< 19 July	21 July >

Guide to deletion

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, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brony (fandom)[edit]

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

This article is primarily a duplicate of a previously merged article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic cult following into the main MLPFIM one. Given the size of the current MLPFIM article, there is no need to split out the section on the internet fandom. The contents of this article duplicate the existing content in the MLPFIM. Furthermore, by naming it via a neogolism, it makes it even more questionable as a split from the primary MLPFIM article. As the name is already disamb, there is no need to leave a redirect behind. MASEM (t) 23:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are making an argument about the size of the main article. OK, but that doesn't mean anything. The television show Firefly has a section about it's cult status and fandom, along with a independent article called Browncoat that is similar in size as this is, along with being more poorly sourced at that. Browncoat had a deletion discussion and was closed as a keep.

Rainbow Dash (WikiBrony!) 23:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because length is critical here. The Firefly article is about 3 times larger than the MLPFIM, but still manages to include most of the information on the fandom within it. The Browncoat article you note had its last deletion review in 2007, which is an eternity - if it were to be brought to review today, it would likely be deleted or merged. We're not ignoring the fandom, but right now this is all we can say about it from reliable sources (I check this daily to see if more come along); its not very big, what we can about the show is not very big, and therefore, there's no reason to be splitting off any time soon. (We're at 38k, per WP:SIZERULE we shouldn't even be considering it.) --MASEM (t) 23:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, requesting speedy per G7.

Rainbow Dash (WikiBrony!) 00:09, 21 July 2011 (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 result was delete. Sandstein 05:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pantechnik International[edit]

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

The page reads a lot like and advertisement, although it isn't quite WP:CSD material in my opinion. There are some sources in the article, but most of them are primary and as far as I've seen from its ghits, it fails WP:CORP. Rymatz (talk) 23:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 03:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 03:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another privately-held company providing software solutions to shippers like manufacturers, distributors, retailers and logistic service providers advertising on Wikipedia. Referenced to internal sites and patent applications. They might do something specifically important and interesting, but if they can't describe what makes them special without this slantedly vague, or rather, intentionally vague patter, there isn't much anyone can do to help this article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional tone, no reliable sources, no evidence of notability. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 08:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails WP:CORP with no claim of notability--Michaela den (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - This should've been speedy deleted. Second, I didn't find any third-party sources except for the company's website and Facebook page. SwisterTwister talk 03:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep, per Altairisfar's improvements which address the in-depth concerns of the nominator. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 19:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hangout Music Festival[edit]

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

I dont think that this music event meets the criteria for inclusion, the coverage is not in-depth and significant and does not go behond the Routine coverage. Mt king ^(edits) 23:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the references added by Altairisfar are enough to meet our notability requirements. LadyofShalott 23:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The coverage is mostly feature length articles and while many sources are regional publications, a few are nation-wide. Altairisfar (talk) 23:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 00:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 00:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 00:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has in-depth coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. Meets WP:N. —Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 00:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as updated article now has sufficient in-depth coverage in reliable third-party sources to cross the verifiability and notability thresholds. - Dravecky (talk) 07:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to Suicide methods#Bleeding. Sandstein 05:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hesitation wound[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The sole reference is a long paper that contains this exact text: "Suicidal incised wounds are commonly, but not invariably, accompanied by parallel, shallow, tentative wounds, reflecting a testing of the weapons as well as the indecision so often present in suicidal acts. These tentative wounds, also referred to as hesitation wounds (emphasis mine), show a wide range of appearance between cases." A Google search uncovers a record company by the same name, as well as a few other mentions in forensics, but they all read like dictionary definitions - there appears to be no real coverage or significance that would allow this to meet WP:GNG. As a side note, the Facebook interest on the subject (which takes its text directly from this article) has zero likes. Interchangable|talk to me|what I've changed 22:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 05:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Suicide_methods#Bleeding. There are several additional sources mentioning "tentative wound" in the same sense, but not near enough to assemble a separate article on this topic. Also add to Wiktionary. Dcoetzee 05:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep adequately referenced, and Wikipedia can afford to have a short article like this. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Dcoetzee. The term does seem to be in general use, per Google Scholar [1] [2] and PubMed [3]. However, these are all mentions, not significant explorations of the topic. There does not really seem to be any more to say about the subject than the current stub, which amounts to a definition and nothing more. --MelanieN (talk) 13:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Dcoetzee and MelanieN. This is not even a stub, and would be nmore useful to our core readership in the context of also merging "tentative wound" into Suicide_methods#Bleeding. Bearian (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep though it's possible that it should be moved to "hesitation marks." This is a notable topic especially given that with the explosion of evidence procedural dramas on TV (CSI, CSI: Miami, CSI: New York, CSI: Deerfield, WI, and so on) it's talked about more and more. In this case pop culture exposure really did create more substantial notability. HominidMachinae (talk) 00:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this is just a term that needs to be defined, and can be done adequately in the article on suicide.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to India's Got Talent#Season 1. -- Lear's Fool 10:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Msonic[edit]

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

I declined this speedy, but it likely fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. causa sui (talk) 22:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 05:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 05:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to India's Got Talent#Season 1. I don't see significant coverage about them that would establish notabiltiy for an article. -- Whpq (talk) 15:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable (WP:GNG, WP:BAND); only one source of questionable reliability (on a web site listing "one-night stands"). A Google search didn't bring up anything helpful, but also showed numerous other uses of the name, so it doesn't seem proper to give undue prominence to this obscure group as the exclusive, or even primary, owner of this name. Also, if this article is kept, it should probably be renamed "M-Sonic"; many of the Google search references use this name, and the text of the article itself prefers this name too. Richwales (talk · contribs) 02:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Richwales. -- Alexf^(talk) 14:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect not fully notable, but it should be listed on the India's Got Talnt page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jerkcity[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Request for references from reliable third-party publications has been there for over a year. There has been no improvement. Disclaimer: I have removed sections from the article that were entirely sythesized from the primary source (see WP:PRIMARY). Keep !votes from the previous AfD were based on these arguments:

"These other articles only cite primary sources!" - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
"It's useful" - WP:ITSUSEFUL
"Mentioned in Salon; The Comics Journal; Rotten; etc" - To establish notability, coverage must be both non-trivial and from a reliable source.

I like this comic... I will fall over myself to improve the article if someone can unearth significant coverage that can be mined. But I've searched, and could not find. Marasmusine (talk) 21:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete absolutely no hits on Google News. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 05:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete I once knew the mayor of jerk city, but sadly no reliable sources exist beyond trivial mentions. HominidMachinae (talk) 00:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sadly, this is the kind of thing WP:WEB doesn't defend: Internet culture that has not achieved mainstream notability. LiteralKa (talk) 01:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources. KING OF WIKIPEDIA - GRIM LITTLEZ (talk) 09:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For me the relevant guideline here is Wikipedia:Notability (web). I fail to see where this has "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." There is a brief mention in The Comics Journal but this is an interview with one of the comics' creators and in 7,219 words, only 66 words (6 sentences) are about Jerkcity. There is also an article in Salon.com but it has one sentence on Jerkcity and shows one of the characters (not labeled). So these are the two best mentions in reliable sources, and both seem fairly trivial to me. There is a nicely written article on Jerkcity at Rotten.com but I do not see that as a reliable source and the article does not give an author or date or source (if it is a reprint from a RS). There is a Jerkcity book, but it was apparently self-published and I cannot find any reviews of it. I asked on the article's talk page in April 2010 for reliable sources and what I have mentioned here were the best provided - I've looked but cannot find better sources. I do not see how the article meets notability and so !vote for deletion. If better sources are out there, please provide them. Please note that this is copy and paste of my argument for deletionb in the last AfD - not much appears to have changed since then. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete please kill me and this article while youre at it Bsznm (talk) 07:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Jerkcity does not care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.123.118 (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aquarian Age[edit]

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

None of the entries has the exact name "Aquarian Age". Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep two of the entries have "Aquarian Age" combined with an undertitle. So this would be the short form name. Further this is an alternate formulation for "Age of Aquarius" using standard rules of English grammar. (ie. Medieval vs Middle Ages). As this would exist as a redirect anyways, for any of the three entries, it therefore is a disambiguation page. 70.49.127.194 (talk) 04:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 05:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, we should keep this one - the Age of Aquarius is a well-understood term in New Age circles. It can be differentiated from the New Age in having a specifically astrological reference. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 15:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google book search for "Aquarian age" AND "new age" shows 2670 results. [4] Dream Focus 08:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as useful disambiguation - I can easily see that someone might be looking for the card game or anime and not remember the subtitle, or conversely looking for the New Age concept and not think to phrase it as "Age of Aquarius" (if they have never heard Hair, I guess). The only reason to delete would be if we decided that "Age of Aquarius" was the primary usage and put a hatnote on it for the game and anime. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Roscelese. Edward321 (talk) 13:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news and Google book search get ample results for this, it pointing to different things. Dream Focus 08:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All these things could be thought of as "Aquarian age". The shift out of the of form in English is universal, even when in published sources about the thing it is always the other way around. Disambiguations are to help people navigate and should exist when people might enter the term for multiple things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 22:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ĕthiopia Tĕwahĕdo Krĕstyan Orthodox and Judaism[edit]

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

I had nominated this for WP:PROD but an anonymous IP removed the PROD (without explanation, along with maint. tags). I don't think there is anything salvageable here (there's certainly nothing referenced) that could be usefully merged to Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church. Given the diacritics (which I am not even sure are correct) in the article name, I don't think this could even serve as a redirect. I thought this might have qualified for WP:CSD but I wan't sure this met the criteria. Gyrofrog (talk) 20:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. —Gyrofrog (talk) 20:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Gyrofrog (talk) 11:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreferenced hodge podge -- Whpq (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of this is referenced, meaning that none of it can even be merged. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:RS. Richwales (talk · contribs) 05:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced nonsense. OR? -- Alexf^(talk) 14:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No WP:V and possibly original research. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 19:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 22:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

6-plus-6-instruments[edit]

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

No evidence given that "6-plus-6" is a notable type of instrument. While some instruments that fit this description are obviously notable, a web search didn't seem to show this term in general use. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This appears to be a promotion for a term newly formulated by a German named Johannes Beyreuther. He evidently is trying to concoct a term to cover a number of extant instruments which, as already observed, are themselves notable. Up to now, however, I could myself invent a competing term ("symmetrical-hexachord keyboards", for example, or "balanced-scale instruments", or "ambidextrous axe"), and it would be equally viable (or non-viable) as a candidate for a Wikipedia article. I think we should wish Herr Beyreuther all the best of luck with his new coinage and, should it eventually catch on, suggest that he bring it back to Wikipedia at that time.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 05:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTE, WP:INDY, and possibly also WP:NEO. Richwales (talk · contribs) 22:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. -- Alexf^(talk) 14:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 22:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miljan Dojin[edit]

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

This article fails to meet notability. The lede claims the person is an entrepreneur, but aside from servicing and supporting computers in his father's business, makes no mention of anything remotely entrepreneurial. Instead, the article covers primarily a set of sports accomplishments. As a swimmer, there is a claim to being on the national swim team. I suspect that is the junior team. FINA's web site only holds archives to 2005 so it is not possible to verify from official records what competitions he competed in. Trying to find verification from other sources turn up nothing. The most significant claim is that of being a triathlete who qualified for the 2000 Olympics. I can find no indication that he qualified. The article claims he is aiming for the 2012 Olympics, yet I can find no information about him on the ITU athlete search. The only thing I an find is some evidence of entering some competitions: [5], [6], [7] none of which satisfy the WP:NSPORT#Triathlon. Whpq (talk) 20:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 05:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 05:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, as well as per WP:AUTOBIO: I wonder, who could be Dojauk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? No such user (talk) 07:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Beagel (talk) 17:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources at all, despite having been tagged on this issue for a year. I couldn't find any independent reliable sources in a Google search. One Google hit lists him on Twitter with the nickname "dojauk", which (probably not coincidentally) is the name of the WP:SPA that did virtually all the work on this article in 2008 and hasn't done anything on WP since then — so I agree this is probably an example of WP:AUTOBIO. Richwales (talk · contribs) 02:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notable media coverage. I didn't find anything on both Google and Yahoo, except for a linkedin page. SwisterTwister talk 06:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Does not meet WP:NSPORT#Triathlon, qualifying for the Olympics is still not enough. GregorB (talk)
Delete he may have thought about trying to become a contestant in the 2012 olympics, but it appears he did nothing more than entertain the idea. Wanting to be an olympic athlete does not make one notable, you actually have to do things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Hypocholesterolemia. Consensus is that this is a synthesis-ridden content fork. Any useful content can be editorially merged from the history. This does not preclude writing an article about the in vitro procedure rather than the medical condition. Sandstein 05:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cholesterol Depletion[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A piece of WP:SYNTH about the presumed consequences of lowering cholesterol with drugs. In addition, it is a WP:COATRACK for anti-statin writers. JFW | T@lk 20:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 05:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nominator has it right - this is synthesis/original research. Furthermore, it is non-notable fringe science; the major sources supporting the thesis seem to be a lurid ~~unpublished~~ article (no serious journal should ever publish non-neutral language like that infamous household dietary and medical obsession: ‘Cholesterol’) and a self-published book by a dentist. --MelanieN (talk) 13:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Wainwright article was published in Arch Med Sci[8], which is published in Poland and has an impact factor (but no PubMed listing). There are four issues a year. JFW | T@lk 18:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the content is simply hypocholesterolemia, making this a content fork. Although the term has been used in WP:MEDRS it refers to an in vitro process rather than a medical condition, so merging is an inappropriate option. The above noted article is a journal not listed in PubMed. This is original research not supported by reliable sources.Novangelis (talk) 14:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to hypocholesterolemia. Bearian (talk) 18:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not a candidate for deletion It occurs to me even without doing any research that the phrase "cholesterol depletion is non-notable" is an oxymoron. One look at the basic Google search for "cholesterol depletion" shows two Wikipedia articles and then a long list of academic sources:

Effects of cholesterol depletion by cyclodextrin on the ...

Oct 15, 1998 ... Effects of cholesterol depletion by cyclodextrin on the sphingolipid microdomains of the plasma membrane. Ilangumaran S, Hoessli DC. ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9761744 - Similar

Cholesterol Depletion Disrupts Caveolae and Differentially Impairs ...

May 23, 2002 ... By electron microscopy, cholesterol depletion was found to disrupt caveolae. The 5-HT response could be restored by exogenous cholesterol, ...

atvb.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/short/22/8/1267 - Similar

Chronic Cholesterol Depletion Using Statin Impairs the Function ...

Jun 3, 2010 ... We have explored the effect of chronic cholesterol depletion induced by mevastatin on the function of human serotonin1A receptors expressed ...

pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/bi100276b - Similar

Biophysical Journal - Cholesterol Depletion Suppresses the ...

Jan 1, 2005 ... Cholesterol Depletion Induces Solid-like Regions in the Plasma Membrane Biophysical Journal, Volume 90, Issue 3, 1 February 2006, ...

www.cell.com/biophysj/abstract/S0006-3495(05)73109-X - Cached - Similar

Cholesterol Depletion in the ER impairs VSVG ER to Golgi Transp

Here we demonstrate that acute cholesterol depletion in ER ... depletion is achieved by a brief inhibition of cholesterol synthesis with statins in cells...

www.molbiolcell.org/cgi/reprint/E05-02-0100v1.pdf - Similar

So clearly the topic is WP:GNG notable. Since the topic is notable, and reliable material exists that is not synthesis, the WP:SYNTH argument is a content dispute which should not be raised at AfD. (See WP:N#NNC which explains the difference between content policy and notability, and also see WP:DEL which gives the criteria by which an entire article can be deleted for WP:SYNTH, WP:NOR, or WP:NPOV.) WP:Coatrack is an essay based on NPOV. Again, since reliable material exists, this is a content argument that has no relevance for an AfD discussion, any such issues should be handled on the talk page of the article. Further evidence of this is that there are no tags on the article suggesting any problem with WP:SYNTH or WP:NPOV, and none of the 34 references is tagged with any issues.

Regarding the content fork issue, WP:Content fork states, "Since what qualifies as a 'POV fork' is itself based on a POV judgement, do not refer to forks as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing. Instead, apply Wikipedia's policy that requires a neutral point of view: regardless of the reasons for making the fork, it still must be titled and written in a neutral point of view. It could be that the fork was a good idea, but was approached without balance, or that its creators mistakenly claimed ownership over it." So given that there is no claim that we are dealing with an "extreme case of persistent disruptive editing", the content fork argument has no standing.

Regarding the use of this AfD to enact a non-merge redirect from "Cholesterol depletion", the case must first be made that "Cholesterol depletion" is the same thing as "hypocholesterolemia" (the article says otherwise), and the case must also be made that the material at "Cholesterol depletion" doesn't belong either merged at "hypocholesterolemia", or moved to an article with a new title.

Regarding the fringe theory theory, we have a Wikipedia editor defining a "serious" journal based on reading one sentence. Regarding the WP:NOR theory, it is acceptable for an author contributing to Wikipedia to first get material published in a reliable source elsewhere, this material does not then violate WP:NOR. Based on a comment here, the article is missing the in vitro viewpoint. Unscintillating (talk) 04:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see that User:Glynwiki has not been notified as to the existence of this AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 04:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename or merge All the articles Unscintillating listed above refer to "cholesterol depletion" as an in vitro biochemical technique used in lab research. This article is not about that but about hypocholesterolemia in humans. It needs to be merged to there, or to statins, or renamed Cholesterol lowering in humans or similar.--Pontificalibus (talk) 14:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was userfied by WikiDan61 (talk · contribs) (see User talk:WikiDan61 and User talk:Sprinter9 for details)

List of Beynon Sports Surfaces Installations[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic list for a product and/or company that has no main article yet. Even if the company turns out to be significant and notable there is no point in listing these locations. WP:NOTDIR. De728631 (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per this discussion on my talk page, as well as comments made on the nominator's talk page, it is pretty clear the author of this article had intended to create the article in his own user space. I have userfied the article, and left a note on the user's talk page indicating that the article should not be restored to live in its present condition based on the problems the nominator has already noted. (Note that the page did not have an AFD template when I started the move process.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that userfying, must have been an edit conflict during the nomination process. De728631 (talk) 20:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep --Mike Cline (talk) 13:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas DC-7B N836D[edit]

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

The claim to notability appears to rest on the aircraft being the only flying example of the type. However there are and have been many "only flying example of the type" aircraft, and IMO the fact that this particular aircraft - which has been involved in nothing out of the ordinary during its life - is the only flying Douglas DC-7 at the moment and has been written about in an enthusiast magazine devoted to airliner aircraft, does not meet WP:GNG. YSSYguy (talk) 14:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article - I'm sure it warrants a (brief) mention in the parent Douglas DC-7 article but not its own one.GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails to meet the standard for articles on individual aircraft and, because this aircraft will be used for paying passengers seems just a bit too much like spam to me. I agree that a brief mention in the "survivors" section of the aircraft type article would be the best place for this. - Ahunt (talk) 14:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I understand the points and concerns. I believed when I wrote, and still do, that it is a notable aircraft, a unique example of a restored passenger-flying aircraft and this uniqueness, being mentioned in the news, and flown with passengers to different locations make it notable enough for its own article and not a side show off the main DC-7 article. -- Alexf^(talk) 14:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "a unique example of a restored passenger-flying aircraft", unless you mean it's the only passenger-carrying DC-7. There are and have been several Lockheed Super Constellations restored to fly - one which I am involved with happens to be the only one flying at the moment; I am also involved in the ongoing restoration of a Convair 340. There are and have been several Douglas DC-6s restored to fly. There are/have been at least two Martin 4-0-4s restored to fly. A Lisunov Li-2 has been restored to fly. There are and have been several Scottish Aviation Twin Pioneers restored to fly. I could go on... YSSYguy (talk) 00:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the only passenger-carrying DC-7. -- Alexf^(talk) 00:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The two sources are very in-depth and demonstrate passing WP:GNG. Contrary to the nom's statement, an "enthusiast magazine devoted to airliner aircraft" is in fact a reliable source per WP:RS and WP:GNG as it's independent of the topic and has editorial oversight of its content. There's too much sourceable content to be used in the Douglas DC-7 article. --Oakshade (talk) 15:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Too much sourceable content" - while sourced, I don't see a lot of useful content eg the used aircraft dealer or its time spent on an airfield doing nothing although possibly of interest to the enthusiast seems like (unencylopaedic) padding. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, just because refs can be found doesn't make it notable enough for a stand-alone article. The article has been padded out with two paras of deletable info, leaving only two paras to merge and they could easily be cut down into one para. It should have a brief mention in Douglas DC-7 and cite those refs. - 16:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

