /ƒETCH COMMS / 02:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Capri Anderson[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO. Classic case of WP:BLP1E. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like this was created solely because of the Charley Sheen incident. At this point in time, that's the sole claim for notability and that's not enough for me. Also, on the porn career basis no indication of notability within that profession per the PORNBIO guidelines. And to underscore the nominator's rationale: "Why, yes, this IS a classic case of WP:BLP1E." --Quartermaster (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some minutes ago I have reverted some fake interwikis. But in fact she is notable, see this article or have a look on this really big German newspaper. Every day they currently present a little story about Capri Anderson (with and without Charley Sheen). 78.55.55.121 (talk) 20:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first source is a wiki of unknown authority or reliability (for me) and appears to give a basic filmography and restates the Sheen incident. It doesn't list any awards or anything. The second source comes up as a list of newspapers with no mention of the subject of this article (links may have been dynamically generated and changed) - anyway, I'm just not pulling up a German newspaper article on her on this second link. If her notability can be defended, no problem, but those two sources aren't doing it for me (and I'm just a single editor waiting for other editors to weigh in). --Quartermaster (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to BILD, see above, she has been paid by Sheen with 12.000 Dollars for some hours. Is that normal in the US? I don't think so, or? What's the usual price for a prostitute in NYC/the US, let's say for 4 hours? 78.55.55.121 (talk) 00:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC) btw: In Germany the price starts with 20 bucks (quick, in a car) up to 1200 Dollars (young beauty, stylish bar, one night), but 1500 Dollars is the limit. 78.55.55.121 (talk) 00:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and radically improve. She's a well-known adult performer with over 30 films. The Sheen incident is news and worthy of mention in the wiki but not the hook for the whole thing. Needs a lot of work but there's a viable wiki in here. --78.101.170.162 (talk) 06:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~I can find no cite where it shows she's been in 30 films. In fact, I keep seeing all of these grandiose claims of her fame from anonymous IPs, with all of them (to date) unsupported.~~ The current links in the existing article are borderline spam. --Quartermaster (talk) 19:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BLP1E. Epbr123 (talk) 15:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because she is a well known adult porn star and many people are searching for more information all the time. Wikipedia is the only place where they can get the basic biography about her in a short time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.212.40.212 (talk) 18:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "basic biography" says three things: she was born in 1988; she's a porn star; there was an incident with Charlie Sheen. In my book, that's not a biography, basic or otherwise. The "well known" contention is not being supported by external sources. Known? Yes. WELL known? Hardly.

All of these generic and unsupported statements of notability from anonymous IPs are starting to become annoying. --Quartermaster (talk) 19:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have linked yesterday the German article above, so a native English speaker may put the informations into the article here.

What's the common prize of a whore in the US? 78.55.11.225 (talk) 23:02, 3 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) 03:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shearman & Sterling pro bono work on behalf of Guantanamo detainees[edit]

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

Starting from the name and working its way down, the article is inherently WP:SYNTH There is no coverage specifically on the work this firm did for Guantanamo detainees. brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into an article regarding the legal cases of the Guantanamo detainees. I agree that there is no reason to believe Stimson was referring specifically to attorneys employed by Shearman & Sterling, but in the context of a larger article this implication would not be present. Dcoetzee 17:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article originally had a different title: "pro bono work on behalf of Guantanamo detainees", though even then it covered only these three attorneys. DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A sentence on the Shearman & Sterling page already adequately summarizes this topic. The rest is WP:SYNTH. Uncle Dick (talk) 04:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The title is an unlikely search term, and anyone can add a sentence or two about this elsewhere, if desired. /ƒETCH COMMS / 02:45, 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 all. Per lack of reliable sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Schmoof[edit]

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

I'm not seeing the level of notability required per WP:MUSIC. I can't see significant coverage, nor any evidence that the group charted or won awards. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 17:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following albums by the band:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - I found a couple of interviews and mentions at minor websites (like this) but the band does not have an AllMusic entry and their CDs are not available at obvious international retail sites, like Amazon or CD Universe (though they are on iTunes), and neither has been reviewed by reliable publications. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:55, 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 00:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bike Shaped Object[edit]

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

Non-notable term that fails WP:NEO. None of the references provided even mention the term. Some of the external sources mention it but the only reliable sources just use the word, which is not enough. Some of the other links discuss the term in more detail but they are not reliable sources. D•g ^{Talk to me}/_{What I've done} 16:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Very notable. How can you say BSO is Non-notable? really? have you actually read the article or followed the links? Do not the actions of the UK, US, and french governments mean anything. The fact that the term is plastered all over the internet with about 344,000 Google hits, see here: [12]--Degen Earthfast (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The references don't support the subject... Urban dictionary cannot seriously be considered a reliable source, but the Guardian article in the external links certainly is. If that and other reliable sources can be worked into the main body of text, the article would be fine. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 17:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While this article does have good information on bike recalls, all that information would fit better in separate article(s) as it has nothing to do with the neologism itself. In the ELs, the Guardian article is part of a blog, the BBC news story does not mention the term outside the comments, and all of the other links are blogs. The only inline citation in the first paragraph links to Urban Dictionary which is not a reliable source. --Elassint (talk) 02:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing sufficient to support this subject let alone title. Shadowjams (talk) 09:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Despite an opening sentence implying that this article will be about the phrase "bike shaped object", most of the content is in fact about product recalls. My first thought was that we could rename the article Bicycle recalls in the United States, but the sources don't discuss that as a general topic, so I think an article on it would violate the no original research policy. Information about recalls would be better included in articles on individual models or manufacturers. EALacey (talk) 17:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Neologism that lacks sufficient WP:RS to verify that it meets WP:GNG … also violates WP:NOR. Happy Editing! — 70.21.16.94 (talk · contribs) _{00:29, 2 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 00:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jarrad Boumann[edit]

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

Does not meet the Australian rules football section of WP:NSPORTS, as he has never played an AFL match, and does not meet the WP:GNG as he hasn't received significant coverage in reliable sources. Also he has been delisted by his club, so it seems he will never meet NSPORTS even in the furure. Jenks24 (talk) 16:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jenks24 (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jenks24 (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly doesn't meet any of the criteria. St Anselm (talk) 07:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet criteria. --Roisterer (talk) 12:33, 3 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) 03:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Still[edit]

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

Does not meet the Australian rules football section of WP:NSPORTS, having never played a professional AFL match. Also does not pass the WP:GNG as he has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. Jenks24 (talk) 16:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jenks24 (talk) 16:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jenks24 (talk) 16:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly doesn't meet any of the criteria. St Anselm (talk) 07:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage, hasn't played in a pro game. /ƒETCH COMMS / 02:50, 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 00:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rene Sta. Cruz[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP since early 2008, a search found nothing beyond trivial mentions. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You couldn't find one useful source for this "hard-hitting media personality"? I am so surprised! -- llywrch (talk) 14:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7; there's basically nothing on Google and any "hard-hitting media personality" nowadays is the equivalent of YouTube broadcaster. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:28, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sayed Hasmat Jalal[edit]

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

This is a tough one, actually. While this is an unsourced BLP since early 2008, I technically did find a couple sources on a search. However, all of them are solely for the lawsuit, mentioned at the end of this article. I can find nothing on anything else, and feel an article on just him and the lawsuit would violate WP:BLP1E. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. cab (call) 04:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I actually added a source verifying the lawsuit mentioned by the nom the day before it was nominated but forgot to downgrade the tag from unsourced to refimprove. The nom has a great point that the article violated WP:BLP1E hence my vote. An article should be written on Dwikhondito, the notable event that Jalal was apart of. J04n(talk page) 00:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He apparently won the Bangla Academy Award, but that's not enough to establish notability, especially as there is a lack of coverage in reliable sources. /ƒETCH COMMS / 02:52, 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 00:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Donaldson[edit]

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

Article does not pass the WP:NSPORTS guideline, specifically the Australian rules football section which states that a player is presumed notable if they have played in an AFL match, which Donaldson has not done and now seems unlikely to ever do, since he has been delisted by Carlton. Jenks24 (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jenks24 (talk) 16:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jenks24 (talk) 16:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly doesn't meet any of the criteria. St Anselm (talk) 07:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet criteria. --Roisterer (talk) 12:34, 3 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) 12:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

USCGA management information systems[edit]