If there's relevant content to the subject, there's nothing barring inclusion. Certain editors don't see the content useful is pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If secondary sources have written the content about the topic, then it can be included.--Oakshade (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a significant survivor as it's the only airworthy example. Every bit as notable as Avro Vulcan XH558 and Sally B. Why should the warbirds get all the glamour? Mjroots (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was incorrect when I stated it is the "only flying example of the type", as there are 70 still registered in the United States. While I doubt very much that all 70 aircraft are still flying, there is no notability inherent in it being one of a number still earning their keep, regardless of what it is carrying. YSSYguy (talk) 05:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's where we disagree. Being the only one in the world with an FAA license to carry passengers is unique and notable. -- Alexf^(talk) 10:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this is not the only flyer, then Merge into the DC-7 article. Mjroots (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the aircraft notability guideline says "major subject of reliable book or monograph" or "the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the aircraft's builder, manufacturer, owner, or operator, with at least some of these works serving a general audience" I don't whether authors of the guideline wouldl count a magazine article as a monograph, but coverage in some other publications wouldn't hurt. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete although it is the last of the type flying passengers that in itself is not a notable feature, many aircraft are in the position of being last of the type but are not deemed notable. Also note that operators like Air Atlantique Classic Flight have a number of types that are nearly if not last of the type flying passengers which makes the organisation notable rather than the aircraft. Perhaps an article on the Historical Flight Foundation may make more sense which could feature N836D, although as they only have one aircraft that might be an idea for the future. MilborneOne (talk) 16:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We can by consensus deem a topic "worthy of notice", but the notability in this case seems to be by normal WP:GNG. Seems like a plane with a unique story, one that Wikipedia should be pleased to have. It is possible that the encyclopedic value will change with time, but that it true of all encyclopedia articles. It might be reasonable to add a paragraph about HFF to this article, but it makes little sense to me to move this material to Douglas DC-7, as this is an event as well as an airplane. Unscintillating (talk) 02:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline on aircraft uses quite strong language, which I'm quite surprised at, even going beyond the general notability guideline in that it states "...at least some of these works serving a general audience." So this article clearly does not do that. However an argument could, I believe, be made that despite this the general guideline should be applied, and I'm not a fan of the "local" guidelines, so I'd make it. But the sources presented have to meet the "reliable sources" thresholds regardless:

"Rescuing one large piece of history" does not meet the "independent" standard, in that it's an advertisement: "...N836D, the gleaming example on display here at EAA AirVenture Oshkosh, its historic Eastern Airlines livery graphic testament to a time long past."
"A Promise Kept: The Eastern DC-7B Story" is in depth, the (original) source appears to be independant, despite the "book tickets" banner across the top of the page where it's hosted.
"Historical Flight Foundation" doesn't qualify as a "significant" piece, regardless of the reliability of the source, as it is a simple list entry.

We can't have articles with only one source. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 11:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you indicating keep or delete? - Ahunt (talk) 15:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a vote. My opinion of the status of the article (at the time that I wrote it) was fairly transparent, I'd have thought. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that it isn't a vote, but it wasn't clear to me from what you wrote whether you were in favour of keeping the article or not. - Ahunt (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I entirely agree with Aaron Brenneman's comments above about the three sources used in the article at present. But GNews searches bring up this large piece in the Miami Herald and this Spanish-language story in Primera Hora, which if my very basic Spanish is correct is entirely about the plane (unless anyone reading this knows better). There are a few more behind paywalls (partially viewable here). Combined with what's already there, we have more than enough to meet WP:GNG, and since some of these are general newspapers, the stricter essay at Wikipedia:Notability (aircraft) is also met. Amazing what you can find with the right search string! Alzarian16 (talk) 15:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Links added to the article. The Primera Hora (Puerto Rico) article (in Spanish) is indeed about this aircraft and talks about the visit paid to PR. -- Alexf^(talk) 15:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate to see that the sources are only at the bottom. Following the links guideline most of them could/would/should be removed. They should be go into the text where they fit, and that's easiest to do by the person who's found the sources. Immediacy, familiarity with the material, etc.
That being said, those sources appear to me to meet or exceed the minimum standard for "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."
Rock on, Alzarian16, that's the stuff what makes the baby deletionist in me cry big shiny tears. Rock on.

Aaron Brenneman (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added the sources that he found, at the bottom, as I felt there were enough in-line citations and these would not add new material, just more reliable sourcing. As per the other links to photograph sites, I have to make a disclaimer. I did not (as the creator of the article) add any of them as I felt that many photo sites were not viable under WP:ELNO and in one case, some other editor (definitely not me) added a link to my photography gallery (you can guess which one by the name). I definitely did not, and do not have any relation with the owners, just happen to live in the same town and visit the same airport on occasion. No conflict there and would not feel hurt if another editor thought to remove it. -- Alexf^(talk) 17:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A frequent tactic it to have an "incubating ground" on the talk page where those sources can be kept until they get integrated.
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 17:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shifted the various photogalleries to External links, I didn't feel they made the grade as reference sources. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Douglas DC-7 Content must rest on sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you seen the sources linked to above? Mainstream news sources and industry magazines cover this in detail by itself, and there's no lack of verifiability. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 19:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Flintstones (2013 animated series)[edit]

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

Violates WP:CRYSTAL. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 18:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON ~~and my hatred of Seth's attempts at "humor"~~. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with TPH, but it was announced as a going project for the 2012-13 TV season and has sources (both neutral and 'OMG this is the end of Western animation!') to prove it and it's about as bare a stub as we can do for now. Nate • (chatter) 06:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Switch to Delete GS and Rymaltz have good points here and they're right; I'm usually not welcoming of articles created before the upfronts of the next year and we have a mention of it in the SMcF article and guidance template, so that's all we need for now. Delete without prejudice to later creation when it has a known timeslot and episodes in the bank. Also looked more through the history and have concerns because of the article creator, who has a deep talk page filled with warnings for jumping the gun on articles. Nate • (chatter) 23:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I haven't had a chance to look at the sources yet so I'm not sure what to make of this at this point, but bear in mind that according to WP:N, notability is not temporary. If we intend to delete the article in case the show does not air, then the show was never notable enough in the first place and the article should be deleted right now with no prejudices towards its re-creation if/when the show airs. Rymatz (talk) 17:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It seems a bit too soon to give this one an article; it violates WP:CRYSTAL as the nominator stated--GroovySandwich 21:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While it's certainly in development, a lot of things can happen between now and then which would turn it into a non-notable topic: the network could decide not to proceed with the project, McFarlane could abandon it or die, the world could blow up, and on and so forth. It is indeed a WP:CRYSTAL violation even though the article as written doesn't actually make any unsourced claims — all we know at this point is that Seth MacFarlane is working on a Flintstones reboot that might premiere in 2013. I agree with Nate's principle that a proposed TV series should never have its own article until it's actually been officially unveiled at an upfronts presentation — because if anything happens to kill the project in the meantime, then we'll have to come back and delete it anyway. Delete, although obviously without prejudice against recreation if and when the series actually gets picked up. Bearcat (talk) 03:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too soon for an article. The show is two years away and a lot of things could change. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 20:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One issue that people are ignoring is that the project could be delayed to 2014 or later. We do not really know it will come out in 2013 so giving it a year seems to be looking into the future in a way we can not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 19:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Antonio Rosselló Nevares[edit]

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

(Auto-?)biographical puff piece of a minor academic and upstart entrepreneur. Has previously been created under several different titles (Ricky Rossello, Ricardo Rossello) by a sequence of single-purpose accounts (Ericrodz (talk · contribs), Futurex (talk · contribs), Adrianagirlie (talk · contribs), Raulserrano (talk · contribs)), this time Researchpr (talk · contribs)). Several previous deletions under A7 or Prod. No convincing grounds for notability. Academic work is minor; a postdoctoral research associate with a number of respectable publications, but comes nowhere near WP:PROF standards; article cites routine participation in an academic conference as if it were a notable achievement. Entrepreneurial work seems to have little or no substantial outside coverage; what is cited in the article would certainly not justify standalone articles on the companies he is said to be involved with. Finally, he is said to be active politically and in journalism, but there's no notable political career (never held an office or ran for one, merely some speculations that he might do so in the future, being the son of a notable local politician in Puerto Rico). Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 16:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt as spam despite partisan canvassing. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comment by author of the article: I am a new contributor to Wikipedia and the author of the biography on Ricardo Rossello and could not help but add my commentary – I strongly believe that the reasons for deletion are weak and unfair. Further, I think that the guidelines provided for biographies provided by this site are useful but some individuals, such as Ricardo Rossello, have careers that span several different fields and mechanical reference to certain guidelines for certain fields is easy but not necessarily relevant or appropriate.

I have tried to provide a succinct but well researched and referenced article and I believe it meets the three core content policies of having a neutral point of view, verifiable and no original research. The reviewer speculates that the article is autobiographical, which it is not. I am not a relative or friend of Rossello, nor am I him. I wrote the article because I have met Rossello and have heard him give several speeches and have been reading his column and listening to him on radio for years. I am very impressed, as many are in Puerto Rico, with his insights and I was very disappointed to have read that his biography was removed. I do not see the relevance other than for innuendo that there have been other bios created and by single purpose accounts. I am not any of those other users or know who they are.

Part of what is lost in the comments by the reviewer is that Rossello has impressive achievements in a combination of three arenas -- as a researcher, entrepreneur and as a political commentator. This combination is not found and does not fit well into any one category that the reviewer mentions. The reviewer discusses the lack of a political career. That is irrelevant to his notability. I wasn’t presenting him as a politician – he has worked on campaigns, been a delegate for the Democratic party but above all else, he is a very well known political commentator in Puerto Rico. The fact is that this fellow is on radio twice per week on one of the most listened to drive-time radio shows and is a regular writer of op/eds (every two weeks) for one of the largest papers in Puerto Rico, El Vocero. It is a fact that there is speculation about him running for various offices, which is interesting and I thought it should be mentioned – that was not the principle reason for his being notable. Again, he is notable for his commentary and analysis, which is not addressed by the reviewer.

Second, Rossello is an entrepreneur. I would like to point out that the correct word is start-up, not upstart. I think that the article should not be deleted and readers should have the chance to evaluate the merits of the company’s that Rossello has started. More importantly and almost by definition, early stage companies may not have much coverage. I for one believe, as would many in the biotech field, that the focus and products of Prosperous Bio are in a very important area and could have huge potential to save lives.

And finally in the field of science, it is impressive that a researcher has an article on such important and new fields of research as intercellular communication and tissue regeneration on the cover of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Cell-to-cell communication is considered a pioneering field and as Rossello and his collaborators suggest, could overcome some of the difficulties we are experiencing in regenerative medicine, especially in three dimensional tissue, such as bone. As the Puerto Rico Daily Sun, the major English language newspaper here in Puerto Rico, reported on August 9, 2009, his research “is causing a stir in stateside scientific circles.”

Perhaps I have not done a good enough job as an author in presenting the biography of Rossello, but I am truly astounded by the targeting of this biography by this reviewer and others. I have reviewed the many guidelines that are provided on this site and I have reviewed dozens of biographies on this site and I feel that this individual’s career meets and exceeds the guidelines as applied on the site for notoriety. Although I have been a reader of Wikipedia for a long time, I am clearly new as a contributor. Although I am very impressed with the clarity and quantity of the guidelines provided, they are guidelines and are meant to help with the majority of situations. However, the guidelines need to be utilized differently when evaluating the biography of an individual who covers several fields. Careers are unique and I think that this individual has an extremely interesting background in a combination of fields that may not be addressed in the guidelines. Researchpr (talk) 03:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)— Researchpr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep-The subject of this article fulfills Wikipedia's notability requirement in many fields, including his participation as an active politician-one of the four most prominent politicians in Hillary Clinton's successful primary campaign in PR (see multiple mentions and photographs in "Te Quiero Puerto Rico", ISBN 978-1-60484-744-4, a book that chronicles that campaign) and his appearance, along with three other politicians (José A. Hernández Mayoral, Democratic State Chair Roberto Prats and then Senate President Kenneth McClintock) in the campaign's final TV spot. He did run in a competitive primary election where hundreds of thousands voted and elected him as a Democratic National Convention delegate from the Bayamón Senatorial District on June 1, 2008. He js also notable as a political analyst, both in PM drive-time talk radio islandwide, as well as in frequent newspaper op-eds, and as a scientist and entrepreneur. His notability extends to paparazzi-type photographs in Puerto Rico dailies' social pages. Pr4ever (talk) 04:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Principally because he's a rising star in politics[9][10] the press is clearly interested in him. Eudemis (talk) 05:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can not speak of his political exploits personally, other than what I can read in the references provided(which are reputable ones). I can however attest to his scientific ones. He has been featured in several high profile journals, some of which have been cover articles. He has also been invited to speak on stem cell reprogramming in several world renowned conferences. I know this because I used to work with him, and he has been outstanding in his own work as well as with others. He is very brilliant and creative. Here are a few articles I found: [11], [12]IoanOpris(talk) 16:04, 6 July 2011— IoanOpris (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- He publishes stuff. Every academic publishes stuff. He goes to conferences. Every academic goes to conferences. He does his job. I have no reason to doubt he's good in his job, but these are not grounds for notability in Wikipedia terms. Notability criteria for academics are laid out in WP:PROF; I don't see how he meets those. And if he is so notable, either in the academic or in the political fields, how come it's only single-purpose accounts with an obvious agenda of glorifying him that have ever shown an interest in editing his article? There's some astroturfing going on here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment from the author of the article: I think your comments should be held to the same standard as in articles. Rather than discussing his notability you are resorting to a discussion of who has made comments and providing incorrect information. I just looked at who has made comments above -- you are absolutely incorrect. I suggest you be a bit more careful before you make false statements and use the word "only". As explained before, I am a new user (single-purpose accounts) because an article appeared in Caribbean Business recently that the biography of Ricardo Rossello was taken down from Wikipedia. I felt strongly this was a mistake and maybe an unfair political "hatchet job" and that got me involved in writing my first article. Other individuals who have made comments do not appear to be doing anything inappropriate despite your statements. You also never addressed my point that this person is involved notably in several different areas. Being very accomplished in several fields, in my view, can be as important as being highly accomplished in one field. Researchpr (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)— Researchpr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    - Hahah, you mean this notice? That's a good one. It basically proves what I was saying, there is a capaign, and you are part of it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More campaigning: [13]. This one is nice too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Comment from the author of the article: Yes that is what I saw in Caribbean Business and that is why I took the time to write a new one. Campaigning would suggest that this was all controlled by one person, which it isn't. Again, I suggest you write your comments to a higher standard of verifiability and intellectual rigorousness. Researchpr (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)— Researchpr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete and salt, fails prof, politician, and GNG. Nothing significant in lexis/nexis. The canvassing and history is troubling. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While the deletion and recreation history got my backhair up, the sources cited by Eudemis above have convinced me that this is a public figure in Puerto Rico worthy of encyclopedic biography. We can nitpick about whether he fulfills this narrow guideline for politicians or that narrow guideline for academics, but the bottom line is that there are cases to be made on both fronts, and the sum of those cases amounts to this being the subject multiple, independent, published sources and meeting Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines. Carrite (talk) 15:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is mostly promotional POV. Much is disingenuous, some borders on dishonesty. Examples follow. Article paints a very distinct picture of Rossello as an established researcher, but he is really a post-doc in the lab of E. Jarvis. (A post-doc position is what one normally undertakes in biomedical fields before applying for the entry-level academic position of Assistant Professor.) Article says he is a researcher with the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (an extremely notable achievement, which by itself would essentially ensure notability), but this is false. The way in which HHMI works is a little unusual: It is only the lab head, Eric Jarvis, who is the HHMI investigator. His staff, post-docs, and grad students are not HHMI investigators and are not entitled to use this designation. Next, the article frames the paper on Connexin 43 essentially as research that he himself led, but this is also problematic. It is easy to see from PNAS that the work was done in the lab of David Kohn at University of Michigan, presumably where Rossello was either a grad student or postdoc. (Kohn is listed as corresponding author, not Rossello.) Article makes something of a production that Rossello has presented work at a conference, but this routine academic activity, even for post-docs, an not in any way notable. The realistic assessment is this: (1) with regard to WP:PROF, Rossello is an early-in-career researcher, with 2 published papers to his credit and a WoS h-index of 2, (2) he very well could become notable in the future, but he is far from it at present, and (3) the level of puffery is concerning because is very likely to mislead those who are not familiar with the norms of biomedical research. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 20:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, after striking my prior !vote. Agricola44 makes a good case that he fails prof, and I think he clearly fails politician, but I agree with Carrite that Eudemis's sources take him to the bar under GNG. We will have to cut this way down to just a paragraph or two. If there are no objections, I'm willing to give that a go later today or tomorrow, depending on how things go. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note from author of the article: I have shortened the article as suggested in the above comment.Researchpr (talk) 01:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note from a concerned editor. I have corrected misleading information in the lead-in, as described above. Agricola44 (talk) 15:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

~~Delete~~ Neutral - Ricardo Antonio Rosselló Nevares sniffs of a typical academic to me. Normally, I am open minded, but since Ricardo appears to have been active in editing the page, the fact that the page still fails to clearly indicate why he is notable suggests that he is not sufficiently notable at this time. Starting a company, publishing some articles, or being the son of a notable person does not make him notable. Wxidea (talk) 06:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC) --- After reading Carrite's comments, considering Ricardo's political activities and election, and the inherently interesting position of being both a scientist and politician, I change my position to 'neutral' with a slight bias towards keep. Wxidea (talk) 06:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The subject is not in the least a typical academic; he falls well below that bar. I find 5 hits on Google Scholar with cites of 13, 6, 4, 2, 1. We would normally require over 1000 cites to attain notability in this highly cited area. The subject is an academic beginner now. He may achieve more later but at present he is nowhere near the level required for academic notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

What's your take on whether he meets GNG? I think we're pretty much agreed on the issue of PROF. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he passes GNG either. There are just two article from 2010 on him saying that he does not intend to seek political office. We don't have articles on politicians who don't hold office. There is also the explicit public canvassing for an article on him in Wikipedia noted above. All in all, a highly suspect BLP that does not attain any category of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 12:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. He's apparently not actually held any notable political office before. As for GNG, two sources are not generally considered sufficient. It's pretty clear that this page is being used as a tool to promote Mr. Rossello's career and potential political advancement. The question is whether this misuse will be permitted to continue. Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 15:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Yet another note from author: Again, I suggest that people providing comments use the same standard that is provided by this site for writers of articles. Statements suggesting that this is part of a campaign or that Rossello is me are simply not true. I disclose my identity on my user page and I am not Rossello or related to him. Nor do I know anyone who has written on this site. Also, as I have stated before, to judge Rossello as only an academic or only a politician is not reasonable. He has made strong contributions in four areas -- research, entrepreneurship, politics (note I did not say as a politician) and as a political commentator. I believe that to have achieved the accomplishments that he has in four arenas is noteworthy and significant. Many of the comments above focus on one piece of information or one field. I suggest that we look at the entire set of accomplishments. I also sense an unfair bias in some of the comments against someone with a famous father. Of course that is not sufficient for inclusion, but let's not blindly ignore it when it can be relevant. For those who have studied politics and particularly in Puerto Rico, it is very relevant. Ricardo Rossello has incredible name recognition, grew up being involved in campaigns and rightly or wrongly has strong supporters and non-supporters as a result of his family. But again, Rossello should not be judged on just one dimension. Researchpr (talk) 01:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you seem to admit, Rossello is not notable for academics or politics taken alone. There's no policy for pulling together a bunch of non-notable activities in different fields and then somehow pronouncing the collective result to be "notable". That seems to be what you're arguing for. Instead, such cases normally default to GNG, but the problem is that there are only a few local news sources, which doesn't satisfy the sourcing requirements. Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 15:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

More concerns. After taking another look, there are even more issues of concern. The "Connexin 43" paper now has 3 citations, the paper's reference information, a link to the paper's abstract, and a link to the journal's table of contents. This is highly misleading to most readers. The sourcing for Auctoritas Labs (which is really just a web page) is a dead link. The article is full of WP:OR, like where he went to high school, etc. I'll stand-down for a short period of time in deference to those proponents who are invited to correct all of these issues. If they cannot, I'll edit the article down to only that information that is verifiable and not misleading. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Sure, but AFD isn't cleanup. If the article is kept, it will have to be stripped to just what the reliables sources say, so it will likely just be a stub or short paragraph. I'm committed to that, and will be glad to help you in that effort. If it's not kept, it will all go aways anyhow, and that's why I haven't cleaned it up myself. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we both agree in principle. My concern is the effect that the factually misleading content has on this AfD. So, I think in this case, it will be somewhat important to clean-up before the debate is out. Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 18:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

By all means, be bold! If anyone objects, they can revert, and your version will still be in the history for consideration. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant keep. The analyses presented above by several editors, specially Agricola44, about his profile as an academic and as a politic are very accurate in that he is not up to par with what is expected by WP:PROF or WP:POLITICIAN, but it is also true that he meets WP:GNG by the amount of notes available at the article and also additional ones (of the same tenure) that I was able to find online. Personally, I think that the coverage he receives is undue, and mostly fueled by the fact that he's the son of the ex-Governor of Puerto Rico, while other individuals with the same profile wouldn't receive so much focus, but as far as Wikipedia's guidelines go he does manage to scrap notability. Also, I'm very weary of considering the sources as "local", if anything because of cultural differences between Puerto Rico and the United States, as well as between Puerto Rico and other Caribbean countries, despite of its political status - frankie (talk) 18:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although the subject may be a son of a governor of Puerto Rico, notability is not inherited. The consensus so far in this AfD is that the subject does not meet WP:PROF or WP:POLITICIAN. The fact that the proponents of the article have advertised in the media [14], which also includes an implied attack on one of Wikipedia's most respected editors, for people to support the BLP makes me suspect that some of the support for the article may be driven by public relations interests. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comment, I've just trimmed the article and tried to make it more neutral. The article may have been part of a PR campaign, but that's not really relevant to this discussion, I think. We can check the contributions of editors to look for SPAs.... --Nuujinn (talk) 00:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you have done a good job. But the only possibility remaining for notability is less than a handful of newspapers articles speculating if the subject will enter politics. That really isn't enough. An article may be appropriate when he gets elected to a significant position. Also, in view of the relationship between the ruling class of Puerto Rico and some sections of its media, these articles may be the result of the same PR machine; there is a doubt whether the sources are independent of the subject. I read this BLP as a PR stunt. Wikipedia should not host it. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you. In regard to "Also, in view of the relationship between the ruling class of Puerto Rico and some sections of its media....", can you point to some information on that linkage (I'm just curious, I don't know much about Puerto Rico)? It seems to me that the four articles speculating on his political ambitions are one aspect, but then there's the McClintock book (which I don't have, so I cannot assess it). The comments in the notes which I removed do not weigh much either way, as they suggest that the coverage could just be passing mention in photos, or something more substantial. But in general, I'm still thinking keep, but I readily acknowledge this is a borderline case, and that there is merit in both the keep and the delete arguments. --Nuujinn (talk) 03:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid I can't point to a link for you; my impressions come from reading the odd media article. The mentions are indeed only in passing and the BLP seems only of local interest. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I bought and read the book on the Democratic presidential primary and on page 144 it mentions "the final TV 'get out the vote' spot in which Hernández Mayoral, Prats, Ricky Rosselló and McClintock speak out". The two photos of Hillary's motorcade on pages 145 and 147 show Rosselló prominently standing elbow-to-elbow with Hillary to his immediate right and McClintock to his immediate left. You don't get a speaking part in the final TV spot or to stand for hours next to the candidate in her final campaign activity if you're not notable, at least in PR! Pr4ever (talk) 03:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a quote from the text of the book showing significant coverage of the subject? Mere mention of the subject and a couple of photos of a motorcade in which the subject appears aren't enough to contribute to notability. --Nuujinn (talk) 04:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While the book is not indexed, and I'm not planning to re-read a 198-page book to find every mention of the article's subject, in the discussion of the final days of the campaign, there is a paragraph on page 145 that states in part "miles de puertorriqueños veían repetidamente el anuncio final de 'get out the vote' en vow de Hernández Mayoral, Prats, Ricky Rosselló y McClintock'" Pr4ever (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have just added requested citations regarding his first concrete foray in elective politics. In addition to being featured with then Senate President MacClintock on the pro-statehood side, and former Senator Roberto Prats and former PDP gubernatorial candidate Jose Hernández Mayoral on the pro-commonwesalth side, by the Clinton campaign for her final TV spot, the campaign chose him to lead the Hillary Clinton slate in the Bayamón district ballot, opposite Sen. Ríos, the chair of the all-powerful Senate Government Affairs Committee, who was chosen to lead Barack Obama's slate. The Rosselló-led slate won the district by a wider margin than Hillary's islandwide margin. His positioning on the ballot and his selection along with MacClintock on the TV spot and standing side-by-side Hillary in her hours-long get-out-the vote final motorcade or "caravana", is proof (to whoever knows and understands Puerto Rico's unique political culture) that notable third parties recognized Rosselló's vote-getting capacity. Pr4ever (talk) 03:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See above, and see WP:RS for WP criteria for notability, ballot positions and standing beside someone notable aren't really criteria. --Nuujinn (talk) 04:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So do I now understand correctly that we're down to arguing notability on the basis of who he was standing next to in a picture? Pr, I'm afraid this argument is just special pleading, especially the part where you say that this could only be appreciated by "whoever knows and understands Puerto Rico's unique political culture". I think the truth is that this AfD boils down to whether we believe he is notable for some speculation in local Puerto Rican media that he might run for office. Agricola44 (talk) 13:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Remaining unsourced and/or misleading information now removed, including several statements that were fact-tagged. Article is now an objective and factual (sourced) description of the subject. TBD whether still considered notable. Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 13:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I was only contributing additional facts that suggest that Hillary Clinton and her handlers did consider the article's subject a notable person and sought to profit electorally from his notability. In politics throughout the United States, presidential candidates' media events are ever more staged. Who introduces a candidate and, yes, who stands beside them, are decisions that are thoroughly discussed and decided in such a way as to augment a candidate's possibilities. On page 121 of the book, there is a very well-crafted photo of Republican House Speaker José Aponte, President Clinton, Senator Clinton, Chelsea and Democratic Senate President McClintock. Do you really think that there is not a political reason for them to appear in that particular order? Many Kremlinologists can tell you that who stood where on the wall overlooking Red Square had great significance in analyzing who wielded power in the USSR. While I would never claim that appearing in a photo determines who is notable, I would suggest that the reason the article's subject was chosen for the GOTV final TV spot, for positioning in the all-important final caravan, as evidenced in the photos, and for placing him at the top of the delegate slate in the Bayamón senatorial district presidential primary ballot is because Hillary Clinton and her handlers did consider him notable, a factor we should not entirely overlook in this difficult process of debating this particular subject's notability. That's all I meant to say with my comment. Pr4ever (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this line of argument is that it is "notability by association", nothing more than claiming WP:INHERITED. I assure you it was far more important for Rossello to stand next to Clinton than the other way around. And I think the fact that we're now reduced to a debate over such an ephemeral one-time event is extremely telling. Agricola44 (talk) 21:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Keep as per Carite, Nuujin, and GNG, says this Grognard taking a random walk through science-related AfDs. $Sharktopus$ ^talk 02:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was intending on closing this discussion, but after reading the article, the sources, the arguments here, and doing some looking up myself, I think that I hold too firm an opinion to do so without prejudice. I should point out that I had never heard of the guy before I came to AfD today! I feel that he does not meet the notability criteria (either the subject-specific ones or the general criteria), and cannot find the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Speculation about whether he would or would not run for office is not enough (he has not held office), being a researcher is not enough, etc etc. This seems to be a case of non-notability in several areas, but that does not add up to notability overall. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think in these discussions on notability that the press gets to decide by how much ink they spill covering him and I think they've decided. [15][16]Eudemis (talk) 18:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at those, the first one is about his wish to enter politics, it is not even his candidature announcement, let alone him actually being elected to a position - and people saying that they would like to enter politics is not enough to meet notability (and there is nothing else in that article about any other aspects of his life); the second one states that he was recognised as "a young agent of innovation" at the MIT Global Start-Up Workshop. However, the Workshop has no mention on Wikipedia that I can see, and the article gives no names for the people who form the workshop, so we cannot really judge how notable or influential they may be, even if President Clinton said that the forum "plays an invaluable role to harness the power of innovation, and resolve the most pressing problems in the world." As such, I cannot see that these two sources are sufficient to show that Nevares meets the notability criteria. Someone saying that they might run for political office is not sufficient, and neither is a group (who may or may not be notable as Wikipedia defines it) recognising him as "a young agent of innovation" (especially when we have no idea who is in this group) PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One only has to read the article to see the rather glaring lack of notability: A postdoctoral researcher, does not meet WP:PROF. A wannabee politician, elected delegate to a party convention: does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. No evidence either that he passes WP:GNG. After all the recreations, I agree with Xxanthippe: salt. --Crusio (talk) 06:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rossello may not meet notability guidlines for any field but he has been covered enough in media articles to be generally notable. If we delte the article someone else will come along, recreate it, and probably do so in a way that is very unbalanced and misleading. If we leave the edited, paired, sourced and straight-forward article we will have one that covers the basics and avoids uncalled for speculation. Rosello does not control the media of Puerto Rico, so their mention of him is not soutrces he controls. If he did control the main newspapers of Puerto Rico he would almost certainly be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 19:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay Puri[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable individual with a minimal level of coverage in media. Doesn't seem to have done much recently, and nothing he has done is of particular note (according to the sources). Subject is a youth, no in depth coverage of his life appears to exist; I think this falls under the purview of BLP1E (i.e. he has done little of significance except being young and doing some web design)

I declined an A7 speedy on this as it did not qualify - and Prodded it. But the article was kept at AFD in 2008 so it is ineligible for Prod. Hence... Errant ^(chat!) 17:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kid has been awarded at national levels and under WP:CREATIVE article passes. Biography of the person's website show that he has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, has won significant critical attention, or represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, but article need expansion and expansion will be minimal Sehmeet singh (talk) 07:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lots of Kids have won national awards in India. The Microsoft Office Specialist Certificate that he reportedly received is more like something you buy - with money. Getting such a certificate isn't a credible enough thing to mention on Wikipedia. And getting a nod from Bill Gates? What a joke! There are millions of kids out there who got more than that! Interestingly none of Gates' own children have Wikipedia article written about themselves. Seriously what is noticeable about this kid? That he designed his website at age six? That he talked with Bill Gates and the PM? That he has a Microsoft certificate? And fellow Wikipedians must understand one thing about the media in India - you can get attention by blatantly paying them to do so. — Finemann (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I dont find any "national level award". The single report in TOI isnt enought to satisfy WP:GNG--Sodabottle (talk) 09:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Rlendog (talk) 16:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leigh Scott[edit]

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

Subject does not fit notability guidelines, and the article is almost entirely unsourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Independentwoman (talk • contribs) 16:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to have way more than enough notable directing credits to satisfy our standards for film/TV directors, even if the coverage is mostly about how dreadful his output is, and directing a recent miniseries for Syfy pretty much seals the deal. Nominator's flimsy edit history, in combination with the vacant rationale, isn't reassuring, either. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Checking the extensive filmography and the related reviews makes it easy to see that he is a notable filmmaker - frankie (talk) 00:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Scott's work gets noted, even if it is not always in a positive way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Malin[edit]

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

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources to verify the claims associated with this script doctor/ghost writer, nor evidence his notability under WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 22:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Beagel (talk) 17:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 00:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. causa sui (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Smashing Pumpkins (album)[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. Lachlanusername (talk) 23:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No good reason to punch holes in an otherwise comprehensive discography; an encyclopedia should be encyclopedic. As WP:OSE says, Wikipedia intends to be a comprehensive reference. In categories of items with a finite number of entries where most are notable, it serves no useful purpose to endlessly argue over the notability of a minority of these items. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have all the other Smashing Pumpkins albums, it'd be nonsensical to remove one at this point. User:PapaDocFerrum (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 18:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz - frankie (talk) 19:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The appropriate notability guideline for this page is WP:NALBUMS, which reads the following:

In general, if the musician or ensemble is notable, and if the album in question has been mentioned in multiple reliable sources, then their officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia.

No question that The Smashing Pumpkins are notable, but the album hasn't been covered at all. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's argument from WP:OSE is at odds with the above notability policy. While I acknowledge and generally agree with it, removal of a single album that received an surprisingly limited release and (unsurprisingly) little coverage does little harm to WP. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 04:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since there are no secondary sources. HW's "poking holes" argument has holes in it itself, as the existence or non-existence of other, similar articles is immaterial. It is entirely possible for "holes" to exist in a discography. I hope that the closing admin ignores these completely weightless arguments. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have no idea what provoked this outburst from TPH. It seems to me rather frivolous to cite WP:OSE for the rule that "the existence of other, similar articles is immaterial" when WP:OSE says quite plainly, in WP:OSE#Precedent in usage, that sometimes that factor is material, if not decisive. And it's a point that's been sustained/supported in other AFD discussions[17] [18] [19] [20] [21]. And it's not simply "my" argument; note that User:Eric444 advances the same argument here [22] and it's cited by the closing admin. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A promotional release that as it stands does not pass WP:NALBUMS. Eric444's other stuff argument referenced above was in addition to the albums charting and receiving coverage from reliable secondary sources. AIRcorn (talk) 04:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete articles need to stand on their own merits, not on the merits of similar articles. This is not any other album of the band and seems to be noticably not covered on paid attention to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As far as I remember wp:albums says delete demos/promos. The article can't go anywhere because the album didn't. Szzuk (talk) 15:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Advance-logistics[edit]

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

Ephemeral project. No independent sources, no indication of notability. Does not meet WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 21 July 2011 (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) 00:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another EU techie research project, that promises great improvements in .... ant colonies: The ADVANCE software will be designed to analyse massive data sets for long term planning as well as rapidly process huge amounts of new data in real time. Data mining, machine learning, and optimisation techniques (such as Ant Colony Optimisation) will be employed to aggregate structured but locally confined data, and extract actionable information to improve local dispatching decisions (e.g.: deadheading minimisation, early detection of missed due-dates, forecast of expected partnership modification).

As a key to incorporating appropriate end-user perspectives and enabling users to interpret and assess automatically suggested decisions, ADVANCE will be designed to integrate human expertise (through cognitive modelling; Bayesian belief networks) with data mining algorithms. Industrial implementations will have the networked road-freight distribution enterprise group Palletways as main piloting partner, involving three different operational and decision levels, and including multiple independent companies on the local distribution levels.

Patent nonsense and complete bollocks. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete not only is not notable, it seems impossible that the sources cited actually have to do with the subject of the article, as they both were written (2004,2008) before the project described began (2010). the text of the article suggests that the sources describe techniques that the developers of the software plan to employ, rather than giving evidence for the statements that are sourced to them. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 19:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

National enterprise network[edit]

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

The article makes no claim if significance or importance other than an award they give to other organizations. Half of sources are primary, the other half I am concerned are press kits. I couldnt find any GNews hits that weren't press releases or about "enterprise networks" which is a broad term used by communications companies. I fear any reliance on GHITS or GNEWS is going to give false positives because of this. I had the same results looking for National Federation of Enterprise Agencies. v/r - T P 16:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Author cannot even manage to tell us what nation it refers to - apparently it is UK but I am a Brit and have never heard of it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 16:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cutout syndrome[edit]

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

Contested prod from a while back. This appears to be a neologism or some other sort of unsourced, made-up definition. There are no reliable sources provided and a Google search only returns links pointing back to this article. TN X Man 16:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable neologism. I have not found reliable sources and none are listed in the article. Edward321 (talk) 13:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete the phenomenon is probably notable, this name for it is not. Maybe a small line in the article on Bug (programming) would be enough. HominidMachinae (talk) 00:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. causa sui (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Androphilia and gynephilia[edit]

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

Non-notable and long unsourced, despite multiple searches; content belongs in Sexual orientation — James Cantor (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have just added sourcing. Jokestress (talk) 15:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sexual orientation (of course). "Androphilia" (the sexual attraction to men) and "gynephilia" (the sexual attraction to women) are both perfectly legitimate terms and are indeed used by RS's. The combination of the terms, however, is WP:OR, and the content is "sexual orientation." By analogy, Acid and Base are pages, but Acid and Base is a redirect to Ph. The cites Jokestress added are examples of uses of the individual words, which is not the issue. ("Acid" and "base" are used by experts, but do not establish "acid and base" as a topic independent of Ph.) Finally, Jokestress' edits also claim on that mainpage that I personally have been advocating for other terms, which is both demonstrably incorrect and a BLP violation, as I already indicated there.— James Cantor (talk) 15:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article is about a notable debate in psychology regarding terminology. For several decades, there has been a push to use androphilic and gynephilic as alternatives to homosexual and heterosexual, especially when discussing sex and gender minorities. As an example of the problem, some psychologists use the term "homosexual transsexual" to describe what others call a "heterosexual transsexual." To avoid this confusion, Ron Langevin proposed androphilia and gynephilia in the 1980s. Since then, many scholars have discontinued use of terms like "homosexual transsexual." One exception is the nominator of this AfD, User:James Cantor, who used the term in his most recent published work in Archives of Sexual Behavior (cited in the article). This article has been included in the transgender sidebar as a key topic for quite some time. The debate should certainly be covered at sexual orientation, but there is too much published on the debate to paste all this into that article. It should be mentioned in summary style with a pointer to the main article. Jokestress (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Since the publication to which I am referring above has been suppressed in the article via a bogus WP:BLP complaint, here is what the article used to say: "The term homosexual transsexual has been used by psychologists including Ray Blanchard and James Cantor since 1989 as part of Blanchard's transsexualism typology."

Here is what User:James Cantor (aka James Cantor) published earlier this month on this very topic: "Blanchard’s prediction follows from studies that have repeatedly shown that the homosexual male-to-female transsexuals are "female-shifted" in multiple, sexually dimorphic characteristics, whereas the heterosexual male-to-female transsexuals are not (Blanchard, 1989a, 1989b). For example, homosexual male-to-female transsexuals are sexually attracted to natal males, express greater interest in female-typical activities (even in childhood), and are naturally effeminate in mannerism. In contrast, heterosexual male-to-female transsexuals are indistinguishable from nontranssexual natal males on these variables. The heterosexual transsexuals are still distinct from typical males in other ways, however, such as by manifesting "autogynephilia"—the erotic interest in or sexual arousal in response to being or seeming female. The consistent detection of cross-sex features among homosexual male-to-female transsexuals, but not among heterosexual male-to-female transsexuals, led Blanchard to predict that the cross-sex pattern would also emerge at the level of brain anatomy and be limited to the homosexual male-to-female transsexuals. That prediction now appears to be the case, with Rametti et al. (2010) supporting his prediction for the homosexual transsexuals, and Savic and Arver (2010), for the heterosexual transsexuals." (Source: James Cantor (2011). New MRI Studies Support the Blanchard Typology of Male-to-Female Transsexualism. Archives of Sexual Behavior doi: 10.1007/s10508-011-9805-6 [emphasis mine]). The suppressed sentence introduces the debate. It summarizes the most recent publication that uses the older terminology, as used by two of the most prominent people using the old terminology. Jokestress (talk) 14:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "Suppressed?" "Bogus?" "Old terminology?"

As I have pointed out already (several times), I use both terminologies, but Jokestress keeps citing my use of one and not the other (despite being obviously aware that I do, in fact, use both). That is the definition of half-truth. As for the terminology being "old," the already-posted google search showed: The heterosexual/homosexual terminology outnumbers the androphilic/gynephilic terminology at about 50:1.