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

Article describes a college course with no notability. riffic (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Individual college courses are generally non-notable, and no independent reliable sources have been provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Generally, I agree - but even if this course is somehow noteworthy (not necessarily notable on its own merits, but worth a mention), and if that can be demonstrated, then I think it would be better to include the course under the USCGA article. I see no evidence of that, however. I do note that several new editors worked on expanding the article - and that the course seems to relate to computer technology (of which Wikipedia would qualify, yes?). So, is it possible that this was/is a class assignment of some sort? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the IPs editing the article all resolve to USCGA.EDU, which is the academy. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best thing our new contributers can do, if they truly have an interest in learning how to use wikipedia in their educational process, is to first become familiar with existing process and policy. riffic (talk) 13:43, 1 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chi (Korn song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG - it needs to have charted as a single, or received some award, or some similar notability -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twist (from Life Is Peachy) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is a non-notable song and an unlikely search term. (It is placed on the Chi dab page). Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:54, 4 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Rhodes (stuntman)[edit]

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

This person does not meet our notability requirements for people. There are no sources to indicate significant coverage of this person and I am unable to find any myself. SmartSE (talk) 14:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I've been reverting template vandalism by article's creator for over a week; appears to be an autobiography, without much in the way of sources, aside from a 1992 magazine interview. JNW (talk) 14:58, 31 October 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 00:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Possible Mother 4[edit]

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

Conjectural article about a rumoured game. Fails WP:BALL Catfish Jim & the soapdish 14:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:HAMMER – The only information I can find is that there is a fangame being made, and [13] is the only thing which has any coverage. Otherwise, the current content is completely unverifiable, and the stuff in that source could easily be included in EarthBound (series)#Other games. –MuZemike 19:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) –MuZemike 19:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find anything to indicate that this is notable. Best to delete unless other evidence provided.--BenOneHundred (talk) 09:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER and WP:CRYSTAL. --Teancum (talk) 17:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The lack of reliable sources makes it to pure speculation. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:50, 4 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) 00:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unconscious - The Real Life[edit]

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

This is an attempt to promote someone's self-published OR essay on a new "philosophical science". The creator has asked several times at the refdesk about how to create an article about his new philosophical concept and been told that Wikipedia is not the place to do it. Ka renjc 13:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC) Just to make it clear, this and this show that the creator's OR on this webpage is the basis of this article. Ka renjc 14:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. Edward321 (talk) 15:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as patent original research. As a side note, I'm sure the creator is also the author but it remains a presumptive copyvio at this time.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from talk page: The user Sushil10s received an intimation (below) form Karenjc 14:01, 31 October 2010: This is an attempt to promote someone's self-published OR essay on a new "philosophical science". Further, as the user asked information four times to you and received encouraging guidelines to publish an article (and published), next intimation (continuation of the above) was: "Nominator unsure of category"

Discussion

The article is entirely neutral and is unique and does not belong to the user. It will remain undisputed and no copyright violation is there as it is unique and goes in an acceptable way with, and according to, your basic article publication policies. These features shall avoid for the article to be in the discussion for 'AfD'.

The indication given to be in AfD is "Nominator unsure of category" which is unreasonable as the category is philosophy and it is also following the concepts of the psychology and mental health. However, as the user was not sure how to add multiple categories and also asked questions four times so it was looking awkward to interfere repeatedly in the Help Desk.

If you like the user to add further categories or editing according to your view, it would be good enough for the user to work upon.

Moreover, there was no sponsorship (or scholarship) for the philosopher and was going through financial hardship. It should be our approach as a human to work for the philosopher's view. This was the reason the user was putting all the efforts (for web marketing) which may not be gentle, to make the philosophy as an acceptable view to all of us.

Again, the article is entirely unique and does not belong to the user; and the user apologize for not being gentle in the web market.

If you can guide what best to do in keeping this article at its place (wikipedia) including the presence in the web world to remain approachable to all, the user would be grateful to you. We all are pleased to use your service for reliable information.

Regards

Sushil10s end of copy Peridon (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I take it to be original research - and possibly by someone who is not a native speaker of English but who has made a very good job writing in it. If I correctly understand the above post that I have copied to here, the intention is not to promote any book, but to promote the ideas contained in the article. Unfortunately, this is not a function of Wikipedia. There must be somewhere for ideas like these to be put forward, but I don't know where this is. If anyone else does, please say. Peridon (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sorry, but, as we keep explaining, Wikipedia does not publish original work. Sushi110s, why not publish it at Wikademia, which does welcome original work? JohnCD (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also copied from talk page: Wikipedia

Your conclusion is obvious as you are the only podium for the worldwide accepted and reliable source of knowledge, however, the intention of deletion is still unclear to the user. If an article which does not violate the copyright law and certainly remains undisputed, we shall accept it.

Further, all the concepts are within the set regions of philosophy, psychology, mental health and follows them and there is no difference as far as the conclusion is concerned. The only difference of the conclusion that you are with is promoting the idea.

If it needs to be edited and requires certain changes to make the conclusion neutral, i.e, "the user is not promoting the idea", we may work upon it and can keep the article where it shall remain (in you).

Regards

Sushil10s —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sushil10s (talk • contribs) 17:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC) end of copy -- John of Reading (talk) 21:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sushil, I think you still don't understand why this article is at AfD. To summarize: there is a theory or philosophical concept called "Unconscious - The Real Life", laid out in a self-published website at weebly.com. You are trying to write a Wikipedia article about the contents of that site. But self-published essays are unreliable sources, and new theories (even if they are a synthesis of the work of existing scholars and researchers) are original research. Both are unacceptable on Wikipedia. Are you the author of the material? You do say you are trying "to make the philosophy as an acceptable view to all of us". In other words, you want to promote the concepts to a wider audience. Good luck with that, but you can't do it on Wikipedia. Wikipedia only publishes articles about things that are already known and documented, it discourages people linking to websites they control or have written, and it strongly discourages people from writing about subjects to which they have a close personal link (such as a new concept they have developed, for example). "Unconscious - The Real Life" is at AfD because there's no evidence at all that it describes an established philosophical concept that has been covered under that name in books, academic journals, news articles or other reliable sources. Unless that evidence is provided, the subject is unsuitable for Wikipedia. JohnCD's suggestion of Wikademia is a good one. Ka renjc 22:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I don't know why this is taking this much discussion when it's clearly WP:OR. Dismas|^(talk) 00:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, OR/synthesis, non-notable. Hairhorn (talk) 02:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from talk page (part 3):

The user firmly agrees that the site belongs to him, however, he is the editor and not the writer/author of the concept. It is also true that the concepts are steadily collected on the editor's self-made website. This does not affect the article to be deleted as it is an undisputed philosophical concept which defines the existing psychological terminologies and philosophical sciences with the unique logical language in an acceptable manner.

If the deletion has been decided on the basis of the content's availability on the wikademia which was pasted yesterday as of necessity to be on the web (suggested by JohnCD), the user wishes to take it back, if it is the indication.

Again, the philosophy is within the existing categories 'psychology and philosophy' but modified in a logical way and will remain undisputed.

Moreover, if the decision has been taken by the editorial board, the user does not wish to go against the pool of the experts but wishes to serve humanity.

The user is pleased to receive all the replies on the concerned article but your conclusion to remove it is still unclear as it is not following the criteria you proposed.

We, undoubtedly, respect you and use your services.

Regards

Sushil10s —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sushil10s (talk

end of copy Peridon (talk) 08:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've messaged Sushil10s to ask that they use this page rather than the talk page. I don't think we're getting through yet over the reason for the deletion proposal, though. Peridon (talk) 09:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete with assertion of WP:SNOW - Nobody has been able to come up with a single valid argument for the retention of this obvious promotion of original research and synthesis. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - clearly WP:OR and/or WP:SYN. It has to go. ukexpat (talk) 17:24, 1 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 00:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Murdoch University Dubai International Study Centre[edit]

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

Murdoch University Dubai International Study Centre is an unnecessary content fork and fails to meet the notability guidance of Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities/Article guidelines#Faculties and academic colleges. A notice for merge discussion has been repeatedly removed by more than one editor rather than discussing at Talk:Murdoch_University#Merge so forced to raised for wider discussion at AfD. Fæ (talk) 13:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 13:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 13:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 13:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary fork. insufficient sources to demonstrate it is worth a standalone article. LibStar (talk) 00:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of coverage in reliable sources. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:43, 4 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 00:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Waddington (sport shooter)[edit]

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

Possibly a non-notable sportsman. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable. Hairhorn (talk) 20:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 20:47, 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fabulance[edit]

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

Webcomic that doesn't appear to be notable per WP:WEB. Article heavily revised by User:Rosendobrown, the author of the webcomic, see WP:COI. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can see no evidence of notability in any form. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 13:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete List of notable publication dates (with links to the strip) from the Publisher (Echo Magazine) located at the bottom of the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabulance#List_of_Publication_DatesRosendobrown (talk) 13:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC) — Rosendobrown (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. Minor, not notable. QU ^TalkQu 14:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Do not Delete~~ Radio interview and articles present in addition to over a year of publication dates and links. Rosendobrown (talk) 14:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Struck because only one !vote per poster. Peridon (talk) 16:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT Delete! I read this comic every week! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.152.28 (talk) 18:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC) — 68.230.152.28 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That's not a valid reason. See WP:WEB and WP:GNG. Peridon (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The 'Echo': "Though metropolitan Phoenix has a few local gay newspapers and magazines, this is the staple local gay publication" (yelp.com Google blurb). A rather specialised and localised publication - though from the look of it it could go places. Having its own cartoons is a good sign. However, until it achieves wider prominence, there isn't the notability we seek. Even the long-running 'Scouse Mouse' from the Liverpool Echo hasn't got an article. I could see this strip catching on if it can be franchised out to other publications - in which case there would be the likelihood of sufficient referencing. Good luck with it. Peridon (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

note: Fabulance is being nationally published in a coffee table anthology in 2011 through PublishAmerica.