"heterosexual transsexual" 6,870 hits [23]

"homosexual transsexual" 17,900 hits [24]

"gynephilic transsexual" 75 hits [25] (Interestingly, "autogynephilic transsexual" gets 1,570 hits.[26])

"androphilic transsexual" 236 hits [27]

It is Jokestress who prefers androphilia/gynephilia (which is fine), but very obviously not the RS's. This is a simple case of someone who believes one set of terms is more politically correct over another, but is playing a series of rhetorical dirty tricks to falsely convince other editors that hers is the majority one.

— James Cantor (talk) 15:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This long-running debate on terminology is about scientific accuracy, not merely political correctness. Dismissing this as some sort of silly PC matter is a half-truth. To my knowledge, James Cantor has never published anything employing the term~~s androphilic transsexual or~~ gynephilic transsexual. If there's a source, we can add it. Since he is one of the holdouts who uses the older terminology extensively to describe trans people (see above), I again question the propriety of his attempts to suppress information about this debate on Wikipedia. It strikes me as textbook conflict of interest. Jokestress (talk) 15:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. So Jokestress writes "To my knowledge, James Cantor has never published anything employing the terms androphilic transsexual..." Meanwhile, on her very own attack site about me, Jokestress keeps copies of me using exactly that terminology: http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/james-cantor.html. Er, laugh test, anyone?

As for propriety: Yes, do please bring this to COI/N or other appropriate forum. I think it would be interesting to see someone try to argue that I publish something, make it downloadable for free, but then immediately try to suppress it instead of trying to get it more publicity. This is a shiver looking for a spine to run up.

— James Cantor (talk) 16:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the misstatement above. I'd forgotten about the trade newsletter. Jokestress (talk) 16:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If there actually were a notable debate, we would have RS's saying so instead of Jokestress' just saying so (again). Also, Jokestress would not have to be fabricating information about me (or anyone else). I have actually used both the heterosexual/homosexual terminology and the androphilia/gynephilic terminology in my writings. (If there's a better indicator of neutral, no one has described what it might be.) Nonetheless, the issue is what the RS's say, not what Jokestress' well-documented harassment of scientists she dislikes says, which includes, I repeat, BLP violations.— James Cantor (talk) 16:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a well-sourced debate in psychology. As Anil Aggrawal writes (cited in the article), the terminology androphilia and gynephilia "is needed to overcome immense difficulties in characterizing the sexual orientation of transmen and transwomen. For instance, it is difficult to decide whether a transman erotically attracted to males is a heterosexual female or a homosexual male; or a transwoman erotically attracted to females is a heterosexual male or a lesbian female. Any attempt to classify them may not only cause confusion but arouse offense among the affected subjects. In such cases, while defining sexual attraction, it is best to focus on the object of their attraction rather than on the sex or gender of the subject." See the article for several other psychologists saying the same thing. Jokestress (talk) 16:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Aggrawal (who is a big fan of Blanchard, by the way), and you, and I are all entitled to use whichever terms we want. (That Blanchard prefers one set, and Aggrawal prefers another set, where I employ both, is neither here nor there.) Mention does not notability make. This requires input from the otherwise uninvolved.— James Cantor (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. I worked on this article in it's beginning when it was a stub and in a much worse state than it is now. The issue is obviously well sourced and discussed by notable people in the field of human sexuality. If something as small as LiveJasmin is deemed notable enough to deserve having it's own article, I don't see why this discussion in the field of psychology/sexuality/linguistics which whole books have been written of^[1] should be deleted. Speedy keep because the nomination appears to be mostly an editing dispute, and also because the proposer wants the information moved rather than deleted and no one else so far wants the article deleted. James Cantor, please resolve your dispute over this article and don't propose the deletion of a valid wikipedia topic just to make a point (WP:POINT).Kyle112 (talk) 19:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. With all due respect for Kyle112 to have an opinion, that doesn't actually address the issue. Simply declaring an issue "well sourced" doesn't make it so. If there were indeed any reference that discussed "androphilia and gynephilia" at all, Klye would be citing it rather than telling readers what to think...effective only if no one actually checks. Regarding whether this is an editing dispute: Again, typing out a statement does not make it true. The talk page shows, quite clearly, that the issue has repeatedly been that there is not a single RS covering this topic, and the repeated failure of anyone to produce any, despite multiple requests over months. If this actually were over any particular edit(s), Kyle would be citing those edits rather than telling readers what to think...effective only if no one actually checks.— James Cantor (talk) 11:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Even in just my comment above I have provided a published source that uses the term. Yes, the title is 'Androphilia', but if you read the book he does make a passing mention of gynephilia. Even if you some how manage to discount that, the point is moot. You have nominated this article for deletion, not for merging or splitting.Kyle112 (talk) 11:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Kyle112 too makes my point for me: "if you read the book he does make a passing mention of gynephilia." That's the very problem: All of the cites provided provide only a passing mention, failing WP:GNG. We can, of course, also have the merge discussion, but no one has presented here any support that would be any more valid there. Despite the various distractions asserted, no one has named a single cite support the phrase as a phrase independent of sexual orientation. Indeed, folks have only been naming cites that, when actually read, instead support a redirect.— James Cantor (talk) 13:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Pointing out that you are trying to support a redirect and not a deletion is not an ad hominem, is not making a point for your case, and isn't WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You nominated this article for DELETION, but all you have been discussing is merging the data into other articles, splitting the article, redirecting to another article, and your problems with the contents. These are alternatives to deletion, NOT deletion. I really hope you are not like this in your academic works. Kyle112 (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. 1. Really, that's it? No mention that you yourself observed that the so-called support really was just a "passing mention" (your words) instead of "significant coverage"? Just another change of subject, hoping no one notices?

2. I said challenging my arguments were ad hominems? No, it's things like "I really hope you are not like this in your academic works" that are ad hominems.

3. From WP:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion:

"Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions"

"Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed"

"Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline"

all of which I have noted quite specifically. Merge etc. are indeed quite reasonable alternatives, and my willingingness to consider them would, by outside editors, generally be acknowledged as an example of cooperative editing. Moreover, the alternatives are alternatives; none is written as a requirement. This argument is just another evasion, this time by wiki-lawyering, distracting from the conspicuous and prolonged absence of any RS to support the mainpage as a topic.

— James Cantor (talk) 18:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I would love to go into why the subject is significant enough to have it's own article, this page is about deletion, and no one else has wanted a deletion. This is not "wikilawyering", this is me merely pointing out that you have nominated an article for deletion even though you yourself find the content notable enough to keep, and no one else has wanted a deletion. I would be happy to have a merging or redirecting discussion with you in the appropriate forum. Nominating an article for deletion and then saying something like "I will be generous and toss you a merge/split" is inappropriate, and not how a merge or split should be handled. YOU made this page about deletion, not me.Kyle112 (talk) 19:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erm...let me make sure I understand you correctly. You are saying, on the one hand, that "this page is about deletion", but on the other hand that you refuse to discuss "why the subject is significant enough to have it's own article"...even though that that's exactly what WP:Notability is about and that "Articles on topics that do not meet this criterion are generally deleted? Is that what you just wrote?— James Cantor (talk) 20:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is a strawman fallacy. I am saying that the subject is notable and this is beyond dispute, and whether it should be merged or split is not the same discussion as whether it should be deleted. Kyle112 (talk) 20:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment. That's a weird article history: Two-thirds of it has been repeatedly removed on BLP grounds, and repeatedly restored, with the (claimed) BLP problems basically being brushed aside. Doubtless the restoration is a strategically useful response to the threat of deletion, because, in practice, AFD almost never deletes articles that names a couple of dozen sources, even if the sources don't say anything significant—or even at all—about the subject (so few editors bother to find out what the sources actually say), but it might be worth looking at both of the versions.
I have not formed an opinion on what we should do with this page; it will require spending some time with the sources, to see how much of this might be a string of tiny, passing mentions or sources substantiating tangential points vs the significant, in-depth, independent, secondary sources that GNG requires. As a general point, however, I'd like to call the existence of WP:Proposed mergers to the attention of the nom: Merge-and-redirect discussions do not need to take place at AFD. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The alleged BLP issues have not been described. Once they are, they can be addressed if needed. It's certainly no reason to remove dozens of sources and quotations that have nothing to do with the alleged BLP issue (whatever it may be). Jokestress (talk) 19:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Jokestress' above description does not accurately reflect the discussion, which is available to the interested editor on the article's talkpage. Indeed, this subthread would be more appropriate to the article's talkpage than here. (And what, exactly, did I write in 1989?)— James Cantor (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The terms are used in a number of reliable sources and are notable individually; combining the discussion of these parallel terms in an article discussing their origins, application, and context is not novel in Wikipedia articles on sexuality.

Here are examples of two similar pairs of parallel terms used in sexology; these terms are addressed in parallel in just one Wikipedia article for each pair:

Autoandrophilia and Autogynephilia are both redirected to Blanchard's_transsexualism_typology#Autogynephilia

and

Andromimetophilia and Gynemimetophilia are both redirected to Transfan.

Moreover, these articles address the overall context in which those terms have been used... as this one does. (Neither one of those articles is currently Wikilinked in Sexual orientation, as this article is). -- bonze blayk (talk) 02:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Although Bonze clearly did it unwittingly, Bonze is strongly agreeing with me. (!) As Bonze pointed out: Autoandrophilia and Autogynephilia are both redirects to an article that covers them both. That is, there is no page for Autoandrophilia and autogynephilia ! Similarly, there is no such page as Andromimetophilia and gynemimetophilia; there is instead a redirect to the article that covers them both. I am suggesting doing exactly the analogous thing. There ought be no page for androphilia and gynephilia; they should be redirects to the article that covers them both, Sexual orientation...exactly the way the above terms and acid and base and everything else is set up on WP.— James Cantor (talk) 11:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. User:James Cantor, I could not disagree with you more strongly. The actual content of those articles, as opposed to their mere titles, deal almost solely with the terms which I noted as having been redirected towards them. If one reviews the history of those pages, one can see that as they evolved they were merged from originally separate articles, with titles based on each of the formal diagnostic labels, into one article with a new title.

Is the article title "Blanchard's Transsexualism Typology" - Google Scholar a term supported by any reliable sources as a phrase in and of itself? I see none.

And as far as I can tell, Transfan is not exactly what one might prefer as a WP:RS sourced title for a Wikipedia article... especially since the slang word "transfan" has ZERO citations provided in the entire article? (Do check out transfan - Google Scholar... I personally find the results for "trans-fan" most droll w/r/t the predominant results interpreted w/r/t "Sexual orientation" .-) -- bonze blayk (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Bonze continues to prove my points for me:

1. Those articles (Autoandrophilia, etc.) are redirects to the broader pages, exactly as I am saying should be done with redirecting androphilia and gynephilia to sexual orientation. (Incidentally, redirect pages don't really have any content of their own; they exist essentially only as their titles.)

2. Bonze is exactly correct that "Blanchard's Transsexualism Typology" is not supported by any reliable sources. I disagree with that page name for exactly that reason. I suggest instead using "Blanchard typology of male-to-female transsexualism," which does indeed appear in RS's.

3. I agree with Bonze also that transfan is merely another slang neologism, whereas WP should instead use the scientific/formal terms, in this case being gynandromorphophile.

It is unfortunate that Bonze's reflex to disagree causes so much, if hollow and unfocused, dissent. We're actually in tune on very much.

— James Cantor (talk) 16:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree, I think most of the arguments for deletion amount to WP:RUBBISH. Kyle112 (talk) 09:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Acknowledging once again that you are entitled to your opinion (especially as ~~the page's creator~~ someone who has "worked on this article in it's beginning"), can you be a little more specific than WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Indeed, repeated declarations in the absence of any specifics suggests there are no specifics to be had.— James Cantor (talk) 11:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The page was not started by Kyle112. User:Ntennis created it in 2006 as a combined article. [28] Separate articles for each term would have significant duplication, and the words are almost always used in tandem, as promoted by Ron Langevin at the same facility that's employed User:James Cantor, and like the Modified Androphilia-Gynephilia Index developed by User:James Cantor's coworker Ray Blanchard.

And since this seems unclear, using a term like homosexual transsexual that will "arouse offense" (per Aggrawal above) and using a preferred term in equal measure is not being "neutral." Someone who uses a racial slur half the time (or even once) would not be considered "neutral" in their utterances about race. Ask Mel Gibson, Michael Richards, etc. This terminology is a well-sourced concept that experts in sexuality have discussed for decades. It's clear from the sources it's not considered neutral to use "archaic" and "confusing" terms any more. When people are expressing regret for having used homosexual transsexual and what-not, as Kinsey Institute former head John Bancroft has (see article), those who continue to use such problematic language "have completely failed to appreciate the implications of alternative ways of framing sexual orientation" (Jordan-Young, cited in article). It didn't take long to find dozens of experts who discussed the concept, the terminology, the debate, and the handful of holdouts in their published works, all cited in the article. Jokestress (talk) 13:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. (1) These words are used "almost always in tandem"??? Jokestress is so far off in her claims about the terms, I can only give the numbers themselves. These are the hits from the obvious google searches:

androphilia OR gynephilia: 777,000 hits [29]

androphilia AND gynephilia: 16,800 hits [30]

androphilia WITHOUT gynephilia: 747,000 hits [31]

gynephilia WITHOUT androphilia: 14,200 hits [32]

That is, depite Jokestress declaring (on the basis of what, she didn't say...) that these words are "almost always" used in tandem, they are actually used in tandem about 2.2% of the time: 16,800/(747,000+14,200+16,800). That is, they are used alone 97.8% of the time. "Androphilia" has long been used almost exclusively with regard to male homosexuality, and "gynephilia" was used almost exclusively to differentiate attraction to adults from attraction to children (that such attractions would be to females was usually assumed). There have, of course, been multiple other uses, always with regard to sexual orientation, not gender identity, as the frankly extreme WP:UNDUE of the mainpage revealingly suggests. Morevoer, Jokestress' own cites also make my point for me: For example, Androphilia, A Manifesto: Rejecting the Gay Identity, is about androphilia, not androphilia and gynephilia and is itself a counterexample that the topics are joined.

(2) That Jokestress, or any other self-proclaimed activist, has a clear preference for what should be deemed politically correct does not an RS or a revision of history make. As for Ron Langevin or Blanchard, or anyone else, what exactly is the argument here? If Langevin and Blanchard disagreed over this (which is fine), how does saying I am linked to both suggest I am biased? Indeed, since I am the only one in the bunch (including Jokestress) who has used both terminologies (and others), it would seem that I would be the least likely to have a bias. (Activists, by definition, are the ones who push for a specific agenda. Scientists are the ones who typically adjust language according to whether they are addressing the public or other scientists.)

(3) Jokestress' emphasis on what she finds offensive is, of course, the real issue. The page is very clearly not about either androphilia or gynephilia or their combination. It is about what terms Jokestress and some other activists (on and off WP) want to be accepted as the politically correct ones (and to misrepresent and defame with any means available folks who disagree).

(4) There is no shortage of debates and controversies in sexology, and they are easy to recognize. There are letters-to-editors of journals about such issues, but there are none for this issue. There are debates held at scholarly conferences, but there are none for this issue. Various experts respond directly to each others' statements (not merely source terms to them), but not for this issue. No evidence has any been cited that this is an issue at all. Cited references do not contain the information they are used to justify, and the off-hand descriptions of the state of the literature are easily shown to be wild fabrications. Jokestress' various insinuations about me (consisting of what scholars of rhetoric call "the association fallacy") are obvious distractions from the repeated failure to answer what I have said from the beginning: There are no RS's to support this combination of terms as a topic unto itself. It is a WP:SYNTH, consisting of WP:OR (and misinformation) to use WP for WP:ADVOCACY, trying to apply passing mentions somehow as "significant coverage".

For emphasis, I don't at all oppose the terms themselves (despite Jokestress' inability or unwillingness to guess my views accurately). While I'm on my own views, Jokestress has, on her own, already changed the page from erroneously saying that I have been "promoting" terms since 1989 to erroneously saying that I have been "using" the term since 1989. A cite for that, please? Jokestress claim on this is no more accurate than her other fabrications. (I hadn't even started psychology in 1989, never mind wrote on sexuality issues.)

— James Cantor (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. First, androphilia has multiple uses; hence its more frequent use. Also, gynephilia has three major spelling variants, so the statistics above are quite misleading. Second, the article is replete with published work where the controversy is acknowledged, where scientists have shifted from the older terms, and where academic peers criticize the holdouts who refuse to follow suit. Just because James Cantor and friends continue to use a less scientific term like "homosexual transsexual," which is deprecated among colleagues and widely considered offensive among the communities they are paid to serve, doesn't mean Wikipedia should suppress an article discussing this controversy to appease him. The article obviously stands on its own merits. This single-handed attempt to suppress this article on Wikipedia five years after it was created is part of a pattern of long-term WP:COI edits to promote the work and ideas of James Cantor and friends over those of his academic rivals. That's why he's been blocked in the past for editing the biography of a rival. Jokestress (talk) 15:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Having already shown multiple, very large errors on Jokestress' part, it's hard to take seriously any continued claims, all still lacking any evidence beyond Jokestress' own keyboard: The problem is spelling variants? So, where are her data using other spelling variants? My friends and I all use what, exactly? Any refs for who my friends are, other than more "fallacy by association"? Next, still no response to the illogic that I am somehow biased even though "my friends" are disagreeing with each other? Next, I am paid to serve someone? Really? Any evidence for that one? Next, I was blocked...why? So, this discussion doesn't exist? (You know, the discussion that pretty uniformly indicated the admin was in error for blocking me, that I had no COI problem, and that the admin instituted the block at your personal instigation.) LOL So, any more half-truths to share? Remember, the sky's the limit when you're making things up and hoping no one checks. Still, so where is this reference about what I allegedly wrote in 1989?— James Cantor (talk) 16:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Jokestress says: "It didn't take long to find dozens of experts who discussed the concept, the terminology, the debate, and the handful of holdouts in their published works". But google says:

"heterosexual transsexual" 6,870 hits [33]

"homosexual transsexual" 17,900 hits [34]

"gynephilic transsexual" 75 hits [35] (Interestingly, "autogynephilic transsexual" gets 1,570 hits.[36])

"androphilic transsexual" 236 hits [37]

That is, despite Jokestress' best efforts to convince readers that her preference is the dominant preference, anyone who bothers to check her claims can find exactly the opposite of what she says: The phrase gynephilic/androphilic transsexual is used about 1.2% as often as the phrase heterosexual/homosexual transsexual. This is not to say that there is any problem with using gynephilic/androphilic, but the state of affairs is simply the exact opposite of what Jokestress is telling us. Again.
— James Cantor (talk) 18:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sexual_orientation - as per User:James Cantor. Off2riorob (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Okay, so I performed the same searches as before, using the other two spelling variants, which Jokestress said was the reason my aformentioned results were "quite misleading." Well, instead of Jokestress' use being a 2.2% minority when using “gynephilia”, it worked out to be a 0.95% minority when using "gynophilia," and 0.029% minority when using "gynecophilia":

androphilia OR gynophilia 782,000 hits [38]

androphilia AND gynophilia 7,500 hits [39]

androphilia WITHOUT gynophilia 758,000 hits [40]

gynophilia WITHOUT androphilia 24,800 hits [41]

7,500 / (7,500 + 758,000 + 24,800) = 0.0095

androphilia OR gynecophilia 795,000 hits [42]

androphilia AND gynecophilia 224 hits [43]

androphilia WITHOUT gynecophilia 760,000 hits [44]

gynecophilia WITHOUT androphilia 475 hits [45]

224 / (224 + 760,000 + 475 ) = 0.000294

So, Jokestress, since the alternate spellings were even less in your favor than the original ones, why did you say that the alternate spellings made my statement “quite misleading”? I mean, you either checked for the real answer before you said anything, or you didn't. If you checked, then why did you say otherwise here? If you didn't check first, then you just...what, made up a fact? Jokestress, I’m sure you have a better explanation: On what basis did you tell people that the alternative spellings made my results "quite misleading"? Clerical error, maybe?

— James Cantor (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We are not here to solve the dispute about what would be the correct term to label people, we are here to document each and all notable concepts. When words get over 700,000 hits (see above), it is notable. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 11:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, I agree entirely that "We are not here to solve the dispute about what would be the correct term." So, to follow that reasoning: As the above searches showed, only 2.2% of the search results use "androphilia and gynephilia," with 97.8% using the very term Jokestress (and some other editors and activists) oppose (which is not a problem). Clearly, it is the use of the (findge?) minority term that is the neutrality problem, not my suggestion to go with 97.8% of the search result.

2. Kim's comment suggests another incomplete/misreading of the facts. Although Kim says "see above", the above does not say that "androphilia and gynephilia" got over 700,000 hits. The searches say that androphilia got over 700,000 hits (and a page on androphilia itself would be just fine). The searches that included both androphilia and gynephilia are a very small proportion, and despite my oft repeated requests, no one has been able to produce a single RS supporting the term as a term. Incidentally, Kim, the searches above are clearly labeled...in triplicate; it's not clear to me how you got it wrong anyway. Clerical error, maybe?— James Cantor (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. 39 refs at the moment, so neither unsourced nor (as indicated by the presence of RS's) non-notable. Thus the reasons given by the nominator are irrelevant. Furthermore, the nominator himself is developing a competing article of his own on this topic[46], making this a clear case of Speedy Keep 2.4.. Edit disputes don't belong at AFD. This isn't the place. BitterGrey (talk) 22:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. 39 refs at the moment, so neither unsourced nor (as indicated by the presence of RS's) non-notable. (And please don't bicker about the count - they are clearly numbered.) BitterGrey (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Comment. With bots like that, who needs editors? Do you have anything to say about the content of those refs, Bittergrey? Anything that would suggest you read them, and can verify that they actually say anything in support of the page content? As the above searches demonstrate, the words appear hundreds of thousands of time in the literature, but never provide the information that is being presented on the mainpage. So, of these 39, which one(s) exactly is it that provides "significant coverage" of the topic, rather than some passing mention?— James Cantor (talk) 16:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

note' I struck this User:Bittergrey has already voted.Off2riorob (talk) 19:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)~~*Still Speedy Keep Still Keep~~.[reply]

I think that was plainly clear from the indentation and the wording, "_Still_ Speedy Keep". Any excuse to obscure an opponent's comment...BitterGrey (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your not my opponent. Off2riorob (talk) 19:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we can drop the smarter-than-thou stance and look a the top of the page, we will see that this a _deletion_ discussion: Not a merger proposal, not an edit discussion, but a call to wipe the entire article off the face of Wikipedia. James, if you have issues with the details of the article, take them up on the article's talk page, NOT WP:AFD.

James, as I recall, the last ref that you used and that we discussed was an inference based on argument from silence, after rejecting the author's opposing conclusion. This sets an extremely low bar as far as RS's are concerned.

Finally James, please keep in mind that I'm commenting here because of your invite, posted to WikiProject Sexology and sexuality. BitterGrey (talk) 21:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree, you put this article up for deletion. It is quite obvious the words are used in the literature, so this is either about merging or about wrong information. Either way, you putting this article up for deletion is either WP:POINT or WP:RUBBISH. Kyle112 (talk) 11:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am very happy to respond to any and all comments; however, in order to have a productive conversation, I suggest taking a moment to re-read WP:AGF. Although editors are entitled to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, when an editor receives (multiple) requests to support a claim with an RS's, but responds only with more WP:IDONTLIKEIT, increasingly peppered with ad hominems, then otherwise noninvolved readers quickly come to the obvious conclusion that there actually are no RS's to support your point and only evasion and distraction tactics are left. If you believe I have acted inappropriately, do bring the claim to AN/I or other appropriate forum. I believe having other uninvolved editors reading this page would be quite beneficial.— James Cantor (talk) 13:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The overwhelming majority of those 39 sources are WP:PRIMARY sources, which don't "count" for notability. (See the WP:GNG: only secondary sources demonstrate notability.) "Freud used this word in the following three publications" does not indicate notability. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't even the assertion that "the overwhelming majority of those 39 sources are primary" inherently include the concession that some are not primary? BitterGrey (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly: Both of the versions of Dynes' Encyclopedia of Homosexuality that are cited are considered tertiary sources, rather that primary sources. Tertiary sources also don't count for notability purposes.

Can you (or anyone else) point out any high-quality secondary sources in the list that contain even, say, ten sentences about this system for classifying sexual orientation? I haven't looked at all the sources, but I haven't found one yet.

Finally, notability is not merely a matter of whether it's possible to write an article; it's the whole decision about whether a completely separate article is the best way to handle this subject in Wikipedia. To give the classic example, sufficient secondary sources actually exist to write an entire article on Use of antibiotics in European chicken farming. But we don't have or want that narrow article: we want that issue addressed as part of Poultry farming and related articles. Perhaps this would be the best approach for this subject. That's something that we decide by thinking about what best serves our readers, not by counting up sources (not even by counting up independent, secondary sources that address the subject directly and in-depth ;-). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4,300 words and counting. Only 6 opinions so far (4 Keep, 2 Delete). Hebephilia is a more relevant example of an overly-narrow article, given that there are also Chronophilia, Ephebophilia, and Pedophilia articles. Outside of sexuality, the "random article" link quickly came up with articles like Bloch_Park, with a grand total of one self-published ref, and Aerial_Board_of_Control with zero. BitterGrey (talk) 06:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thousands of words, several !votes (on both sides) that amount to "I do not understand what Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Google_test says", and not one person who's named a single secondary source. That's all we need: one person to identify some proper secondary sources that discuss this concept in some sort of detail. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WhatamIdoing, I am in agreement with you that "That's something that we decide by thinking about what best serves our readers" ... the organization of articles in Wikipedia is a major issue here, so that they do not present a confused muddle to the readership: see my comment on problems with organization of gender topics, Transgender#Transsexual_people_and_science, Causes of transsexualism, etc regarding James Cantor's recent extensive additions to the Transgender article on brain research and transsexualism, where I raise the question: just where should this information be incorporated into Wikipedia? It's unquestionably based on WP:RS; so is the information in this article. There, James Cantor added a large amount of information, worthy in its own right, at what I believe to be too high a level in what needs to be presented as a hierarchy of articles...

Likewise here: my disagreement with James Cantor's request for a redirect — which would actually result in a merge of the contents of this article into Sexual orientation — is prompted by my belief that, if this approach is followed scrupulously for all such articles, the content in many articles relating to minor topics in Sexual orientation would wind up being merged into that article - Hebephilia, Transfan, etc.

Clearly, this is not a satisfactory solution to the problem, since it would mean that Sexual orientation would be either 1) of an unwieldly size exceeding the suggested Wikipedia article size or 2) unnecessarily abbreviated in the detail with which individual topics within that domain are addressed. -- thanks, -- bonze blayk (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. (A) I can't find any coherent argument here, after removing the obvious WP:BATTLEGROUND and hostility issues.

(B & C) The relevant material is already contained on the sexual orientation page. (Jokestress recently added it there.) There has been no outburst from the watchers of that page about excessive length. The content is not too bad, except some WP:UNDUE problems, IMO. Nothing that can't be worked out over there.

Now then, about that RS for the topic of this mainpage...?

— James Cantor (talk) 19:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:BATTLEGROUND? "hostility issues"? Hm. And here I thought I was commenting on issues relating to the organization of articles relating to Transgender in Wikipedia.

Jokestress added a couple of paragraphs to Sexual orientation, not the current contents of this article, with 3 citations vs. the 39 used here.

NOTE: User:James Cantor, you do not have my permission to edit my comments. Please do not do so again. -- bonze blayk (talk) 21:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, three is smaller than 39... but does Wikipedia really need a citation that says only 'Freud to Wilhelm Fliess, March 23, 1900: "A good-natured and fine person, at a deeper layer gynecophilic, attached to the mother."'? Are we trying to create a directory of primary sources that use this word? Or might we (and our readers) be better off with citations to the best sources, rather than a laundry list of rather indiscriminately chosen sources?

I'm on the fence about this article. As written, it's got some DUE problems: it overemphasizes the trans issues, it strings together primary sources, and we may even have some NOR problems when we say that, e.g., the ancient Greek myths were talking about the same concept as the modern sexologists. But fundamentally I wonder whether isolating from other ways of classifying it is the best we can do for our readers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WhatamIdoing, a number of the citations newly provided in this article might not be the best, and I'm not arguing that all 39 are worthy of inclusion. Since they were all added by User:Jokestress about a week ago, in response to a challenge from User:James Cantor to provide sources supporting the notability of this article, I have not had time to check her contributions out (aside from doing a bit of minor copyediting).

For background, you might check out the recent history of this article: after complaining about its unintelligible condition on 2 January 2011 and drawing no reaction, I eventually got around to reviewing it... and indulged my "reflex to disagree" (see above ;-) not only by deleting as worthless all but one of the six "citations" that had been previously employed starting 4 June 2011, but also repairing the (bizarre) terminological confusions of "androsexuality" (?) and "uranism" introduced by "Joe Random IP editor" on 14 September 2010.

Soon after I addressed these atrocities, James Cantor noticed that I had denuded the article of its bogus "sources" and proceeded to claim that it had had "very many issues for very many years" and thus "it should be nominated for deletion" 12 June 2011.

Amusingly James Cantor was here 15 August 2010 adding an EL... which survived for 12 hours before it was deleted by an admin. -- thank you! -- bonze blayk (talk) 23:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well sourced and often used words.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 11:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Saying it doesn't make it so. Which source exactly is it that uses "andrphilia and gynephilia" as a topic or phrase unto itself? As the above discussion clearly indicates, there have been editors making blanket declarations about what the RS's say or what the state of the overall RS's say, but once fact-checked have turned out to be 180 degrees wrong. (Including your wildly incorrect assertion that "androphilia and gynephilia" has 700,000 google hits.) So, which source exactly is it that covers "androphilia and gynephilia" as a topic, more than as passing mention?— James Cantor (talk) 13:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Actually, Kim appears to have been referring to James' observation that androphilia and gynephilia collectively have that many Google hits. "androphilia OR gynecophilia 795,000 hits [47]". Thus James can't call Kim "180 degrees wrong" without being wrong himself. People using the smarter-than-thou posture really need to be more careful with their logic - especially if they are claiming to be respectable scientists. Some us us ain't dumb. In this case, it is easily confirmed that androphilia and gynephilia collectively have that many Google hits. BitterGrey (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. LOL So, Bittergray is saying: Kim's error was to use the "androphilia OR gynephilia" data even though this page is about "androphilia AND gynephilia". (Keep talking, Bitter, you're doing great!) The cause/nature of Kim's error is, of course, inconsequential (if not supportive) to my argument. Regardless of whether Kim correctly described the incorrect google search or incorrectly described the correct google search doesn't matter, of course. The correct description of the correct search is that this is a minority (fringe?) angle assembled by OR from sources that do not provide significant coverage of the topic of the mainpage. Thus far, every assertion for notability has turned out to be, not just a difference in judgment call, but a flat out error, gross misrepresentation, or just simple evasion of the question. Despite the easily typed out assertions, no one has provided a single RS for support. Folks can back and forth like this as much as wanted, variously misrepresenting the literature one way, misrepresenting it another way, attempting to splatter me with this or that paint, attempting to splatter the whole literature with this or that paint...But at the end? An actual RS to support the mainpage...? Clearly, no one has such an RS, despite numerous calls over numerous months.— James Cantor (talk) 15:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Although this is all a moot point because you are proposing a merger/split in a *deletion* page, I can't help but point out that there are many secondary sources that point to the use of "gynephilia and androphilia". Here is just one. [48] That article (published this year) would be a primary source for "Avuncularity in Japan", but is a secondary source on use of "gynephilia and androphilia". This is really indisputable, if you read any article on primary and secondary sources it will tell you that "primary source" is a relative term, that a primary source can be a secondary source depending on context. Furthermore, Wikipedia has nothing against using peer reviewed primary sources if you do not synthesize your own conclusions from it and a non-expert could plainly see the conclusion in the research. So even if you some how decided that the article's later summary of history of use of the term androphilia and gynephilia was still not a secondary source, this is an appropriate use of a primary source because the primary source says in plain english: "Androphilia refers to sexual attraction and arousal to adult males, whereas gynephilia refers to sexual attraction and arousal to adult females". And this is just one source I randomly found in a lazy search. It is obvious that there is a case to be made for keeping this as a separate article, and there is no case to be made for DELETING the article. There is no case to be made deletion, can we at least agree on that, and then move on and discuss merging/splitting some other time? Kyle112 (talk) 19:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No, the Vasey & VanderLaan article is more of the same thing: Although the article uses the word "androphilia" and uses the word "gynephilia," the topic and content of the article are, very clearly, sexual orientation, and its content would go in sexual orientation. "Sexual orientation" is what's in the title of the article, and the article came from a symposium/workshop entitled, "The Puzzle of Sexual Orientation: What Is It and How Does It Work?". I am happy to send a copy of the article to anyone needing access.— James Cantor (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No, James. I am stating that Kim was correct in that the terms appear in 700K web pages. This number can be easily calculated by Googling first for one term, and then the other, and adding. To avoid adding manually, one can run a search for any web pages that use one term or the other, as in the link. I'd suggest you run the search and see that Kim is correct yourself, but I know you already have. It is hard to imagine that any competent scientist would have difficulty with this measurement, although I think most of us are aware that James has had problems Googling in the past. 8100 words; 5 Keep, 2 delete.BitterGrey (talk) 21:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Actually, it is 5 keep, 2 Redirect. Since no one is for deletion this should be taken off "proposed for deletion". Not even the proposer advocates an actual delete. Kyle112 (talk) 21:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree (edits conflicted, but we agree) BitterGrey (talk) 21:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since 17 July, James has been developing a competing article. Among several other actions, this involved removing a redirect to then "Gynephilia and androphilia" that was in place since 2006.[49]

I move that we take James' investment into the competing article on this topic as a demonstration that even he believes this topic deserves its own article. Merger or sepration discussions asside, this deletion discussion should never have been started. I move that we close this AFD discussion. BitterGrey (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closing AFDs early only convinces the "losing" side that you believed that a full-length discussion had a significant chance of producing a different outcome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or that we don't enjoy pointless bickering. (8800 words: 5 Keep, 2 something else) BitterGrey (talk) 22:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it implies that this debate was improperly categorized from the beginning. I have no qualms with discussing the redirection you guys want, but a deletion nomination is the wrong place for that. Kyle112 (talk) 00:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that WP:Proposed mergers would have been the ideal place for this discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The error is ultimately my responsibility. There was several weeks of low-volume discussion of deletion on the talkpage [50]; Jokestress then added a large number of edits [51], which I perceived to include a large number of problems (including BLP; see edit comment in [52]); Jokestress then asked for "an AfD nomination or a complete listing of all the concerns"; and because it made no sense to me to discuss individual sentences when the whole topic was SYNTH, I started the AfD. I had mentioned a merge early on in the deletion discussion on the article's talkpage [53], but no one else mentioned it since. So, although I clearly have no preference for venue, I am nonetheless the one who filed this and am responsible if it was in error.

— James Cantor (talk) 23:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More half-truth. James Cantor mentioned AFD two hours prior[54]. Jokestress was merely repeating an option that Cantor brought up. BitterGrey (talk) 14:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BitterGrey: As you scramble more looking for reasons to express negativity, you are understanding less of what's in front of you. As one can see right above your comment, I wrote: "no one else mentioned it since" (emphasis added). My own mentions are not someone else's mentions.— James Cantor (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Two of the better secondary sources listed in the article as it stands are the analysis in the "Surrogate phonology and transsexual faggotry" piece by Bruce Bagemihl, and the chapter in Brain Storm by Dr. Jordan-Young, which includes graphs, extensive analysis, and debunking of a lot of the "brain sex" stuff put out by psychologists. The discussion of androphilia/gynephilia vs. homosexual/heterosexual starts at page 158, but the closing admin can read some of it here. As far as the bloviation and statistical nonsense above, gynephilia appears 16,800 times, 2,600 of which are connected with androphilia, or about 15% of the time. Gynecophilia appears with androphilia about 47% of the time. I see this attempt at suppressing this debate now has multiple fronts, including a trumped-up BLP claim that removed a reliable source containing contextualization of the term as part of Blanchard's transsexualism typology (a link now removed completely from the article in a knee-jerk response), a WP:POINTy content fork of this article at androphilia, and other disruptions. I hope the closing admin sees through all this, looks at the Jordan-Young link above, and closes this inappropriate AfD after it has been up for the full amount of time required. Jokestress (talk) 05:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Jokestress provided two RSs. Once checked, both support my point, once again. From the link Jokestress provided to the (non-peer reviewed) “Brain Storm”:

androphilia 0 hits

gynephilia 0 hits

gynecophilia 0 hits

gynophilia 0 hits

androphile 7 hits

gynephile 7 hits

heterosexual 81 hits

homosexual 69 hits

sexual orientation 100 hits (Although that engine said "100," I don’t know if that means exactly 100, or if the engine provides only the first 100.)

That is, just like all the other alleged RSs, that piece uses the terms, but the topic is very clearly sexual orientation. Any reliable content (again, this is not a peer reviewed work) belongs in sexual orientation. “Androphilia and gynephilia” receives barely passing mention and no significant coverage. Second, although Jokestress didn't provide this it, this link to “Surrogate phonology and transsexual faggotry” by Bruce Bagemihl (also non-peer reviewed) permits the analogous search:

androphilia 0 hits

gynephilia 0 hits

gynophilia 0 hits

gynecophilia 0 hits

heterosexual 105 hits

homosexual 105 hits

sexual orientation 74 hits

That, obviously, supports exactly what I am saying. The terms never appear in the Bagemihl book at all. And these are the cites that Jokestress called “two of the better secondary sources.” (!) “Androphilia and gynephilia” is not a topic independent of sexual orientation.

Finally (although I may discuss it more fully in a separate post), is Jokestress' justification that androphilia "almost always" occurs in tandem with gynephilia and that my prior results were "very misleading." Although Jokestress' math is wrong (she used the wrong denominator), if we accepted her claims of 15% and 47%...Those numbers, not even a simple majority, justify "almost always"? Yes, I do indeed hope the closing admin will consider who seems to say some "very misleading" things.

— James Cantor (talk) 16:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please review the link I supplied. The debate and terms are discussed in the very first line of the link above from 'Brain Storm.' It goes on for many pages. And Bagemihl talks at length about this debate and the problems of "homosexual transsexual" nomenclature regarding trans people, per the link above, which is the context in which it is presented in this article (which doesn't make sense now that the introductory sentence was removed completely. All this quibbling and goading above doesn't negate the fact that James Cantor uses the term "homosexual transsexual" to mean what other psychologists call a "heterosexual transsexual," and that there has been a push for a long time among progressive and exacting psychologists to use the more scientific alternative androphilic/gynephilic to avoid that very confusion. It's not "neutral" to use both, any more than it is to use both a deprecated "science" term like imbecile interchangeably with mental retardation. I'm not sure there's much more to add here. Consensus seems pretty clear. Jokestress (talk) 18:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. LOL Goes on for many pages...just not saying what Jokestress says it does. That passage discusses the structure of sexual orientation; it explores whether sexual orientation it is one-dimentional (like on the Kinsey scale) or if there should be two dimentions (like this), one for attraction to men and one for attraction to women. That is, although that non-peer-reviewed book used androphili/gynephilia, they could also have used heteroeroticism/homoeroticism, or any other terms. That is, the topic was the structure of sexual orientation, not the words.

Moreover, I use "homosexual transsexual" to mean what other psychologists call a "heterosexual transsexual" rather than "androphilic transsexual"? Really? So, is Jokestress unable to find any times I used "androphilic" (confirming that I am perfectly happy using either teminology)? Or Jokestress does know about me using "androphilic", but is telling everyone I advocate against it anyway. So, which is it, Jokestress? Do I use "androphilic transsexual" as well as other terms, or don't I?

Regarding consensus, I have no illusions about there being admins who do, in fact, merely tally votes rather than read the arguments necessary for the harder, but more informed, decision. That does not, however, change what is here: a serious of entirely unfounded statements, mostly ad hominems from my usual wikihounds, absent actual discussion, overridden with illogic, and all wildly failing every effort at fact-checking.— James Cantor (talk) 19:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James, we've seen the competing article you're developing, and so know this was never about the notability of the topic. We also know that auto-androphilia and auto-gynephilia are covered in one article, so we see no good-faith reason why androphilia and gynephilia shouldn't similarly be covered in one article. We also know that the auto-androphilia and auto-gynephilia article is under the title Blanchard's transsexualism typology - your colleague - thus establishing a clear conflict of interest.