Rosendobrown (talk) 19:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, PublishAmerica is self-publishing. Peridon (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oh it better not be, since I haven't given them one red cent.

Rosendobrown (talk) 02:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I figured they MIGHT be since they haven't made me an offer, yet. But Svelte Publishing (http://www.sveltebooks.com) IS interested and looks to be where I will be taking Fabulance. The talks with them are fairly new, and did not warrant an inclusion for future publication, although after the events of today they are the leading contender.

Look guys, I am the artist and its pretty simple: someone created a Fabulance wiki page a while back and I have no idea who it is. They got a lot of information wrong and were posting incorrect statements about my intellectual property. Every time I have done an interview for radio, magazine or what have you, I always have to end up correcting the interviewer because they get their research facts FROM wikipedia. I am merely here putting a vested interest in the character that I created and am making sure that all knowledge of the strip is accurate and does not defame my property. As for the notables: if I had known that I needed to keep track of every single interview, website, article, etc., JUST so that wikipedia doesn't delete a page that people have been relying upon for information, then I would have done so. Trust me, I will keep track of every little detail in the future. I don't have a press agent, I don't have a secretary or personal assistant do keep track of this stuff for me. All I have been doing is drawing my strip, working on this book deal and trying to maintain a sense of normalcy in an otherwise chaotic life. The success of Fabulance literally happened overnight and I was caught quite unaware, so I am running to catch up to all of the little details that I need to do in order to maintain its momentum, such as keeping tabs on interviews and updating a wikipedia page.

What I am trying to say is that I would very much appreciate it if the Fabulance wikipedia page were not deleted, especially since I just started to correct everything that was wrong with it. This character is growing exponentially with the book deal happening in 2011, as well as merchandising and a possible animated series on the Here! Network. Everything is in discussions right now, so those details are far too premature to post, but they ARE happening. I know that altering a page about my character seems self promotional and self-gratifying, but, like I said, I am just trying to protect my intellectual property. Echo Magazine is not just in Phoenix, though that is where they are based. They have subscribers all over the United States, so Fabulance is more than just a localized cartoon strip.

I implore you, let me keep this page active so that I, and others, may update it as the character grows over this next year, as it has been since November 2007.

Thank you.

Rosendobrown (talk) 02:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No sources to support notability, and has become a serious WP:COI issue, per above. JNW (talk) 02:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I declared my intent and interest, as per the rules, so it is not a WP:COI issue.

Rosendobrown (talk) 03:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is. You're deeply invested in an article about your creation, and apparently don't even see it: "I will keep track of every little detail in the future" is just the sort of declaration that guarantees conflict of interest and lack of objectivity. The article is laden with information, none of it reliably sourced. Until the strip receives ample coverage it doesn't meet notability guidelines; WP:FICT and WP:BK are helpful guides. In fact, the best possible scenario in such a situation is not to write about your own creation, nor to argue on its behalf.... JNW (talk) 03:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. JNW has it just right, above. I'd add that if there have been interviews or published articles where the author has corrected information, we could use those sources to bolster this article. We need links or publication dates, at a minimum, to confirm the source - but coverage goes a long way to showing notability. I'm hesitant to delete just because no one could be arsed into finding the sources. Rosendobrown, if you have them handy, it'd save us some time. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Ultra, I have put links to the Echo Magazine publication with publication dates at the bottom of the wiki page (with each url pointing to that issues strip within the pages of the ezine, which is a flash version of the physical magazine), in addition to an interview with Terry LeGrande on LA Talk Radio, where he reads verbatim the previous wikipedia page (before I made corrections) and my correction in the middle of the interview where I state that Fabulance is no longer fighting crime, although I am keeping the supernatural aspects of the strip, such as being abducted by aliens. So I have already done the two things that you request :) 72.190.122.137 (talk) 18:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the actual coverage is more important than whether the wikipedia article was mentioned (If the article is deleted there will be no problem with misinformation). However, the coverage is the only chance of proving notability. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 00:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well there IS coverage, so I see no issue there. This entire thing started because I stuck my nose into this page so that I, as the comic strip creator, could correct the wrong information that somebody had put on a wikipedia page about my intellectual property. The fact that an interviewer (and many other websites who have blurbs about the strip, which I found in a basic Google search on the name "Fabulance" and ""Rosendo Brown"") used erroneous information FROM wikipedia was enough of a reason to warrant editing, even though I was not the original creator of the wiklipedia page. 72.190.122.137 (talk) 03:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)— 72.190.122.137 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Article subjects are welcome to correct erroneous information about themselves; if the errors are not defamatory, then it's preferable that they use the article talk page to discuss these changes so as not to tread into the brackish waters of conflict of interest. As for coverage, I haven't found a single Google return for an acceptable, reliable and objective source. If someone finds otherwise please add such content. And Mr. Brown, please edit using just one account. As I suggested above, you are welcome to contend on behalf of your notability until the cows come home, but it don't look good to do so. JNW (talk) 17:35, 2 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) 04:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Channel Summer Events[edit]

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

An article featuring completely unsourced content about Disney Channel's various summer programming blocks, which are not notable beyond a small audience and generally forgotten after every year. Article has no sources, reads like a TV Guide and is full of multiple tags for improvement, all of which have been ignored, while "what links here" links are COI notices and talkpage warnings regarding vandalism. According to the original editor's talk page, other articles dealing with Disney Channel blocks (and some under the summer programming vein) were deleted for the same reason. Nate • (chatter) 07:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nom, we are not TV guide. He iro 18:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 24 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) 12:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of reliable independent sources discussing these events. Wikipedia is not a TV Guide. This article contains such information as "Every Morning starting at 9/8c, Disney Channel aired 6 shows from 9/8c to noon/11am c," which seems much less impressive when one considers that most Disney Channel shows air in half-hour time slots anyway. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:12, 31 October 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 00:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of SDFL football clubs[edit]

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

SDFL itself is redlinked; article is pure directory-information (names, addresses, etc.) of clubs, who themselves have no indication of notability. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If we don't have an article about the league, we probably don't want a separate article listing the clubs within the league. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 17:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if the league is not sufficiently notable to warrant an article, then neither is a list of its members. (If the AfD result is delete, can the Category:List of SDFL football clubs also be deleted?) Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If this league were notable then the list could just be put on the league article. —Half Price 17:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable league. Giant Snowman 17:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. If the league itself isn't notable, a list of its clubs certainly isn't either. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - is the league notable? If so, this could be moved to South Dublin Football League and tweaked to be a "normal" league article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted as being non-notable back in February. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Dublin Football League.