Regarding the BLP accusations you are making against Jokestress, I've asked you a simple yes-or-no question there. I would appreciate an answer.

I suspect that I'm not alone in loosing patience in your smokescreen tactics. (10K words, 5 keep, 2 something else) BitterGrey (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. BitterGrey has clearly convinced himrself of his logic, and I don't pretend to be able to get him to see it. Nonetheless, for the record: The aformentioned google search of "androphilia" (without gynephilia) found >700,000 hits. To say that that does not deserve a page won't do well in even a laugh test. Any notability that androphilia and gynephilia could be made to seem to have is actual notability for androphilia or for sexual orientation (or for gynephilia). Indeed, BitterGrey's assertion that androphilia and gynephilia competes with androphilia is to assert that androphilia and gynephilia is not an independent topic in the first place.

2. I believe that conversation about Jokestress' behavior is better continued at WP:BLP/N than here, and better with the two admins participating there, than with me.

3. Finally, to lose one's patience would require that one started with some.

— James Cantor (talk) 20:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James, you are confusing my points, immediately above, with Kim van der Linde's and Jokestress's points some distance above. Is it really that hard to follow, or are you trying to misdirect us, and failing? BitterGrey (talk) 03:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I've gotten through a good number of the sources, though not all. Nearly all are WP:PRIMARY sources, often used to say little more than "____ used this word on this date" or "____ used this word in this slightly different way" or even merely the tangential point that "____ doesn't like the old terms". Even some of the sources that we'd normally say are secondary sources are being used merely as primary sources here (e.g., the Freund paper is used to support a statement about who developed a scale in which year, rather than to support a statement about the concepts). Some of the sources don't even mention the word, or barely do more than mention it. Bagemihl, my chief disappointment in this regard, doesn't mention any variant of either the word at all. He talks about the problems with the older terms (that he objects to these older terms is all the source is trying to support)—but he never manages to even mention these. Bagemihl therefore provides zero evidence of the newer terms' notability. Jordan-Young's Brain Storm is the only reliable source that I could unreservedly label a proper secondary source that actually addresses the subject directly.
The GNG requires significant coverage in multiple, independent, secondary sources. Brain Storm seems to be the only source that meets this standard, and it cannot be said to be "multiple" sources. I believe therefore that the best course of action is a WP:MERGE, without prejudice against WP:SPLITting later, when/if more secondary sources become available in the future. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is it reasonable to assume that the merger will be androphilia into androphilia and gynephilia? In effect, this would restore the 2006 redirect that was in place before this wild goose chase started. androphilia and gynephilia is the broader and more established article. BitterGrey (talk) 22:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. The explanation of these procedings to you should probably come from someone other than me, however.— James Cantor (talk) 00:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was hoping for an answer from someone who knew the difference between merge and delete. However, I would like an answer from you for my question from BLP: Have you used the term "homosexual transsexual?" It seems like such a simple question. BitterGrey (talk) 03:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BitterGrey, you are allowed, of course, to disagree with me all you like, and there is likely leeway in how often you can get away with WP:wikihounding, following me to pages you have never previously edited contributing only your new disagreements. However, you appear to be having trouble remembering (or a talent for refusing to remember) anything that shows when you’re wrong. In this conversation, I have said, several times now, that I have used BOTH kinds of terminology:

"I have actually used both the heterosexual/homosexual terminology and the androphilia/gynephilic terminology in my writings…" [55]

"That Blanchard prefers one set, and Aggrawal prefers another set, where I employ both, is neither here nor there." [56]

"…since I am the only one in the bunch (including Jokestress) who has used both terminologies (and others)" [57]

The emphases appear in the original posts. Moreover, my c.v. is online, listing every professional document I have ever published. That you nonetheless continue to wonder if I have used either terminology speaks not to my record, but to a difficulty or unwillingness to understand the issues under discussion. Although you make your hostility towards me very clear, your arguments are merely restatements of your foregone conclusion tacked on to malapropisms of what other people have said. None of these compels me to respond to your continued misunderstandings.

— James Cantor (talk) 14:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cantor, the question I asked about your BLP accusation against Jokestress should be answered at BLP, not here. You opened the discussion at BLP, and so should see it through to conclusion, even if that conclusion is that you clearly used the term that Jokestress wrote that you used and that it was only your accusation that was false. Since I was pretty sure you would start making false accusations against me too, I was careful to detail why I am here in my second comment here: There was an invitation posted to a board that I watch[58]. Now could you please stop the baseless accusations and get back to the point - what you have against the conjunction, "and." BitterGrey (talk) 16:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Feel free to repost my response wherever you like.

2. Your belief that the issue is the word "and" suggests you have not actually been understanding these proceedings.

— James Cantor (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on the notability of that subject, nor any reason to bother forming an opinion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (no redirect) Clearly meets the guidelines for a standalone article, plenty of sources that address the subject in detail. VER Tott 03:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. VER Tott 03:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- May I ask how many of those sources you actually read? I found very few that contained even a couple of sentences on the subject, which would be a pretty minimal standard for "addressing the subject in detail". Several do not address the subject at all; they support some tangential point. Others contain nothing more than that the word used in passing. Can you give me an example of a source that contains, say, ten sentences about the subject? Jordan-Young's book was the only one I found that had more than a very brief statement about this method of classifying sexual orientation. I'm willing to rethink my !vote if I've overlooked something—and I hope that you'd be willing to rethink yours, if further investigation shows that the vast majority of these sources say very little (or nothing, in a few cases) that is actually directly about the subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am not going to enter into a pointless discussion on the merrets of each and every source, I am satisfied that this meets the criteria given the weight of sources that exist. VERTott 07:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Per James Cantor "There are indeed RS's about androphilia, and there are RS's about gynephilia. But there are no references about androphilia and gynephilia as a topic unto itself.". All of this debate is about the conjunction, "and". For some unexplained reason, James Cantor is strongly opposed to the conjunction, "and." Everyone else (initially myself also) seems to have thought this had something to do with a substantial content matter, such as the notability of the two terms. No, it always was all about "and."

WhatamIdoing, feel free to re-review all the references you just reviewed and comment on their impact on the conjunction, "and." Given the similarity of the concepts, I think it elegant to have them in the same article, much like autoandrophilia and autogynephilia are, unless there is some reason to separate them. While there is a great deal of argument above, I haven't read any reasons necessitating separation. (12K words, 6 keep, 3 something else) BitterGrey (talk) 14:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- There needs to be a clearer separation and distinction between the "old" uses (indicating attraction to adults rather than to children) and the "new" uses (as alternatives to terms such as gay, lesbian etc.), but the article is in moderately good shape and easily improvable with a little effort (certainly not deserving of immediate deletion). AnonMoos (talk) 20:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. AnonMoos, there is no old versus new use. That's just one of the many made-up claims dropped in here without source or other evidence. At least, if you have any RS or other evidence of such a change over time, do please provide it. Below, I have put a table with the number of google hits to each of the terms (“androphilic transsexual,” etc.) broken down by year. As is very clear, there has been no meaningful change in proportion over time. Rather, there has been a very small minority use that has clearly remained a very small minority use. I included the links to the searches for 2010, but all the others can be found in the same way.

Year	"Androphilic transsexual"	"Homosexual transsexual"	"Gynephilic transsexual"	"Heterosexual transsexual"
2000	0	5	0	0
2001	0	43	0	18
2002	0	34	0	18
2003	2	55	0	5
2004	1	68	0	8
2005	1	53	1	8
2006	0	58	0	30
2007	1	120	1	48
2008	0	197	0	100
2009	3	240	0	120
2010	7 [59]	290 [60]	1 [61]	135 [62]

— James Cantor (talk) 21:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really, really do not know what the table is supposed to be about. The "new" uses of the terms are mainly to provide an alternative perspective by grouping hetero men and lesbians together as "gynephiles", while grouping hetero women and gay men together as "androphiles". The table seems to have nothing to do with this... AnonMoos (talk) 21:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The table demonstrates that the phrase has not actually been getting much use at all. Rather, the homosexual/heterosexual terminology is the overwhelming standard. What are RS's, sufficient for WP:GNG purposes, that discuss old versus new uses?— James Cantor (talk) 21:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I didn't know any better, I'd say James Cantor was using this table to advocate terms like "Homosexual transsexual". BitterGrey (talk) 05:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever -- you seem to be narrowly obsessed with a very minor and very technical intra-professional dispute which has very little to do with the main historical uses of the terms (to indicate attraction to adults, not youths/children), nor with the main current uses of the terms (to provide an interesting alternative perspective on the heterosexual/homosexual distinction). I know nothing about how the terms are used with transsexuals, nor do I care very much about it, nor can I see how it has much to do with with whether the article should be kept or deleted. Therefore your elaborate chart seems to be mainly a steaming pile of irrelevance. AnonMoos (talk) 19:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - both androphilia and gynephilia have very much so historical context. Term known since very old times. So, if any other reasons, it is worth of seperate entry. But it also is a term used currently in a slightly different research - in transexuality. It is not (today) the same as homosexuality, so merging it would suggest not altogether fully valid argument. It should remain as a separate article. --emanek (talk) 00:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That is not an argument for an "androphilia and gynephilic" page. It is an argument for an "androphilia" page and a "gynephilia" page, which I think would be just fine.— James Cantor (talk) 00:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Autoandrophilia and autogynephilia are covered in the same article, so why shouldn't androphilia and gynephilia? BitterGrey (talk) 05:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Androphilia and gynephilia should be covered in the same article: sexual orientation.— James Cantor (talk) 12:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. But per James Cantor "There are indeed RS's about androphilia, and there are RS's about gynephilia. But there are no references about androphilia and gynephilia as a topic unto itself.". If they were without RSs, maybe they wouldn't warrant their own article, but even he admits that they have them. I'm starting to think that James Cantor is trying to minimize the profile of androphilia and gynephilia to increase the profile of autoandrophilia and autogynephilia. Since androphilia and gynephilia are established terms, he and his colleagues can't take credit for making them up, and can't get their name into the article title - in contrast to autoandrophilia and autogynephilia. BitterGrey (talk) 15:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. BitterGrey's emotions are clear; his logic is not. As I have alreay said (many, many times here already) that I think the words are perfectly fine. Even Jokestress conceded that I was correct when I said that I have myself used the word "androphilia" in publications. Yet, BitterGrey still concludes I oppose the very word I myself use professionally? His evidence being that he is capable of imagining that I am part of a conspiracy? Clearly, WP:STICK applies. BitterGrey can, of course, cite anything I have written, but merely making things up to accuse a professional journal editor of manipulating the contents of articles is a VERY big deal.— James Cantor (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. James Cantor, you might want to retract the previous BLP accusation (the one where you accuse Jokestress of writing that you use a term that you do, in verifiable fact, use) before going around making more accusations. As for making things up, if there is interest I could find a number of other discussions where James Cantor has been criticized for self-promotion and devaluation of competitors on Wikipedia. My personal favorite is when he logged in as "MariontheLibrarion" and wrote himself into an article as a most prominent researcher, only to have someone else discover that "MariontheLibrarion" was James Cantor and raise the issue at COI/N. My guess is that James Cantor chose AFD and BLP since they are among the few boards that haven't been involved with previous rounds. I don't argue that this is a big deal, though. BitterGrey (talk) 16:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I fail to see how James could conclude that my vote was meant for two separate entries. Being of relatively sound mind I knew what I was voting for. Primo) there is only one existing title (the other does not have separate article); secundo) It is much better and broader explained than the single separate article. If we can not have too better separate articles it is much better two have one common one which offers better perspective. And since both are very similar terms (the difference is male and female add ons)than perhaps it is even wiser to explaine them toghther. Either way - it should be researched a bit broader, but that is different subject. yours, --emanek (talk) 08:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think you misunderstand me: I know that your vote was indeed for keeping "androphilia and gynephilia," I am saying only that the logic you described does not lead to that conclusion. Rather, your logic suggested that each term have its own article (which is fine with me). The history, etymology, and use of "androphilia" is very distinct from that of "gynephilia," as already shown in the above discussion. Primo) The status of the androphilia page and gynephilia redirect is not at all evidence for the status of the RSs--The reason "androphilia" has an article and "gynephilia" is only a redirect is that I have not yet had time to put text in the second. Secundo) To the extent that these terms are similar and should be explained together is the extent to which they belong in Sexual orientation, not in a neologistic "androphilia and gynephilia," which has no RSs to support it.

— James Cantor (talk) 13:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This set of term pairings can be discussed at sexual orientation. This seems to fall under neologism rules, where the meaning of the terms and their origins and cultural context need to be sourced, not just that some people use them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, that is entirely true. From WP:NOTNEO:

"Articles on neologisms are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term." (Clearly, Jokestress' desire.)

"Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." (Which is exactly the problem here.)

"Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." QED.

— James Cantor (talk) 13:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The debate about the usage for sex and gender minorities dates to the 1980s, when Ron Langevin made the proposal. Since then, James D. Weinrich described the debate, and Stephen T. Wegener pushed for adopting Langevin's "clear and concise" usage. Former Kinsey Institute director John Bancroft M.D. has expressed regret for using the older terminology, which has been characterized by various experts as "heterosexist," "archaic," demeaning, "awkward," "confusing and controversial." Psychiatrist Anil Aggrawal explained why they are needed, and sexologist Milton Diamond, arguably the most famous expert on intersex issues in the world, summarized his use of the term in The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology. Meanwhile, the holdouts rarely comment on why they continue to use the less scientific terminology to describe sex and gender minorities, with the exception of J. Michael Bailey, who asserts "homosexual transsexuals are a type of gay man." Rebecca Jordan-Young spends several pages including graphs describing the conceptualization in a secondary source, stating that holdouts like Bailey and his allies "have completely failed to appreciate the implications of alternative ways of framing sexual orientation." Clearly, a great deal of this is analysis of the terminology and the debate on usage, indicating notability and significance. Jokestress (talk) 14:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you claim that something as 'old' as the 80's can't possibly be a neologism anymore? Like, that's totally rad. Anyway, the debate at the 'Santorum' article over neologism made it pretty clear to me what is and isn't a neologism, and despite a lot of people adopting these terms, which clearly make sense, it doesn't mean they aren't still neologisms. Your attempt to embiggen the use of this word, while perfectly cromulent, does embody truthiness, but falls short. -- Avanu (talk) 15:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, from WP:GNG: "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail." None of those cites provide more than passing mention, expressing what term the author will use in that particular work, as is standard in scientific writing. That does not consitute "significant coverage."— James Cantor (talk) 16:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 1880s, perhaps. Please note historic uses by Magnus Hirschfeld and Sigmund Freud in the article. Sure there have been some transitions over the century, and that history should be covered. Of course, since this is all about the conjunction, "and," debating how established the terms are is irrelevant.

I regret that James Cantor couldn't let even one person share an opinion without feeling the need to get an argument in. (Other than the one who's only opinion was "per James Cantor" and the time I asked a question first.) While I disagree with Johnpacklambert, I respect his right to have an opinion. I was starting to think this articles-for-deletion debacle would pass without even one vote for deletion. BitterGrey (talk) 15:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ElgooG[edit]

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

AfDs for this article:

Fails WP:WEB. The only notable facts about the subject are that it's a literal "mirror site" of Google and it could be used in China where Google was banned. This could easily be merged into the Google article and this website isn't notable to have an article on its own. –Dream out loud (talk) 15:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, was notable in its day. Shouldn't be merged, because it was an independent project.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above; we've been around this block before. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what makes this site notable exactly? Does "was notable in its day" imply that is no longer notable anymore? –Dream out loud (talk) 00:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try the "find sources" link above for news articles. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Every news source basically states that the site is used in China were Google is blocked. I don't see what else besides that fact makes this notable. As per WP:WEB#Criteria, trivial coverage of web content in reliable sources does not establish notability. –Dream out loud (talk) 04:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Interfaith dialog. Although tempted to go with a delete consensus, I think that a redirect to Interfaith dialog would be also a consensual outcome - and I think a redirect to a current article is preferable to deletion in this case, as there is a suitable target PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interdenominationalism[edit]

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

This article, as far as I can tell, has never been more than a dicdef, and I don't really think it could be expanded to be a full article without duplicating information found in other articles, like Ecumenism. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Until I trimmed it (...just minutes before Sarek wound up there) it was entirely original research. Now it's just sparse. ╟─Treasury Tag►Clerk of the Parliaments─╢ 14:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think this concept is already dealt with on Ecumenism and Interfaith dialog, I don't see a reason to treat this as a notable theological term based on a google books search. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ to Ecumenism. Ecumenism is the encyclopaedic subject, but interdenominationalism is a plausible search term for it.—S Marshall T/C 18:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect works for me as well. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]
Oppose redirect to Ecumenism because that article only pertains to Christianity, whereas interdenominationalism can apply to several religions, Judaism in particular. Such a redirect would simply create confusion. ╟─Treasury Tag►tortfeasor─╢ 18:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. Struck support. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - If there isn't an article that covers the requisite religions, then there ought to be. Either we should expand ecumenism or we should keep interdenominationalism. Which?—S Marshall T/C 19:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually neither. 'Interdenominationalism' is just a word, an article about which can be nothing more than a dic-def. Ecumenism is not the same thing at all. ╟─Treasury Tag►Clerk of the Parliaments─╢ 21:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Actually, I've just checked and, please could you cite any example of "interdenominational" being used to refer to a non-Christian religion? I might have been right in the first place.—S Marshall T/C 22:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, by performing the mind-numbingly obvious step of Googling "interdenominational" synagogue I managed to come across various examples almost immediately [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] – ╟─Treasury Tag►cabinet─╢ 22:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I see that you're right. The word can certainly apply to Judaism. Those five sources contain enough material to write a short but genuine article on the subject, though, don't they? I'll change my !vote to keep and rewrite per Treasury Tag's sources.—S Marshall T/C 22:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Looks more like a significant stub than a dictionary definition to me. Carrite (talk) 00:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Interfaith dialog. No sources at all — and in particular, no sources suggesting any reason for this to be a separate article. The subject appears to be more than amply covered at Interfaith dialog. Richwales (talk · contribs) 22:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arendt & Medernach[edit]

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

Still no independent sources at all, after being tagged for two years. No evidence of notability. Searches have produced mainly the firm's own site, linkedin, Wikipedia, and numerous business directories and listing sites. I see no evidence of coverage by reliable third party sources. (Note: PROD was contested by an editor using the company's own IP, without giving any reason.) JamesBWatson (talk) 14:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC) JamesBWatson (talk) 14:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's elementary, my dear Watson. I didn't find any sources on Google or Yahoo, suggestins there was never any news coverage. SwisterTwister talk 03:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arendt & Medernach Dear Sirs, our intention is to provide right and updated information on our firm. This is why we provided an updated text without any advertising or promotion aspect, as you required. And we have to apologize that we did not get this aspect in mind with our first update. If this information (and we wrote it as factual as possible) has to be provided by a third party, we are afraid, it is not depending on us. As we do not see any interest to publish or keep published wrong or non-updated information on our firm, of course we are in favor of deleting this page. Based on this, we rely on your professionalism and mastery of the subject to take appropriate action. Of course we would be very pleased to further discuss the subject with you. Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.154.211.73 (talk) 07:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, promotional piece only, of firm with no indication of notability. Could be have been speedily deleted under WP:A7; perhaps also WP:G11. TJRC (talk) 00:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Son Jeong-Ryun[edit]

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

appears to fail WP:NFOOTY - only first team appearance for J. League club was in Emperor's Cup, equivalent of F.A. Cup Mayumashu (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 00:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nope, by appearing in the national cup of a fully-pro league, he actually meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 00:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – A pro-level cup match should count as helping to meet the notability standards for soccer/football players. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't see a reference for the cup appearance in the article (the Guardian stats website states zero career appearances). Deserter1 14:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, any proof that he played in that match? Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 19:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hiptoid[edit]

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

Non notable neologism Ryan Vesey contribs 14:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable neologism probably mistakenly used by the professor. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:NEO. Qrsdogg (talk) 16:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletoid is a term originally coined by Tim Davenport of Corvallis, Oregon in 2011 referring to a stub article for a non-notable neologism at Wikipedia. Davenport spends too much time screwing around at Articles for Deletion instead of getting busy and writing some serious content on the Communist League of America like he should be doing. Carrite (talk) 05:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 07:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A neologism without any reliable sources, independent sourcing, or evidence of notability. Richwales (talk · contribs) 05:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was deleted by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

38 schoolboys killed in Bangladesh[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not news, Wikinews would be much more appropriate Ryan Vesey contribs 14:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Catapultism[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary and this word has not had widespread usage. Ryan Vesey contribs 13:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find evidence of this word. Google even prompts a 'correction' when you try to search for it. Neologism at best, hoax at worst. Created by a one-time contributor incidentally. asnac (talk) 14:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable neologism per WP:NEO, or more likely a WP:HOAX. Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. Gurt Posh (talk) 14:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:NEO. Qrsdogg (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom., others & WP:NEO.--JayJasper (talk) 00:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a real word! The word that should be used is Neologism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.225.37 (talk) 11:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Red-knobbed[edit]

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

A part heading; see WP:PTM and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orange-breasted. Snowman (talk) 08:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. —Snowman (talk) 10:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. —Snowman (talk) 10:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also part headings: Snowman (talk) 09:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Related pages[edit]

Red-knobbed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Long-finned (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
White-bearded (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Long-clawed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hairy-footed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Web-footed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fringe-toed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bar-winged (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Channel-billed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Slender-billed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Two-sided (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
White-whiskered (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Blue-naped (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Red-naped (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rufous-naped (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
White-naped (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Black-naped (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Red-vented (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yellow-vented (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Black-vented (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Leaf-tailed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Prehensile-tailed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hairy-tailed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Two-tailed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Broad-tailed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bar-tailed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Stripe-headed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ashy-headed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Purplish-backed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Slaty-backed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Straw-colored (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
One-armed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Short-horned (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Long-horned (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
White-chinned (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Black-chinned (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yellow-crested (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Red-crested (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Black-crested (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
White-crested (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
White-plumed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Big-footed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pink-footed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yellow-footed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Red-footed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Animals named as black-footed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
White-footed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
White-tipped (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Black-handed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Clay-colored (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Crimson-collared (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chestnut-collared (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Golden-collared (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Orange-collared (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Red-collared (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Black-collared (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
White-collared (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Black-chested (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
White-chested (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fine-spotted (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Orange-spotted (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yellow-spotted (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Red-spotted (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yellow-tufted (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Black-tufted (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Grey-fronted (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Buff-fronted (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Golden-fronted (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Orange-fronted (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Blue-fronted (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yellow-fronted (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Red-fronted (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Black-fronted (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
White-fronted (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Red-flanked (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
White-flanked (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Brown-hooded (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Black-hooded (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Black-thighed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yellow-browed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Red-browed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Black-browed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
White-browed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Long-tongued (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Blue-tongued (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Long-legged (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Three-legged (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yellow-legged (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Red-legged (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Soft-shelled (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ring-necked (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Brown-necked (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Thick-billed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Short-toed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Long-toed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rufous-necked (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yellow-necked (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Red-necked (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Black-necked (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
White-necked (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Five-lined (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Blue-lined (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Long-Haired (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Red-Haired (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Four-toed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Three-toed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Two-toed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sooty-capped (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Brown-capped (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Grey-capped (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Blue-capped (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Red-capped (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Black-capped (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
White-capped (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Long-beaked (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hairy-eared (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Long-eared (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Short-eared (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Brown-eared (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Small-eared (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Big-eared (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Blue-eared (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yellow-eared (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Red-eared (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Black-eared (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
White-eared (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sac-winged (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Disk-winged (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Round-eared (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dog-faced (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Monkey-faced (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Stripe-faced (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Blue-faced (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yellow-faced (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Red-faced (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Black-faced (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
White-faced (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Golden-crowned (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Orange-crowned (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Violet-crowned (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Purple-crowned (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Blue-crowned (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yellow-crowned (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Red-crowned (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Black-crowned (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
White-crowned (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rough-winged (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Spur-winged (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bronze-winged (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Grey-winged (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Golden-winged (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rufous-winged (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Orange-winged (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Purple-winged (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Blue-winged (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yellow-winged (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Red-winged (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Black-winged (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
White-winged (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yellow-toothed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
White-toothed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yellow-shouldered (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Red-shouldered (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Black-shouldered (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
White-shouldered (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Broad-billed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Boat-billed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Long-billed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Short-billed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Orange-billed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Blue-billed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yellow-billed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Red-billed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Black-billed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
White-billed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tube-nosed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sword-nosed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Snub-nosed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Broad-nosed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hairy-nosed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Spear-nosed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hog-nosed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Long-nosed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yellow-nosed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Red-nosed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
White-nosed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Grey-sided (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Red-sided (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
White-sided (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Side-striped (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Three-striped (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Double-striped (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Black-striped (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Three-banded (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Brown-banded (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Double-banded (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Grey-banded (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yellow-banded (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
White-banded (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Streak-throated (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Brown-throated (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Buff-throated (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Orange-throated (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Purple-throated (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Blue-throated (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yellow-throated (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Red-throated (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Black-throated (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
White-throated (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Flat-headed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Brown-cheeked (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gray-cheeked (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Golden-cheeked (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Silvery-cheeked (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Blue-cheeked (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Black-cheeked (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
White-cheeked (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Racket-tailed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Band-tailed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Brush-tailed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pin-tailed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Free-tailed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Square-tailed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fork-tailed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sharp-tailed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Swallow-tailed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wedge-tailed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bushy-tailed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Long-tailed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Short-tailed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gray-tailed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bare-tailed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rufous-tailed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bronze-tailed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Blue-tailed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Red-tailed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
White-tailed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Grey-headed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Brown-headed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chestnut-headed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Golden-headed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Orange-headed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pink-headed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yellow-headed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Blue-headed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Black-headed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
White-headed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bug-eyed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Big-eyed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Four-eyed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
One-eyed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mortgage-backed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yellow-eyed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Red-eyed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Blue-eyed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wild-Eyed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Black-eyed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wide-Eyed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
White-eyed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Brown-backed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Grey-backed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Blue-backed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yellow-backed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chestnut-backed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Buff-bellied (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fire-bellied (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chestnut-bellied (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Golden-bellied (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ochre-bellied (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rufous-bellied (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gray-bellied (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Blue-bellied (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
White-backed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Black-backed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Red-cheeked (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Orange-bellied (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Black-bellied (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
White-bellied (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Red-bellied (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Olive-backed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yellow-bellied (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
White-lipped (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Votes and comments[edit]

Keep - IAR Keep. The "Partial Title Matches" advisory is really one of the dumbest things I've encountered at WP. As it says on the top of that page, "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." I don't see any common-sense reason to blow these disambiguation pages up... Carrite (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is a "Red-knobbed" then? I would say that there is no such thing. Snowman (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are reasons for the partial title matches advisory, but it wasn't intended to catch this kind of material. I agree with Carrite: these disambiguation pages are justified and should be retained.—S Marshall T/C 18:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are all partial headings, and they should all be removed to upheld WP:PTM. Snowman (talk) 18:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a rule exists, doesn't mean it's a good idea to enforce it every time. We're supposed to use our judgment.—S Marshall T/C 19:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People have used their judgement and there have been consensuses to delete lots of these type of partial heading dabs:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green-backed (with 11 additional bundled files)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orange-breasted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue-necked (with an additional 3 bundled files) Snowman (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see quite a few users opining that the search box results are sufficient. I don't agree, and I challenge their reasoning. A disambiguation page may be preferable because over and above Wikipedia's results, it can also include helpful "see also" sections as well as relevant links to Wiktionary and other Wikimedia Foundation projects.—S Marshall T/C 22:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This does not stand up to a simple test of doing a wiki search and comparing the result with what is on a part-name dab. Searching for "Red-bellied" returns scores of results, and seems far superior to viewing the short list on the part-name dab. It is possible that a user looking at the part-name dab would think that the creature he was interesting in was not on the wiki because of the inadequate listing there. Clearly these-part name dabs can interfere with a wiki search and should be deleted. Snowman (talk) 10:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Several responses to that. First, Wikipedia is not wiki. Second, your reply implies that seeing "scores of results" is a good thing, and I don't think it is. A searcher should ideally receive small number of relevant choices, not a large number of text matches. Third, those choices might need to include things from Mediawiki projects that aren't actually part of Wikipedia (e.g. from Wiktionary or Wikispecies) and would therefore not be revealed in a Wikipedia search. Clearly these part-name dabs are an improvement on a Wikipedia search and should be retained.—S Marshall T/C 12:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These page titles are not plausible search terms, and are useless in wikilinks. This appears precisely the kind of thing WP:PTM was intended to catch, and I see no redeeming aspects, common-sense or otherwise, that might justify making an exception here (which would, obviously, not be "occasional" but quite systemic). --Lambiam 19:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (as nominator). This clean-up of partial headings that I am suggesting is long overdue, so please do not be intimidated by the longish list of bundled files for deletion. Snowman (talk) 20:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:PTM. These pages are also impossible to keep up to date. The Red-bellied page has 9 entries but a search for "Red Bellied a" returns hundreds, thousands red bellied animals. --DeVerm (talk) 22:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Almost all, Rename the remainder as per ptm. deletion for most is self evident to my eyes, based on a trivial similarity in names. however, there are a few items on the list which ARE potentially reasonable disambigs, Monkey-faced, Sac-winged, Yellow-eared, Long-eared, Two-toed, Three-toed, Soft-shelled, Hog-nosed, Broad-nosed, Long-tongued, Three-striped, Free-tailed, Rough-winged, Sword-nosed, Round-eared, Dog-faced, Long-horned, Spear-nosed, Long-beaked, Short-tailed, Four-eyed, Leaf-tailed and Blue-tongued, which simply need to be renamed with the animal variety added to the name (Leaf-tailed Gecko, etc), as each is about a group of articles which are actually confusable. This is the complete list that can qualify as disambigs, just rename them (some include items to be removed, one has the content of 2 different disambigs, and i will of course do this immediately if its decided to keep them. I know its not a huge deal, but why sacrifice decent disambig pages just cause other people don't know how they work).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand the exceptions you have listed nor what changes your are suggesting for them. There is no such thing as a "Blue-tongued". Using "Blue-tongued" as an example, what amendments are you suggesting for this dab. Snowman (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Blue-tongued to Blue-tongued lizard, (which is currently a redirect but can be turned into a disambiguation page, or we delete blue tongued and change the redirect, whatever works, not the best example as it turns out), as all articles listed there are about lizards, and could easily be confused with each other. same with the others i have listed. the article would read, "Blue-tongued lizard may refer to one of the following species of lizards: (list all 3)."(N.B.: i have substantially reedited my messages here, so if Snowmans query seems to be answered by the comment he is referring to, thats me messing with my content. his query was perfectly reasonable when first made, as i was very unclear)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thank you for clarification of your initial comment and I note that you have re-written that initial comment. However, in the case of blue-tongue, there is an article "Blue-tongued skink", which are also called "Blue-tongued lizards" in Australia. Currently "Blue-tongued lizard" is a valid redirect to Blue-tongued skink. Perhaps you have targeted others part-name dabs like this, where a genus page with a species listing would suffice. Similarly, the genus page Lonchorhina has a satisfactory listing for Sword-nosed bats, making the part-name dab Sword-nosed redundant. There would be justification for making "Sword-nosed bat" a redirect to Lonchorhina and no grounds for moving it to a dab for Sword-nosed bat; nevertheless, this does not affect my nomination for Sword-nosed to be deleted. I think you need to reconsider your flawed plan of renaming part-name dabs with a complete name, because genus pages have listings of the similarly named creatures that appear on some of the part-name dabs. Snowman (talk) 09:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have just made Sword-nosed bat a redirect to Lonchorhina. You could probably do this for some of the other creatures listing on part-name dabs. I think that these possibilities enhance my nomination for part-name dab deletion. In some cases I think that moving part-name dabs to full name dabs will interfere with the redirects to genus listings. It seems to me that some of these appropriate re-directs do not exist at present. I think that user Mercurywoodrose has stumbled on examples where it would be possible to make a redirect to a genus page, and I see no reason why these appropriate redirects should not be created. None of this should interfere or complicate deletion of the part-name dabs. Snowman (talk) 10:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leaf-tail Gecko (also called Leaf-tailed Gecko) is mentioned above. These are best redirected to Uroplatus, where numerous leaf-tailed geckos are listed. Would User Mercurywoodrose like to make this new redirect and see how many other new redirects can be made? I would be happy to make the new redirect from Leaf-tailed Gecko to Uroplatus. Making these sort of new redirects is independent of my nomination to delete Leaf-tailed and the other part-name dabs. Where there is a possibility of making a new redirect using full-name dab to a genus page seems to me to emphasise the redundancy of part-name dabs. Snowman (talk) 10:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are correct about genus pages listing species names (which is suspect you are), and that redirects are better in this case than a disambig page (which i like better as well), then i utterly agree with you. Unless someone else has some reason not to do so, i support your goal of deleting the partial name dabs, and then, separately, creating redirects for any of the indivicual species names found in them. the latter is simply an ongoing project entirely separate from your proposed deletion, and can happen in its own time frame. the part names must go, though, one way or another. I probably wont have time or energy to work on those redirects, though. so, i Withdraw my vote to delete a subset of the pages listed, and vote to Delete all per nom, etc. good work, thanks for helping educate me (and all of us).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 21:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with regrets. A lot of work went into creating these pages, but they are too difficult to maintain, search engines work better, and WP:PTM applies.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ASKA-Life Insurance Company[edit]

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

Promotional and advertisement like article Sehmeet singh (talk) 08:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CORP. would reconsider if substantial indepth coverage is found in Ukrainian but not even an Ukrainian language WP article exists. LibStar (talk) 09:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Speedy delete. Another life insurance company that is positioned in the insurance market as a life company with a range of services both for corporate clients and individuals. The article tells us that it's a life insurance company that, soo-prize, soo-prize, soo-prize, sells life insurance. Referenced only to internal sites and directories. I'd say this qualifies for speedy deletion as a failure to assert minimal encyclopedic significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per lack of notable mentions. All I could find on them was a postal address on BusinessWeek. SwisterTwister talk 03:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K-1 Koshien 2008 King of Under 18 Final 16[edit]

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

now this really is the most non notable of kickboxing sporting events. an under 18 event with only 1 notable participant. fails WP:GNG dismally. LibStar (talk) 08:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An article on a high school event that lacks independent sources. Astudent0 (talk) 17:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think Astudent0 summed it up pretty well. Papaursa (talk) 00:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Almani[edit]

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

Have searched for sources to no avail, tribe appears to be minor offshoot of Baloch. Yunshui (talk) 10:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator, would also support smerge if some of the info is deemed valid. Yunshui (talk) 10:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article about Baloch people mentions a lot of tribes, but not the Almani. Is described as a clan of the Domki, so probably NN. MakeSense64 (talk) 20:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Microclimates in Sydney[edit]

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

Unsourced original research, no secondary sources. Nerdluck34 (talk) 06:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with the nom that the article is entirely original research. Jenks24 (talk) 13:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed with nom. Orderinchaos 19:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interesting topic for an article, but this would probably require a total re-write given the lack of supporting evidence. Nick-D (talk) 23:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin Medlock[edit]

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

Non-notable former minor league baseball player. He hasn't played since 2009 and never reached the highest level of professional baseball competition in the United States. Alex (talk) 05:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Alex (talk) 05:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~Keep--He has over 500 articles, and appears have played in the Mexican League subsequent to 2009, though he also appears to have been an assistant coach in college.[68][69] --Epeefleche (talk) 07:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Epeelfeche.... Alex do you spend your days combing through articles looking for things to nominate for deletion? Spanneraol (talk) 12:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As he would say, please comment on the article, not the inconvenient truth that spams the WP:BASEBALL list of articles for deletion numerous times each week. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 15:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I only nominate three articles every seven to 10 days... Alex (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Epeelfeche. I think he's done enough to satisfy the [[WP:GNG|general notability guidelines. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 15:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Epeelfeche. Rlendog (talk) 17:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article states he played in the Mexican Pacific League, which is their WINTER league and not the Mexican League (baseball) y'all are thinking of. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's true (as to the article), but his personal coverage in the 500 articles, in aggregate, convince me that he passes GNG, coupled with the other aspects of his career that are delineated in them, including his performance and awards.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Hmm, seems like people are keeping to make a WP:POINT, not because the articles are actually worthy of keeping. If you notice the articles that appear with his name in the Google News Archive, you will see that the vast majority of them fall under WP:ROUTINE, with headlines like "Saturday: Biscuits 3, Diamond Jaxx 2". It should also be noted that a large number of the articles mention Medlock only in passing, with another player or subject as their main focus. Alex (talk) 19:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You misread what I wrote. I did not refer only to how many articles mention him. Rather, I referred to "his personal coverage in the 500 articles". Some of course are passing in nature. Others are not. As I wrote above, "his personal coverage in the 500 articles, in aggregate, convince me that he passes GNG, coupled with the other aspects of his career that are delineated in them, including his performance and awards." I'm not sure how to be more clear. You are free of course to have a different view. But perhaps it would be best not to mis-characterize what I (and other editors) are saying. At this point five of the seven who have responded to your nomination have viewed the coverage as sufficient for a keep. Its possible that they are not all "making a POINT".--Epeefleche (talk) 20:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note that this is a discussion and not a vote. Consensus has yet to identify and demonstrate that multiple sources go beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage. —Bagumba (talk) 21:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes -- in this discussion the commentators have overwhelmingly "commented" in favor of keeping the article. We gauge consensus, of course, on the basis of comments by commentators. As wikipedia:consensus says: "Consensus ... Ideally ... arrives with an absence of objections, but if this proves impossible, a majority decision must be taken." As I point out -- the overwhelming consensus at this point is to keep. I'm not sure how you personally are gauging consensus, and if that involves ignoring the comments made by editors, but just because you have one personal view doesn't alter the facts when the editors have expressed a strong contrary view. Which is the case here. To this point.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CONS, "Decision by consensus takes account of all the legitimate concerns raised. All editors are expected to make a good-faith effort to reach a consensus that is aligned with Wikipedia's principles." —Bagumba (talk) 21:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's all true. And the consensus, as reflected by the majority comments (see above), is as I reflected to this point; we can await a closer's comments, as well as further comments by editors, to see if that is the case at the close of this AfD. It's not some sort of alchemy, which ignores the views of the majority of the editors here -- what our fellow editors say, as a majority, does impact the view as to what the consensus is ... per wp's definition. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No specific articles have been uncovered to support your claims. Alex (talk) 23:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of editors who have commented so far seem to disagree with you. Plus -- 2004 Midwest League All Star, 2005 Cincinnati Reds Minor League Pitcher of the Year, and 2007 Southern League All Star (mid-season) all support what I said above. But let's allow a closer to construe consensus. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All I am asking is that you back up your claim that not all the articles refer to Medlcok in passing or in a WP:ROUTINE manner by posting 3 or 4 that talk about him at least somewhat in depth. Alex (talk) 04:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Career minor league player fails WP:BASEBALL/N by never having played in major leagues. WP:NSPORTS#College_athletes also does not automatically view assistant college coaches as notable. Fails WP:GNG by lacking the requirement of significant coverage; the coverage is WP:ROUTINE and not detailed and WP:GOOGLEHITS discourages decisions based on the number of hits without examining the sources. This is WP:Run-of-the-mill player not deserving of a standalone article. —Bagumba (talk) 00:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Epeelfeche as he appears to meet GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I disagree about WP:GNG, as it requires significant coverage and states "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." WP:NSPORTS refers to this as WP:ROUTINE coverage that cannot be counted for purposes of notability. I'm willing to reconsider if anoyone can point out multiple sources of non-trivial coverage that I have overlooked. —Bagumba (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. causa sui (talk) 05:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Mealey[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Potentially non-notable minor league baseball figure. Though he worked in the minors for quite a while, I don't think he really did all that much that was terribly notable. Alex (talk) 05:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Alex (talk) 05:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per the keeps the last time you nominated this fellow, which AfD resulted in a keep -- notability is not fleeting.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Consensus can change. "Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding" and "editors need to re-examine each proposal on its own merits, and determine afresh whether consensus either has or has not changed." —Bagumba (talk) 07:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change because circumstances can change, or guidelines can change. But here we have neither, nor any suggestion of either. Nor was this a close close -- it was a unanimous keep, with the closer agreeing with both commentators. That notability is not fleeting is embedded in the very notability guideline -- see WP:N#TEMP. Repeated nominations of Keeps without reasonable rationale can be POINTy, and disruptive.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per stint as league president and managerial career and minor league all-star appearances. Spanneraol (talk) 12:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, there is no evidence that Mealey was president of the Sooner State League outside of what the Baseball Reference Bullpen says, and another Wiki cannot be used as a source for Wikipedia. As manager, he never even led his team to any championships. Alex (talk) 19:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found a source for being president and added to the article, though its only a one-line mention and doesnt help WP:GNG. I agree that Baseball Reference Bullpen, another wiki site that anyone can edit (and so sources are even cited there) is not reliable and have tagged the article as such. —Bagumba (talk) 00:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Sporting News archives at PaperofRecord.com, a subscription service, proves that he was in fact the head of the Sooner State League. "A 140-game schedule, opening April 29 and closing September 1, was adopted by the new Sooner State League, headed by Jack Mealey, former catcher and manager." January 22, 1947. If there's further doubt of him being the actual president, he is specifically referred to as "president of the Sooner State League" in the February 18, 1948 Sporting News. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 19:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please cite a guideline or policy whereby "league president and managerial career and minor league all-star appearances" implies notability. —Bagumba (talk) 00:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Spanneraol. Plus, in my opinion, playing the PCL in that era was as notable as playing today in any non-North American major league. Rlendog (talk) 17:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being a minor league player, manager and executive isn't enough to satisfy WP:BASE/N and I don't see evidence of him meeting WP:GNG. I disagree with the contention that the PCL in those days was equal to the AL or NL. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a WP:Run-of-the-mill player with no notable accomplishments. Fails WP:BASEBALL/N by never playing or managing in Major League Baseball. Fails WP:GNG by not having significant coverage in multiple independent sources. The coverage on him is WP:ROUTINE consisting of a few lines of pre- or post-game coverage that discuss him specifically. I note that the previous AfD only had two participants, neither of which cited any specific WP policies or guidelines and amounted to a !vote of I like it. Still the moderator incorrectly attributed this as a keep, "All star appearances plus being league president satisfy WP:N from what I can see," even though WP:N was not demonstrated by the minor league achievements. Finally, I note that the nominator of the AfD is also the article's creater and main contributor, which further reinforces my inclination to delete. —Bagumba (talk) 00:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, that's right. I forgot I even wrote that article. Alex (talk) 01:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some is routine. As is always the case, with baseball players. But it may perhaps be less than fair to describe all of the coverage as such. See, as just one such example, "Jack Mealey Given Boost as Backstop", The Pittsburgh Press, February 1, 1931.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never wrote that all the coverage was routine, but apologies if that was your impression. This source was bordenline trivial IMO. If we can find at least two more sources of significant coverage, that would satisfy GNG's requirement for multiple sources. The problem I had in finding these was that "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." —Bagumba (talk) 21:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As this is an AfD discussion, it would not matter a bit for the purposes of this discussion if only some of the coverage were routine, as I now understand you meant to convey. It is only a reason for deletion if all of the coverage is routine, and the ballplayer otherwise fails to meet N requirements. Every single baseball player we have at wp has a large dose of routine coverage--that's not a material point, IMHO, at an AfD discussion. As far as your calling the above source "borderline trivial", I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion -- the article focuses on the subject of this AfD in its very title, as well as in a good number of paragraphs, discussing a number of aspects of him as a baseball player. The RS has clearly "noticed" him in a non-trivial way; trivial would be a passing mention; i.e., "Player x homered to right". This is nothing of the sort.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rhetoric aside, please identify for this AfD two specific additional sources that demonstrate the "significant coverage" that WP:GNG requires. —Bagumba (talk) 06:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you see a requirement for three sources? Did you make that up? And don't you agree that the source I pointed to is so robust as to be the furthest thing from "borderline trivial", with multiple paragraphs discussing the ballplayer, what he is good at, what he is not good at, his past accomplishments, etc? And don't you agree that the strong consensus at this AfD, to this point, is that he is notable and this should be a keep, based on the references both in the article and those that are not in the article?--Epeefleche (talk) 23:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all the reasons it was kept last time. I have always said the baseball notability threshold is far too high many many many minor leaguers easily pass GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 18:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree that the subject had a "run of the mill" career considering that he became a league president, as cited by The Sporting News on multiple occasions. The coverage of the player is not only routine as some have implied. I feel the subject did enough beyond just being a player to satisfy general notability guidelines. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 16:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Withdrawn by nom. -DJSasso (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Matumoto[edit]