In that case delete the article and suggest an AfD/PROD for Park Vale F.C., the only bluelink on this page which actually points to an article about a SDFL club (the others all appear to be false positives) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia is not a directory. Article contains mostly non-notable entries. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:38, 4 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Menage a Twang[edit]

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

blatantly fails WP:BAND. one source in the article is its own website, other sources merely verify info and are not indepth coverage. gnews doesn't show extensive indepth coverage, merely listings. [14]. LibStar (talk) 12:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep The Daily News article is indeed in-depth, as are most of the other articles. Tduk (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "one source in the article is its own website"--there's nothing wrong with that, its quite common, that source just doesn't count for notability. The NY Daily News article is a dedicated article on the band in a major U.S. Newspaper, so the rest of the nominating statment does not make sense either.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 00:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

there is no extensive indepth coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 01:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, I guess you acknowledge that your nominating statement is wrong, which says that the "other sources merely verify info and are not indepth coverage," as the Daily News article by itself disproves that statement. You can't just come up with new rationales when the nominating rationale so easily proves wrong, because I can't assume now that there is no other coverage. Indeed I alread added another source[15] from across the country from New York.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 01:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

one or two articles do not qualify as significant extensive coverage. LibStar (talk) 01:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bad nomination, Lib. This existing source in the article [16] is also clearly in depth. I know that's from a high school publication, though its one of the only notable high school papers in the country. Who knows what else you have missed?--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 01:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

can you assume good faith and not accuse others of bad nominations. let the AfD run. LibStar (talk) 01:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not assuming bad faith at all. Its just a bad nomination-nobody's perfect. The nominating statement is completely wrong.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 01:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed up the sourcing and text and added a number of additional sources.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it is not completely wrong, that is your interpretation. LibStar (talk) 02:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, weakly - It's a bit thin, but the NY Daily News and the New Yorker eke it out. The album cover is going to have to go though, that's a definite no-go per WP:NFCC. Tarc (talk) 13:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with the album cover? I confess I don't know the exact parameters here, but if there was a page on the album itself, I know it would be fine, and since the album is covered within the article on the artist, I assumed that would be OK. If I need to do something else, anyone can chime in and let me know.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 14:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's being used just to identify the band members in the band page, is the thing. If there were an article on the album, or an entire sub-section of this article devoted to the album (like how Last Action Hero is setup), then it'd be fine for that infobox. Tarc (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—there is just enough coverage in reliable sources to warrant an article. "Significant" coverage is debatable for several of the sources, but no fewer than three offer exclusive articles. A google search turns up additional articles and so forth. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 20:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

could you please indicate these additional articles which would count as WP:RS? LibStar (talk) 01:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of these seem reasonable when considered as a whole: [17], [18], [19], [20], various blogs, a popular youtube video, various listings, and so forth. My judgment says there is enough to warrant some sort of inclusion, mainly given those articles. It's borderline, but I usually lean toward keep on these situations. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 02:38, 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. Consensus is that there is sufficient coverage to establish notability. All delete opinions came before sources were provided and nominator has withdrawn. Davewild (talk) 18:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Pierce[edit]

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

This article has been in existence since April 2007 without a discussion at AfD. I'm not sure how! Edited primarily by a username that suggests a WP:COI, sourced to facebook and myspace, no indication that it passes WP:MUSICBIO and my searches draw a blank for sources to pass WP:GNG Mechanical digger (talk) 23:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although the other delete votes make this a bit moot, I withdraw the nomination based on the sources found below. Thanks to Cunard and Hekerui for finding the sources and cleaning up the article. Mechanical digger (talk) 16:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete. Does not seem notable enough. SYSS Mouse (talk) 00:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Listed at Category:AfD_debates_(Biographical) and Category:AfD debates (Media and music) Mechanical digger (talk) 00:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article was edited today by a reliable source to Chris Pierce. Please do not delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holliston444 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC) — Holliston444 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NM, WP:V, and WP:COI. So full of WP:PEACOCK it made nauseous; much of it is identical to his self-promotional MySpace page. Most of the editing was done by SPAs or near-SPAs. Cresix (talk) 00:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. Edward321 (talk) 14:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep His Allmusic biography sources some of the content (albums, tour with Seal, song use) reliably, the San Antonio Express-News mention him opening for B.B. King, and the Richmond Times-Dispatch and the The Press-Enterprise profiled Pierce, and there are more mentions of concert openings in the Google News archive. Hekerui (talk) 09:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Having an "album" or two these days can mean very little. I suspect any albums are self-produced, which is easy to do with a few dollars worth of technology. If I'm wrong, someone needs to indicate a record label other than "Pierce Records" or "Entak Records", neither of which has a Wikipedia article. I searched Amazon.com and found none of his music for sale (they have a wide selection if you include downloads). Google his name and about all you get is his own self-promotion. He is welcome to have a Facebook page, but I don't consider Wikipedia an appropriate place for him to promote himself. Cresix (talk) 16:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we argue about notability here, not whether an autobio page needs to be restructured. I'm certainly for a cleanup. Hekerui (talk) 16:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And my point is this person does not meet criteria for notablity as a musician. No national chart positions either as performer or songwriter. Mention in a couple of newspaper/website articles as "opening" for another performer does not qualify as "subject of multiple non-trivial published works". No major awards. No "rotation nationally by any major radio network". In short, not notable and using Wikipedia for self-promotion. Cresix (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (music) states: "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria:
1. Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable."
The sources provided by Hekerui (talk · contribs) confirm that Chris Pierce has received such requisite nontrivial coverage in reliable sources. Therefore, Chris Pierce passes both Wikipedia:Notability (music) and Wikipedia:Notability Cunard (talk) 08:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources provided by Hekerui (talk · contribs) have definitively established that Chris Pierce is notable. This article from the Richmond Times-Dispatch and this article from The Press-Enterprise, a Pulitzer Prize-winning newspaper, provide substantial coverage of Pierce. As evinced by the titles of these newspaper articles ("The Fortunate One; Chance Encounter Leads Pierce to Tour with Seal" and "His music's got soul: 'Static Trampoline' has attracted attention to Chris Pierce"), Pierce is the articles' main subject. Cunard (talk) 08:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He does not meet criterion 1 of WP:NM. I'll repeat, mention in a few articles that he opened for a notable performer does not make Pierce notable. The fact that a newspaper that mentions him is "a Pulitzer Prize-winning newspaper" is totally irrelevant. The newspaper didn't win a Pulitzer because of their coverage of Pierce. Pulitzer winning newspapers report marriages and obituaries of thousands of people every year, but that doesn't mean those people should have Wikipedia articles. Cresix (talk) 01:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The coverage of Chris Pierce in those reliable sources is far more than a few mentions as I demonstrated in my initial rationale. Therefore, he passes criterion 1 of WP:NM. Cunard (talk) 07:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on Chris Pierce which is currently an unsourced BLP. Cunard (talk) 08:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the reliable sources to the article and removed unsourced possibly contentious content from the article per BLP. Cunard (talk) 08:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So we have one source exclusively about him, and three others that mention him in the context of touring with or opening for someone. If that is "subject of multiple non-trivial published works" then there are several million musicians who have never had a major chart position or recorded on a major record label who should have articles added to Wikipedia. It seems that everyone is notable for something and should have a Wikipedia article. I once was featured in a newspaper article because I hosted KC and the Sunshine Band one evening when they performed nearby. I think I'll start an article on myself. Cresix (talk) 17:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The two sources I mentioned in my initial keep rationale are specifically about him. Add this to the coverage found by Paul Erik (talk · contribs) and notability is established. Wikipedia is not paper, so all musicians who have received the requisite significant coverage in multiple reliable sources are considered notable. Cunard (talk) 21:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only concerned with what's in the article; not what has been mentioned here but has not been added to the article. OK, so I'll stand corrected. We have two sources about him, and two that mention he toured with or opened for another performer (and maybe a few words about him). So, all I need to do is find one more article about my hosting KC and the Sunshine Band (maybe with some discussion that I jammed with him in his hotel room) and I have the requisite two sources to declare that I am the "subject of multiple non-trivial published works", then I proceed to write an article about myself. Me and about five million more aspiring musicians. Cresix (talk) 22:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, no hyperbole. You long for a cleanup that gives an overview over the actually relevant points? Please be invited to do it :) Best regard Hekerui (talk) 22:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No offense (seriously), but I have much trouble comprehending your meaning in the last two sentences above ("you long for a cleanup"??? -- maybe it's just me), but I have not engaged in hyperbole. So please, no hyperbole about hyperbole. As I understand Cundard's reasoning, having two newspaper articles about a person in the context of their musical endeavors is sufficient to meet the criterion "subject of multiple non-trivial published works", and thus sufficient for their notability as a musician in a Wikipedia article. Once that standard is met, no need to worry about chart positions, recording on major labels, headlining a nationwide tour, writing a major hit for Mariah Carey, or any of the other standards I have used to decide if someone is a notable musician. Cresix (talk) 22:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is an accurate reflection of my reading of WP:NM. Cunard (talk) 07:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, in my opinion, a grossly distorted and overinclusive interpretation. Everyone is not notable. If they were, there would be no need to have Wikipedia guidelines for notability, and Wikipedia would become a magnet for millions of otherwise non-notable people to create articles about themselves. Cresix (talk) 13:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Since this is a BLP and is being worked on another week's discussion would be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 11:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Based on his press coverage:[21][22][23] He and his album Static Trampoline also received mentions in the Boston Herald, Los Angeles Times and Winston Salem Journal. [24] Eudemis (talk) 14:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:MUSICBIO criterion #1. I added a couple more citations as well. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:44, 3 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 Withdrawn due to sources presented by User:Eudemis Michig (talk) 15:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Smart[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP (since May 2008) on a college basketball coach. I was unable to find any reliable sources with which to improve the article. Couldn't find a source to verify that he had acted as assistant coach to the national team. Michig (talk) 09:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, I'm thinking it might be hoax, I cannot find any references to the trophy much less the man. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His coverage is all on the sports pages. [25][26][27][28][29]For a summary of his achievements see:[30] He’s the John Wooden of Canadian basketball apparently. His participation as national assistant coach can be sourced here: [31]Eudemis (talk) 14:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I bow to your kung fu. Looks fixable. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough for me. Thanks for your efforts.--Michig (talk) 15:17, 31 October 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 00:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black Eyed Kids[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

In spite of two previous AFDs (the article was deleted after the 2nd AFD), this article still has only one reliable source, has not been rewritten to include new reliable sources, and I can find nothing on google or google scholar except Wiki mirrors, blogs and unreliable sources. No idea why the article was recreated with no reliable sources after the 2nd AFD; it should have been speedied as recreation of deleted material; instead it was featured on DYK. Two non-reliable sources were added to this article at DYK by the DYK reviewer who passed the hook, and the article was run on the mainpage in spite of me notifying DYK of the problem. "Sacramento Press" is a volunteer community contributor site with a misleading name, and there is nothing on this site to establish that it meets WP:V. Past AFDs argue that there is one article at about.com, but most about.com articles do not meet reliability; anyone can sign up to write for about.com, some of their writers are qualified experts, while others are "housewives" writing about pet topics (this was reviewed at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard long ago). Two AFDs have not resulted in any reliable sources being added to this article in four years. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find only one reliable source, from Weird U.S. the Odd-yssey Continues (which has already been mentioned in the article). There's another source from Teen Websters, but despite the misleading name, a quick search on the publisher indicates that the content was lifted directly off Wikipedia. There are no relevant/reliable news sources, which is surprising, considering the media are usually gung-ho on stories about paranormal claims. One source is not enough to meet WP:N guidelines. --hkr Laozi speak 09:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Laozi. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 09:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This is recreation of previously deleted material deleted at an AfD discussion. I am thus going to nom it for speedy criterion g4.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 10:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- While I strongly support deletion, the article has to be a duplicate of the previously deleted material to qualify for G4 (which I'm not sure if it is, an admin will have to verify). It may be unlikely though, since this article was created in 2010 and the previous deleted article was created in 2007.--hkr Laozi speak 10:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you guys want to check out the previous version of the article an compare it to the one I made you can do so [here and here. Hope that helps Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 10:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pages 245-249 of Real Vampires, Night Stalkers and Creatures from the Darkside covers this topic in detail. I found it by noticing it is referenced in the Sacramento Press article... Hobit (talk) 11:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep these kids feature in many paranormal films, so ther notability should not be in question. They are characters, and may also exist in the real world. Although I have no sources at this time, they do, as I said above, appear in movies, so at least that should be notable, as minor characters. But that's just my opinion. CybergothiChé ^{word to your mother} 11:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a guy tells an internet ghost story and... that's about it. No in depth coverage of this meme in any high quality sources... anywhere.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Published books aren't high-quality sources? May I ask what you are looking for? Hobit (talk) 12:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability as shown in coverage by reliable sources. Possible candidate for speedy deletion under WP:G4, but as it's been taken to AFD we may as well let it be discussed here instead. Robofish (talk) 12:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I am a little confused how this got to this point, although the article needs serious work. first, it should be covered under Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Now, given the notability criteria there, the following sources can be added [32] - an investigative website, [33], [34] - a fringe news site, [35] - more news, [36] - brief tidbit here, [37]- excerpt from a book covering the subject, [38], [39], [40], [41] - well written article describing possible "mainstream" theories on their existance. How many more do you want? This subject is covered on every paranormal site that I have come across. Remember, the policy states "A fringe theory can be considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory.". I hope this helps. Turlo Lomon (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see one single source in the article, or in the links provided just above, that meets WP:RS (a book that is "published" does not automatically make it a reliable source). If this were truly notable, it would have been covered by reliable sources. For those reasons, it fails WP:GNG. First Light (talk) 17:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --John (talk) 18:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You do realize that at this point the nom statement no longer applies as other RSes have been found? Hobit (talk) 21:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm still not seeing a Reliable Source in the article or in any of the websites linked here. Even if RS was stretched to include "Weird U.S. The ODDyssey Continues"[42] as a borderline RS for this subject, one page out of three hundred that mentions this legend still doesn't make it notable enough to pass WP:GNG. First Light (talk) 21:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've read my share of paranormal stories and urban legends, and I feel this article topic isn't nearly substantial enough to exist on this wiki (maybe on a ghost/paranormal wiki). Entire article is mere speculation on a specific phenomenon that has no significant basis in popular culture, has not achieved widespread recognition, fame, or notoriety, and is about as focused as an article on "Angel Statues" that come to life and attack the kids who are home alone. This explains the lack of reliable sources - there aren't going to be many for something this obscure. And essentially any of the sources linked are going to be original research. ☢Pufferfish¹⁰¹⑨ 04:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article fails WP:GNG and WP:V. The "reliable sources" found above are not reliable. The content guideline being used to support retention of the article requires at least one reliable source, which none of the above are. Sorry, I can't agree to keep this article. Imzadi 1979 → 04:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: These "black eyed kids" sound quite freaky. I though this article was going to be about some kid version of the Black Eyed Peas. As for the AfD discussion, it looks like some sources are being discovered which may merit it being kept.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 12:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; the additional sources show it passes WP:N. Ironholds (talk) 14:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As far as I can see, this passes the notability guidelines. For what it's worth, this article can't be G4d, as it's not a duplicate of the original article. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've noticed sources being listed above, but if you visit the sites, it becomes evident that many of are not considered reliable per WP:RS. These articles are clearly unreliable:
- ParaMyst: No evidence of editorial standards. Seems to just be a collection of scary stories found online. This specific article is a repost of an email.
- Hecklerspray: This is a blog, which is commenting on the About.com article. It's not a separate source, and the About.com article, as has been described above, is of dubious reliability.
- Shop of Little Horrors: This is another collection of online ghost stories. There's no evidence of editorial standards. Not a reliable source.
- From the Shadows: This is a short story, not an account of the phenomenon, and while the owner of the blog has written a book, it doesn't indicate that this story is included in it.
- UFO Mystic: Another short story off a blog, and it's not a journalistic or academic account of the phenonenon.
- BEK: User submitted ghost stories, no evidence of editorial standards.
While these are of dubious reliability:
- About: Nom has discussed the merits of this source. About.com does have some editorial standards, but is this enough?
- UFO Digest and ProfilingtheUnexplained: These articles do describe the phenomenon, as opposed to merely telling a story, but they're from obscure, fringe sites that focus on the paranormal and are unlikely to be reliable. Also, WP:RS reccomends that sources, if they're news sites, come from mainstream or notable news sites. These two are not.
So I retain my delete.--hkr Laozi speak 22:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- About.com has some professional writes, others that just "sign up" to write, no editorial oversight. Others can judge the journalist credentials of the about.com volunteer for this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These paramormal subjects are always tough to judge the sourcing on. But a source cited above [43] is by Brad Steiger is who pretty well known in the field.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Brad Steiger citation is perfectly fine, so is the ODD-ysey one. I don't think that's enough though to meet WP:N, which requires multiple sources.--hkr Laozi speak 04:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The Brad Steiger citation is perfectly fine, so is the ODD-ysey one." - you know "multiple" means "more than one", right? Ironholds (talk) 04:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia requires multiple, non-trivial, secondary sources, of which "the number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources". You should read the sources. The ODD-ysey one is a tertiary source (Wikipedia requires reliabile secondary sources), that merely summarises the ghost story posted on Usenet. With a one page-long tertiary source and a single secondary source, the article does not meet the criteria of WP:N or WP:RS. Supernatural phenomena tends to get a lot of press in the news media, while this event has not gotten any mainstream press, making claims of notability highly dubious.--hkr Laozi speak 08:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to summarize what I have said previously, non-notable nonsense. I'm fairly tolerant about articles on the paranormal, but this is at the low end of significance, even as imaginative fiction. DGG ( talk ) 03:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources are not reliable, and subject is not encyclopedic. Documenting usenet discussions is not our function. Chick Bowen 15:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except when those black eyed kids come after you.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 15:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the sourcing is inadequate to meet WP:GNG. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wp:note wp:rs The Eskimo (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable ghost story posted on usenet. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 23:58, 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. /ƒETCH COMMS / 03:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Characters of Dragon Prince[edit]

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

Contested prod. Fictional characters for which there are no reliable sources to support notability. See related AfD. VernoWhitney (talk) 04:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Character lists for notable series and franchises (such as this one) are usually kept. I agree that the article currently lacks sources, but there's nothing a clean-up couldn't do.--hkr Laozi speak 08:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How will a clean-up of this article establish notability? Are there reliable sources with significant coverage of these characters that I'm missing? VernoWhitney (talk) 12:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For lists, the characters do not have to individually be notable for the article to be kept, only the subject. This is per established guidelines (WP:LSC): Lists are created when the subject is notable but "every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example, List of minor characters in Dilbert or List of paracetamol brand names." References can be extracted from book reviews, which often contain an analysis of the characters (such as this book of reviews from 1993). A list like List of Friday the 13th characters can be used as an example when cleaning up this article.--hkr Laozi speak 13:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm aware of that, thanks. I'm afraid that still doesn't answer my question though. Your google books link was broken, I think this is what you were trying for, which does show some review of the characters. Without the full source it's hard to judge whether it amounts to significant coverage or not, even when combined over a group of characters. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is a list, not a separate article, see the list guidelines (WP:LSC). As long as the subject has been verified to be notable per WP:N, and the the list is not indiscriminate per WP:NOT, there's no policy against including lists for characters or episodes. Lists are encouraged especially for cases like this, where "every entry in the list fails the notability criteria". This is not to say that the list should be unsourced, it still needs to follow WP:RS, but I've shown that there are sources from reviews out there.--hkr Laozi speak 20:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Um... except for the fact that it IS a separate article or there wouldn't be an AfD just for it. If it was part of another article then it would just be editing at the article and not taken here. WP:LIST and WP:STAND are style guides, they address what goes into a list and how it's presented; neither of them address whether or not to have the list as a stand alone article in the first place. The portion of WP:N which links to WP:STAND states "The notability guidelines are only used to determine whether a topic can have its own separate article" (emphasis original). I'm not saying that there's not necessarily a place for the information in the series article or somewhere else, but I don't see guidelines that support this as a distinct article without reliable sources just like any non-list article requires. The book you cited earlier may be a reliable source for the characters, but it's hard to get alot out of the viewable snippets. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        It's still a guideline. And the guideline has an entire section on notability for lists: Wikipedia:SAL#Lead_and_selection_criteria. Also, when it says "separate articles", it's referring to non-list articles. This makes sense in the context: In the following paragraph, it says that articles that don't meet WP:N may merit inclusion into lists. --hkr Laozi speak 21:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - "It IS a separate article". No, it is not. The WP:N even specifically states that WP:N does not directly apply to lists. If it is a list, it follows the WP:LSC guideline, as linked to in WP:N.--hkr Laozi speak 21:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - To sum up what I've been saying, the guideline states that lists are assumed to be notable if the subject has been established to be notable. The primary concern is reliable sources, not notability. However, there is one exception, notability is a requirement for lists of real people, such as List of people from Texas.--hkr Laozi speak 21:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm apparently still missing something, because as far as I can tell, all that the body of WP:N says about lists is that "notability may be used as an inclusion criterion for lists. This guideline does not override that usage", and then a footnote for merging says that "articles on minor characters in a work of fiction may be merged into a 'list of minor characters in ...'". Could you please quote the part that says that N doesn't apply to lists, or that list articles are not articles per se, or that lists are assumed notable if there about something that's a part of something notable? Or could you quote a part form WP:LSC that states that it is for something besides determining the content of a list? VernoWhitney (talk) 01:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think this has been a silly debate over definitions, this may revolve around simple misunderstandings. But from my perspective, you've been cherrypicking my quotes. I never said WP:N doesn't apply to lists. I said it doesn't directly apply to lists. As in, it applies to the topic of the list (which is what WP:N is for), and not every single character listed on it, as you have implied. Nor did I said list articles are not articles, I said lists are not considered to be separate articles, because they're made of individually non-notable entries on a notable topic merged into an entry that is considered notable. Lists are a collection of separate non-notable articles merged into one notable article. And I think the WP:N footnote has made it pretty clear: "Articles on minor characters in a work of fiction may be merged into a "list of minor characters"" This is a collection of minor characters from a notable franchise. Why shouldn't they be merged into a list?--hkr Laozi speak 02:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - My points still stand, but rereading through our conversation, maybe we should just blame this on the ambiguities of language. :P --hkr Laozi speak 02:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fair enough. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Character lists are perfectly standard spinout articles to keep the main article from growing too large. Edward321 (talk) 17:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to sound like I'm badgering, but I have two questions for you: which policy/guideline supports this instead of notability, and how is an 18k article for the series too large? VernoWhitney (talk) 18:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:LIST and WP:LSC guidelines apply specifically to lists such as this one. And the notabiliy guideline links to WP:LSC for cases involving lists.--hkr Laozi speak 20:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I was asking Edward321, I think we can handle only talking to each in one place on this page and not two. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Notable author, notable books. Peridon (talk) 21:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, notable author, notable books. That's not the question. The question is notable characters? VernoWhitney (talk) 21:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If a book that's notable doesn't have notable characters, it's probably a dictionary (or a maths textbook...). :) Peridon (talk) 22:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per hkr and because wikipedia usually allows character lists for franchises/trilogies etc (because having one list of barely notable entries is preferable to 20 individual article of barely/non-notable characters, sort of a compromise that has worked for the last two years). Optional rename to List of Dragon Prince characters to make clear this is a list, not an article where WP:N would directly apply. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sounds like a good idea (the rename). Peridon (talk) 11:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I believe a merge is only appropriate if there is content in the article that is suitable to be included somewhere else. This is nothing but sourceless, in-universe plot summary and I do not think it improves the encyclopedia to put any of its contents anywhere. Reyk _YO! 22:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So far from deletion, this is the ideal way to handle this sort of content. The rule about notability does not apply to article content, and the way to handle possibly sub-notable content is a combination article. The characters that are notable, can of course justify separate articles. DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the original series is notable enough for an article, spinning off the list of characters keeps it down to a reasonable length. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:09, 7 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. /ƒETCH COMMS / 03:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Global Defense Initiative[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm nominating this article for deletion because there are no independent sources to verify notability. Fails verifiability and notability policy that requires third-party sources. The article is merely a reprint of data from instruction manuals and gameguides from commercial partners. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Command & Conquer: Tiberian series. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 06:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Fictional universes will have limited third party sourcing for the most part, unless it's player or reviewer generated. Most information on the in-universe details will be provided by the developers. As far as notability goes, the entire Command & Conquer series is notable beyond measure. That said, I would support a Merge into Command & Conquer: Tiberian series, however I'm concerned about possible WP:WEIGHT issues that might arise, as GDI and NOD are significant elements of the Command & Conquer universe. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 07:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Nifboy (talk) 20:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The reasoning in the AfD results in a "rewrite-tag" for me. But it doesn't satisfy the deletion. Notability is the same as e.g. Cobra Command.Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 23:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On what basis? There are no appropriate sources that would allow us to re-write the article so that it meets guidelines. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (and possible !vote) - There is a list article for all CnC factions at Factions of Command & Conquer, which I suggest would be a suitable place to redirect the article to. The paragraph there suitably covers the article on the GDI in a manner congruent with our guideline on writing about fiction. If we say that about half of Global Defense Initiative is plot related (a good estimate), that material is covered in our articles on the individual games. The other half is essentially game guide information.
It might even be a good idea to redirect the remaining factions to that faction page, as was planned some time ago. --Izno (talk) 03:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep The nominator has not specified any reasons why this information should be removed completely. I personally think it's notable enough to warrant its own article, but it undoubtedly is notable enough to be included in this encyclopedia, so the question is only whether to keep this is a separate article or to merge it someplace else - which is not a question for AFD. Regards So Why 18:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator: a lack of notability is always a reasonable basis for deletion. However, I would support a merge if that would help to avoid a "no consensus" closure. It looks like all but Lajbi have mentioned merging as a possible compromise. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm... The entire Command and Conquer series is notable, and GDI is a primary protagonist organization within the series (being the primary protagonist organization in 5 of the games in the series). Lacking notability? Not a chance. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 02:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be lacking in something which establishes notability: reliable secondary sourcing. Even so, as I noted above, the article is too much about the plot, while the rest of the information is quite game guidey. Factions of Command & Conquer covers the GDI suitably. --Izno (talk) 02:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's notable, then someone should be able to WP:PROVEIT. Right now there's nothing to WP:verify notability which is a problem. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SoWhy -- I agree that it's notable enough for this encyclopedia, and a merge is a possible alternative (though AfD isn't the place to discuss such a proposal). Swarm ^X 01:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficiently notable plot element for a separate article--and, btw, we can and do discuss whether to merge here. DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 7 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) 23:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet occupations[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete as POV-fork and original synthesis.

Most of the content of the article refers to the liberation of Europe from Nazi German occupation by Allied forces at the end of the Second World War. None of the events listed – apart from the Allied occupations of Germany and Austria – is universally recognized as an "occupation". The article twists its source material to present an extremist fringe POV. The title precludes the creation of a neutral article.

There is no unifying factor in these events, none of sources used discuss the topic of "Soviet occupations" in general. Searching for "Soviet occupations" in Google Search, Google Books, and Google Scholar I am unable to find any sources that discus the supposed topic of this article. As such, the article is an unpublished synthesis of published sources. The article is a POV-fork of Allied occupation of Europe, that was deleted earlier. The original synthesis presented in the article is equal to the claim, that Western Europe is currently under US military occupation. (We do not even have an article named United States occupations, although there are several articles with United States occupation of... in their name.) Other articles that present the same material from a different POV include Eastern Bloc, Iron Curtain, Warsaw Pact, Military history of the Soviet Union, and Evil empire

This article was nominated for deletion in October 2007. The WP:EEML arbitration case raises the possibility, that the previous discussion was affected by improper coordination. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Petri Krohn (talk) 01:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While there seems to be a case for splitting this into several articles as the current topic is a bit too broad, the content seems OK to me (though I'm not all that familiar with eastern European history) and references a large number of reliable sources which call these events 'occupations'. Something doesn't need to be 'universally accepted' to be covered by Wikipedia - when there's different views on something the rule is to cover all the notable views rather than delete the article. Nick-D (talk) 01:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I note that there hasn't been any discussion on the article's talk page since 2008. Nick-D (talk) 01:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Neither has the article seen any improvement, a strong indication that it is unneeded or useless. The article was created to present a fringe POV. After its creator was banned from Wikipedia, the article has received little interest. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 01:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge content to Military history of the Soviet Union. A useful list could potentially be formed out of some of this content at a less POV-ish location such as List of Soviet military campaigns if there is consensus that such a list is desirable. VQuakr (talk) 03:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that the article's subject is somewhat artificial: the content of the Occupation of the Baltic states is combined with other poorly related topics to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated in none of the sources cited in the article (exactly how the policy defines synthesis). However, I am not sure if the article content can be merged to the Military history of the Soviet Union article, because it mostly belongs to the history of corresponding countries. For instance, occupation of Korea tells a story which is quite different from that in the article Division of Korea, and therefore, is a POV fork of the later. The Occupation of Bulgaria section tells almost nothing about the USSR, and is a short version of the Military history of Bulgaria during World War II article (so it is simply redundant). My conclusion:

Delete.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, same as before. Well sourced overview article about various Soviet military occupations. As there is no whatsoever conclusion reached, WP:SYNTH accusations are simply ridiculous. However, I would support moving the article to List of Soviet occupations, as it would describe the content of the article better.

The "unifying factor" is Soviet Union, perhaps the nominator missed this? As for WP:POVFORK accusations, as far as my memory serves me, Allied occupation of Europe was a POINT-y nonsense, that was created as a response to the Soviet occupations...

United States occupations? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Who stops you from creating the article if you think it is needed?

Finally, I need to point out that the nominator has been twice banned for a year for harassing the creator of the article, last time for making death threats.

--Sander Säde 08:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That can not be considered a neutral overview of WP articles. Major articles that this article relies upon are marked as pov-title or pov to reflect that their presentation is mainly one-sided. Here we just have a culmination of the biased presentation in a synthesized article.(Igny (talk) 13:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Move to Soviet military presence abroad or something similar. Keep as per Edward321. Very convincing. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 18:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:POV-ridden WP:SYNTH. (Igny (talk) 12:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Keep I am mystified the nominator was unable to find any sources that discuss the topic as the first GBooks hit is a work with this title that clearly discusses this subject. The term is used in a number of sources as GBooks shows even after you remove the false hits about Soviet job employment and the Books LLC Wikipedia mirrors. There are also lots of hits under the singular term "Soviet Occupation" [44]

The argument of original synthesis was disproved in the last AfD, where it showed reliable sources have grouped the occupations. Grouping together multiple nations that Russia occupied in the same article is no more original synthesis than the creation of the German-occupied Europe article. It is not the same subject as the other articles mentioned by the nominator and so is not a fork, let alone a POV fork of any of them. Edward321 (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, no. The only thing the previous AfD demonstrated was the desire of the WP:EEML members to keep this article. I have yet to see the source which neutrally defines this unified concept of "Soviet occupations". Most of the sources at the Google search are authored (surprise, surprise) by the Baltic authors, so to say the least, this topic was covered using biased sources. I could write the article on Soviet liberation covering pretty much the same events and using the sources from the other side. Keep in mind that "occupation" is inherently POV, and currently WP is being used as a propaganda tool by one of the sides (guess which one) of the conflicts which stemmed from Cold war. (Igny (talk) 21:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Ummm, the previous AfD took place in 2007. There was no EEML in 2007. You can't blame everything on EEML. This whole argument that "I don't like something so I'll just invoke the EEML boogeyman to get my way" has been specious for awhile and by now it's simply become tiresome. Discuss content, not editors, as discussing editors can be taken as an effort to poison the well. (Before anyone says anything about me specifically, please note that I haven't voted here - I'm still going through the article and its sources and atm have no set opinion about the AfD proposal itself).radek (talk) 23:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. —^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 18:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - How would you name it other than occupation? Military forces stationed permanently in a foreign country to support a pro-occupier government and to oppress insurrections fits "occupation" for me. And it does so for the references as well (books, governmental sites, etc). Article isn't anti-sovietist or anti-Russian at all but facts are facts.Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 23:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The neutral term for Baltic states in this context for example is annexation. Other words include liberation (for Eastern Europe), rejoining for Bessarabia, etc. (Igny (talk) 01:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

The word liberation used in the context of implementing dictatorships is not WP:NPOV, it clearly favors the regime. The word liberation used in the context of the act of getting rid of an oppressor is very much NPOV. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 10:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it`s not, use of annexation in this context is considered biased in favour of Russia`s politics by many, excluding myself ~~Xil (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. POV-fork with WP:SYNTH. --DonaldDuck (talk) 01:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A comment on Edward321's google books results. Firstly, google books lists all books, not only reliable sources, so google scholar is more informative. Secondly, google scholar gives 13,700 results for "Soviet occupation" [45] and 16,700 results for "American occupation" [46]. Does it mean that the article American occupations should also be created? IMO, it doesn't. (BTW, similar search in google books also gives more results for "American occupation"). The fact that the term "Soviet occupation" is abundant in literature does not mean that this term refers to some single phenomenon.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reasonable summary article. This is not OR, but straightforward history. DGG ( talk ) 03:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep decent summary article, probably just dosen`t match nominators POV ~~Xil (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Terrible title, "Soviet Occupations" brings to mind Plumber, Painter, Mechanic, Retail Clerk, and so forth. This is more or less a POV-driven content fork, attempting to link together disparate phenomena as the partition of Poland and the invasion of Afghanistan under one handy rubric. Carrite (talk) 12:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever we decide to do with the content, the one thing we shouldn't do is delete it entirely. "Soviet occupations" is a plausible search term so it certainly should not be a redlink.—S Marshall T/C 01:43, 7 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 Royal Humane Society of Australasia. consensus seems clear after the relisting DGG ( talk ) 00:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Ellis Stewart[edit]

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

Delete. Unreferenced, unable to establish notability from web sources. Original article seems to have been created from a family tree. WWGB (talk) 05:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 05:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've found some articles that mention the man - [47] and [48] - they can verify that he lived in Prahran, and that he was a member of the Humane Society and a city auditor, but not that he was the founder of said society. If this can be verified, it would probably be a "keep" (the non-existence of Victoria Humane Society notwithstanding). If not, it's hard to see notability in the existing sources.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 07:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment again - Apparently the Victoria Humane Society later merged to become RSPCA Australia, which would make the VHS a notable organisation.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 07:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure about this connection between VHS and RSPCA. The VHS was established to acknowledge human bravery. It's a long way from animal welfare. There is a different Victoria Humane Society which is based in Victoria, Canada. WWGB (talk) 07:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Found it. It's now known as the Royal Humane Society of Australasia. Its history page makes no mention of a John Ellis Stewart. Looks like the founder was a John Wilks. It seems that Stewart was a member of, but probably not the founder of this society. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 11:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources and non notable. He iro 18:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found "Resuscitation in its earliest form first came to Australia via Englishman John Ellis Stewart, who bought the work of the Royal Humane Society in England with him when he migrated in 1874." and "Stewart established an Australian branch of the Royal Humane Society and developed a manual containing 'Directions for Restoring the Apparently Dead'" in a media release "Media Release: The Royal Life Saving Queensland", 28 October 2005

Then we've probably got enough to verify him as a "founding member" of the society, but the conflicting information regarding whether he was "the founder" leads me to favour merging to Royal Humane Society of Australasia.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 12:38, 28 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, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and merged him into a one-line reference in Royal Humane Society of Australasia. I found a reference that he was a primary agitator for the society to become nation-wide, which warrants a mention in the society's article. However, I don't think he's notable enough for an article in his own right. I guess the question is does this remain a plausible search term? It's doubtful - he doesn't even get a mention on the Society's own history page. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I've seen no one supporting an article for Stewart. Thanks to the good work by Yeti Hunter he now has a place in the article for Royal Humane Society of Australasia. since there is no support for a stand alone article and he is mentioned in that page a redirect is the right result here. duffbeerforme (talk) 16:12, 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. Courcelles 00:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Air Sharing[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails the general notability guideline. Only 2 reviews/sources, one of which is definitely not of sufficient length or reliability. Cybercobra (talk) 09:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 09:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable app. I'm pretty sure this one has been covered in a number of "Top 10 iPhone Apps" lists. See this Google search for 65,000 examples. Yworo (talk) 22:27, 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) 00:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Don't want to insult the nom but I was caught doing this recently. I gave my !vote without looking for other references and going by what was in the article only. We have to do a check before you nom an article in AFD. I did a quick search and found that the app has won a couple of awards and I didn't have to dive too deep to get the references. They have been put into the article, which does pass WP:V and WP:N. - Pmedema (talk) 03:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Pmedema. - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:02, 4 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. No consensus for deletion here. Keeping/Merging/Moving are all options that can be considered elsewhere. Davewild (talk) 13:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Child Life[edit]

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

Journal that existed only for a short period of time. One reference given in article that confirms existence, but nothing more, so impossible to create more than a one-line stub. Journal is not mentioned by the external link provided. One article in the National Froebel Foundation Bulletin is listed on the EL, the Froebel Journal is not mentioned either. The only source confirming that these two are, in fact, successor publications is this link. No evidence of notability, does not meet WP:Notability (academic journals) or WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 09:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a possibility of a move to a successor journal? Abductive (reasoning) 15:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 09:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 09:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep on the basis that this is a stub and requires expansion rather than deletion. It is notable insofar as it is a journal, albeit a short duration one, of the Froebel ~~Institute~~Society. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. Also, why is there no article on the Froebel Institute, if it is notable? Abductive (reasoning) 15:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One cannot have it both ways you know :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge No indication of notability. Reywas92^Talk 02:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge This and the successor journals are all of them independently notable, but it has been our consistent practice to merge in cases like this. I am not sure it is actually a good idea; I think we should follow outside authorities when possible, and library practice is to treat every substantial change as a distinct publication , as is done also by our usual authoritative reference for periodicals, Ulrich's. But it might not be the best use of energy to try to reverse that decision. DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 28 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, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I wouldn't call eight years too much of "a short period of time", as such a requirement would mean that we couldn't have any articles on journals started after 2002, but in fact this journal was much longer lived, being founded in 1899, as reported in these sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But what then of the successor journal? The name change must be acknowledged. Sears Tower was moved to Willis Tower. Abductive (reasoning) 07:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there are two successor journals makes it pretty obvious that this was not just a name change. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Phil Bridger; I'm not convinced that time period is a good way at all of judging the importance of a journal. If the journal was actually used for academic research/debate, stocked in academic libraries, and cited by other authors, that'd do me. TheGrappler (talk) 01:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I never intended my comment on the shortness of publication history to be read as an argument for deletion. I was just providing background information and as such it is relevant: the shorter the history, the more difficult it becomes to meet the notability guidelines. But, of course, in principle a journal that only ever published one single issue can become notable. In this case, it looks lmike the history is longer anyway, as shown by Phil Bridger. One problem remains: there are still preciously few sources that allows us to say anything with certainty about this journal (or the successor journals, as far as I can see) and I have to note that none of the "keep" !votes here have made any effort at improving the current stub. So if this AfD is closed as a "keep" or "no consensus", we'll be stuck with a 1-line stub containing hardly any information (the years of establishment/disestablishment, which probably is wrong anyway). In the past, when suitable sources came up during an AfD that I initiated, I have used those to improve the article and withdrawn the nom. I feel compelled not to do that here, as I don't see how I can improve on the current article, despite Phil's sources. I keep almost 2000 journal articles on my watchlist, but I'll remove this one after the AfD, whatever the outcome. --Crusio (talk) 10:57, 7 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. Courcelles 00:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ashok Kheny[edit]

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

Notability not established. Found only trivial mention in RS like [49], but nothing substantial. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the sources given in the article ([50] and [51]) provide substantial independent coverage of the subject. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 21:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I only count a single reliable source. If you can identify a few others, I might change my mind. Bearian (talk) 21:13, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Google News archive search spoon-fed in the nomination finds loads of significant coverage in independent reliable sources, including, but not limited to [52], [53], [54], [55] and [56]. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:42, 1 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. Consensus is that there is enough coverage in reviews available to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 12:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Glass Cafe[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable book, I cannot find anything to establish notability. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would merge it somewhere It's by Gary Paulson, I would think that proves notability. Does anyone have an idea where to merge it to, in order to maintain the content but place it amongst an expansible subject Such as "Other works by Gary Paulson" or something like that?Sadads (talk) 20:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:NBOOK, as "the book's author [Gary Paulson] is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable". Guoguo12 --Talk-- 20:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question, are you asserting that Paulson as "the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of work would be a common study subject in literature classes"? I do not believe that is the case, I can't recall him coming up at all in the ten years I was in grad school studying literature. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he is mainly a young adult fiction writer. Either way, he has won three Newbery Medals, which is probably enough to indicate "exceptional significance". Guoguo12 --Talk-- 23:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, respectfully, I disagree. Paulsen gets only a handful of hits in Google Scholar, and while I'm sure some of his works are taught, I do not believe that either he nor his body of work are a common study subject in literature classes. Exceptional is a high bar, and although the Newbery Medal is a fine award, I do not think winning that alone would make all of his works notable. In any case, I do not believe Paulsen has ever won the medal, but has rather received three Newbery honors as a runner up to the medal winner. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right about the awards being Newbery Honors. Sorry about that! Guoguo12 --Talk-- 19:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Nuujinn, Paulson is a regularly assigned author in Young Adult fiction. He has left a large impact on the field. At the very least his works should be kept in some form, not matter how small the coverage is for the individual book. As I suggested, though the work could be merged into another area. Sadads (talk) 18:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commment I've found this review in the Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, Vol. 48, 2004 which looks signficant. The review here looks less so. The author (very briefly) mentions the book in this interview. However, according to amazon.com the school library journal and Booklist both reviewed the book when it was first published. While this is not Hatchet, Dogsong, or The Winter Room perhaps there is more out there? Edgepedia (talk) 12:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is certainly enough sources to prove notability, Sadads (talk) 18:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[57] provides even more reviews for the novel. Derild 49 21 ☼ 18:21, 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) 00:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just because something has been published does not make it notable. Need more evidence such as reviews and sales figures and awards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenOneHundred (talk • contribs) 09:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BenOneHundred has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reviews of a book are the preferred RSs for establishing notable and a review in Booklist and LJ meet WP:GNG as well as book specific guidelines. The additional ones make the case even stronger. DGG ( talk ) 00:56, 7 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.