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

Potentially non-notable minor league baseball figure. He only played in the United States' minor leagues for three years and in Japan, I don't believe he ever played at their highest level of competition. He did appear in a few international competitions, so he has that going for him. Alex (talk) 05:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a member of the Brazil national baseball team, he meets WP:NSPORTS by having "participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level." Regardless, he meets WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. More sources have been added since the AfD nomination; there are currently 8 in the article itself, and they are pretty significant coverage and not WP:ROUTINE. The novelty of a Japanese-Brazilian, who is the top pitcher on his country's national team, trying out in MLB for the first time at age 36 drew a lot of coverage and notability. —Bagumba (talk) 07:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to his participation in the South American Games. Spanneraol (talk) 12:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Member of the Brazil national baseball team, also competed in South American Games which clearly satisfies WP:NSPORTS. Come on. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 15:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick question: Do the South American Games count as the "highest level" of international competition? I'm not so sure about that, based on my reading. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It really does not. Any international competition is not the "highest level" of international competition. That is an ambiguity in the rules that should be revised. Alex (talk) 19:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would say that the Olympics (for baseball, the WBC) would count as the "highest level of international competition. Besides, we know your opinion on this. I was asking others for their particular opinions on the South American Games. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bagumba. Rlendog (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. Per Bagumba. Just another of nom's recent nominations that have garnered zero support. He may wish to consider whether his views of notability are at odds with those of the community, to save the community more waste of time, so they can direct that time to more productive pursuits at the Project.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Using "snow keep" as much as you do kind of diminishes its effect, haha. And uh, also my friend, most of my nominations end up being deleted, so I think I get support more times than not. Alex (talk) 19:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK -- how about "Nom -- given the unanimous view that this article should be kept, please consider withdrawing your nomination, to save your fellow editors the time that would be otherwise wasted here given that this does not appear to have a snowball's chance of being deleted at this AfD". Alternatively, this can be snow kept. Based on the unanimous view of all five editors who have commented on this nomination, it meets the criteria for a snow keep. And I don't see how snow-keeping an article when it deserves to be snow kept, due to unanimous rejection of the deletion suggestion of the nom, at all diminishes its effect. This is precisely the sort of nomination that "snow" was created for.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I dont see the need for the personal attack on Alex. The person's notability was not readily apparent until he nominated the article for AfD. So this directly improved the quality of the article and WP, which I can only see as productive. Personally, I'm more disappointed with the article creator for not keeping the article in their user page until there was minimum evidence in the article as to why a minor league player should be considered notable so an AfD would never be in question. —Bagumba (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Bag -- I don't see a need for a personal attack either. Nor was one engaged in. Please distinguish that from comments that relate strictly to an editor's editing. Otherwise, you may be inappropriately accusing an editor of a personal attacks, which is .. as you may guess .. uncivil, and possibly a personal attack. Also, please note that AfD is not to be used for article cleanup. Also, please note that nom should be conducting a wp:before search prior to nominating an article for AfD. If, in conducting his search, he finds that refs exist in the real world, it is not appropriate for him to nom the article. He should be making nom decisions based on whether such refs can be found, not on whether they are in the article. This is another basic tenet of our AfD guidelines.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn Ehh, I guess you guys are right. Alex (talk) 13:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Jacks[edit]

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

I don't believe this biography meets the notability criteria of WP:BIO. I can't find significant mentions in multiple reliable sources. Google search for "Heather Jacks" brings up mostly trivial mentions and social networking in the first few pages, and nothing in Gnews (unless she's also into couponing). ... discospinster _talk 04:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blatant WP:VSCA by a fan that lacks WP:RS to satisfy either WP:BIO or even WP:GNG. Happy Editing! — 70.21.24.28 (talk · contribs) _{10:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete Nothing in the article itself to indicate notability. Created by a single-purpose account. asnac (talk) 13:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like a nice lady, but it appears that she fails WP:BIO. Qrsdogg (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is a semi-interesting biography, however does not seem to meet any of the requirements for notability WP:BIO. The only stretch for notability may be her involvement in the Chicken Soup for the Soul Series because it is a major published work. However, it is unclear as to whether she actually authored any of the stories because there is no reference for them in her reference section so it does not appear to be verifiable. Wikidawbomb (talk) 05:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kraken (Marvel Comics)[edit]

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

Strong Delete: Totally unnecessary. The majority of the article concerns itself with minor background creatures (with no real difference between them) that only exist to provide a few panels worth of action. Definitely fails WP:V. Also has WP:OR (inference on a background creature) and WP:NOT#IINFO also applies. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 04:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 1) Not indiscriminate. It links a bunch of comic book characters together to provide encyclopedic coverage that would not otherwise be possible. 2) Not unverified. Primary sources meet V for their own existence. The best evidence that a Kraken appeared in a comic book is... drum roll... that comic book. Alternatives to retention would be to editorially merge this into a "Krakens in fiction" article--which could include e.g. the Pirates of the Caribbean monster. Jclemens (talk) 06:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens and the arguments against the previous deletion proposal Talk:Kraken (Marvel Comics)#Deletion proposal. Primary sources are always provided and secondary sources are provided for most of the aquatic monsters. Kraken has many representations in popular culture and I do not think that they could all be included in the article Kraken in popular culture. --Crazy runner (talk) 08:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason why articles should not be created about comic book creatures. Passes WP:V. "Totally unnecessary" sounds like WP:USELESS. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can agree with Jclemens in that any significant appearances by a named entity could be moved to the main article, but surely not random appearances by creatures for a few panels (hey, a few appearances in Dr. Seuss books aren't here either!) How is that significant? Do we have articles such as this for every form of sea life? Or every object on the planet? Thoughts? Thebladesofchaos (talk) 13:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Further to this, here's an example from the article:

The first Kraken (proof?) was a gigantic octopus? much in the same vein as the Kraken from Norwegian folklore (source for claim?). The creature first appeared in 1966 in The Avengers vol. 1 #27. It would return in Tales to Astonish #93 and in Sub-Mariner #27 (says who? All I see are differently draw background creatures used to advance the plot a few panels. No one says "hey, this is the creature fought back in ...."'). There's no notability here. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 03:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In answer to the above query, the first character to ever appear in any Marvel comic to be referred to as a "Kraken" was that giant octopus in issue #27 of The Avengers. No other giant octopi or character in general had been referred to as such prior to that issue. There is also linkage between the issues in regards to the character. In the recent series of Index's that Marvel published called Avengers Thor & Captain America: Official Index to the Marvel Universe, its stated (in a writeup for that particular issue of The Avengers) that that character next appeared in TTA #93. Then, in issue #27 of The Sub-Mariner, when Namor leads the villain Commander Kraken to the bottom of the ocean to be defeated by the "real" Kraken near the end of the story, he mentions how he encountered the creature before and an asterisk at the bottom of the panel says "See Tales to Astonish #93". So there is continuity.Giantdevilfish (talk) 02:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see anything in this comment which would explain why the article should be kept. Remember, AfDs are not votes.Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well for one thing the article was up for deletion before and it never passed. For another here we are again and the majority still want to keep it. How often has one or two individuals who disliked an article put it up for deletion only the have the general consensus be to keep it, on more than one occasion? Just because one or two individuals don't like a certain article doesn't mean it should be deleted. One or two individuals shouldn't rule their opinion over a discussion over wether an article has a right to exist or not because then what would be the point of even having a discussion in the first place? Alot of what is suggested in the guideline is interprative as well rather then hard facts or strict guidelines that must be followed. It seems to me that a general consensus is what should prevail here. The person I responded to in my earlier post gave a reason why it should be deleted and I countered his points when I proved that the character he was referring to has continuity within his various appearances. Furthermore I don't think the argument from the 2 people that want this article ousted is strong enough to delete an article of this size (this article is hardly a stub). It seems that the main argument against the article is the irrelevance of the characters. While they are not as major of a character as let's say a Spider-Man, or a Dr.Doom, I believe these characters have some relevance since they have appeared within the Marvel universe for decades. Have been major villains or plot points within various stories through those decades (i.e a major obstacle for the hero to overcome in regards to completing a quest within a story [such as the Kraken that Hercules and Wolverine encountered in their mini-series, or as in the first Kraken who actually assisted the hero in defeating a villain]). They have had various reappearances rather than a one shot or a handful of panel appearances in most cases (the same can not be said for other characters that have articles based on them on the Wiki that haven't appeared for as long or as many times as the various Krakens have.), Have made appearances outside of the medium of comics (such as video games). Then there is the fact the article is full of good information. Is informative and well structured. Has numerous cites (more so then a lot of allowable articles based on lets say obscure movies or novels that pepper the Wiki). Is well illustrated with pictures and overall features characters that have appeared in the continuity of the Marvel Universe for almost 50 years. From 1963 (the first) to as recent as this year (2011). The guideline notes that articles on minor characters in a work of fiction may be merged into a 'list of minor characters in ...'," which gives me the impression that articles on fictional characters are allowable and that there is even a manner of dealing with them such as combing them into a list as is the case on this Kraken page.Giantdevilfish (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think you're seriously mistaken. AfDs are not votes, thus it doesn't matter how many people want to keep/delete an article, the conclusion is based on the strength of arguments. That the article wasn't deleted before is no proof that it deserves to be on WP. You say "Just because one or two individuals don't like a certain article doesn't mean it should be deleted"...I agree, this is not a question of liking or disliking an article, and that's why the article won't be kept just because you and others "like" it enough. The guidelines are not interpretative at all, on the contrary they are very clear. You talk about a "general consensus", well then the guidelines are a result of the consensus, and that's why they will be enforced, no matter how many people "like" a topic. You responded to one of Thebladesofchaos's comments, but you still haven't provided any reason why the topic should be kept. Thebladesofchaos talked about "notability", and notability is assessed through reliable and independent sources, it doesn't have anything to do with whether a character "has continuity within his various appearances" or not.
      And yes, our arguments are strong enough, we've said the topic fails the general notability guideline, which defines the threshold for inclusion. I can't see what would be stronger than than, and certainly not the fact that you "like" the topic. It doesn't matter whether we're only two against this article, if you can't prove the topic deserves to be on WP according to the criteria decided by WP (and not your own).
      The relevance of a character is not defined by its appearance in a number of primary sources, but by the existence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
      "the article is full of good information" ? What is good according to you isn't necessarily what is good according to WP. Same for "is informative and well structured", good for you if you like it (no judgment here), but it doesn't match what WP wants for articles about fiction. "Has numerous cites", again it doesn't matter how many comics are cited, WP asks for secondary sources. "more so then a lot of allowable articles", this is not a good argument, because it is not because something exist on WP that it has necessarily been acknowledged as "good". Please do things one step at a time, we'll worry about other articles later. "Is well illustrated with pictures and overall features characters", again, these considerations deliberatly avoid the issue of notability, we're not trying to assess the level of development of this article, but whether the topic deserves to be treated on WP or not. "that there is even a manner of dealing with them such as combing them into a list as is the case on this Kraken page", lists do not get a "free pass", they still have to be notable enough and not an indiscriminate collection of information.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Its hard to have a messageboard style discussion on the Wiki so I'll put your quotes in quotes and my response will follow non-italicized. I think you're seriously mistaken. AfDs are not votes, thus it doesn't matter how many people want to keep/delete an article, the conclusion is based on the strength of arguments. Then who decides which arguments are stronger? I personally think the strengths of the arguments to support the article outweigh the arguments to delete it. The guidelines are not interpretative at all, on the contrary they are very clear. But the guidelines state that articles on minor characters in a work of fiction may be merged into a "list of minor characters in ...',". If that's the case it seems to gel with how this particular article is written where these minor characters appear in an article in a "list of" style prevalent in how this particular article is written as a whole. It seems to me to be following this particular guideline. but you still haven't provided any reason why the topic should be kept. Eh? I gave numerous reasons in my earlier post. Appearing in the Marvel universe for almost 50 years. Being featured in story arcs as both villains and allies to major heroes. Appearing in other media via a video game etc. etc.. has continuity within his various appearances or not. I was just responding to his post where he mentioned along the lines of "No one says hey, this is the creature fought back in ....)". And I stated that wasn't the case using the Namor quote in that old issue of the Sub-Mariner as an example that indeed someone said that, As well as the listing in Marvel's official index series, that shows that this particular character had continuity as opposed to his argument that they were differently drawn background characters to further a plot point. I simply stated that this was indeed the same character (via the evidence i supplied) and that yes he had been referenced as being a character that was encountered in the past. And yes, our arguments are strong enough, we've said the topic fails the general notability guideline, which defines the threshold for inclusion. I can't see what would be stronger than than, and certainly not the fact that you "like" the topic. Come on now. This goes beyond me liking the topic. I gave numerous reasons why I think the article should stay (in my previous post and then listed again at the beginning of this post) and this goes beyond my various dislikes or likes. I think my argument about the characters longevity, appearance outside of the comic medium and how the quote from the guideline I listed above which seems to make it okay to base articles on more minor characters as long as its done a certain way are very strong arguments on my side of the fence. Its irrelevant wether I like the character or article or not. but whether the topic deserves to be treated on WP or not. "that there is even a manner of dealing with them such as combing them into a list as is the case on this Kraken page", lists do not get a "free pass", they still have to be notable enough and not an indiscriminate collection of information. I'm not saying it should get a free pass. What I am saying is that the Notability guideline gives you something to work with here rather than completely closing a door on this particular subject saying "sorry its not notable enough it has to be deleted". That guideline notes that "articles on minor characters in a work of fiction may be merged into a 'list of minor characters in ...'," That is something that can be worked with and applied to in regards to this particular article. That note from the guideline gives me the impression that articles on minor fictional characters are allowable and that there is even a proposed manner of dealing with said minor characters in a particular article rather than simply saying that they cannot have articles based on them and should not be included in any article whatsoever.Giantdevilfish (talk) 02:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        No, that you like an article is not a strong argument (and is not an argument at all) in favor of its conservation. And no, the threshold for inclusion for a fictional character is not whether it appeared in a universe or in other media. The only criterion is the existence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", period. Any other consideration is completely trivial. You keep ignoring the guidelines, but they exist whether you like it or not, and I can't see where this will lead you. You keep talking about lists, and I already pointed out to you that lists don't have a "free pass" and still have to be notable (through the existence of secondary sources).Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        No, that you like an article is not a strong argument (and is not an argument at all) in favor of its conservation. !!!!!Wait a minute now. Since when did I say the fact I like an article is my argument? I offered numerous arguments why I think the article should stay (arguments that you conveniently overlook). I think its a nice article (could use work) but I never said that was my argument and that is why the article should stay. Yet according to you that's my major ammo in this discussion. I've specifically stated that my opinion is irrelevant in my earlier post and yet you keep bringing up the fact that I like this article as being my main argument. Really now???? I mentioned more then once that wasn't my argument yet you persist in using that as your main rebuttal. You keep ignoring the guidelines, but they exist whether you like it or not, and I can't see where this will lead you. You keep talking about lists, and I already pointed out to you that lists don't have a "free pass" and still have to be notable. Wait a minute. I never said a list is a free pass (again you are making me repeat myself. Look I'm not a parrot and can't keep saying the same things over and over again, and for anybody who's reading this you can see that I addressed all these points in my earlier writings about how lists aren't free passes and how me liking an article is irrelevant.). I merely said it gives us something to work with here. It would be a shame to delete an article this big when there is a way that they can exist per the guidelines. I think you are the one ignoring the guidelines because you keep ignoring the fact that the guideline makes it clear that a minor character in fiction can have an article (footnote seven) if done so in a "list of" format. This is what my main argument is.

I really think an administrator should be brought in to settle this because I can't keep repeating myself over and over again. How many more times do I have to write that my liking an article has nothing to do with my main argument(s) to keep it. And how a "list of" style-article (which the Wikipedia guideline states can be used for minor characters in fiction) is not a free pass. Yet that's seems to be your only rebuttals against me. In closing I think the article should stay because

(1) The characters featured in the article have been around in the Marvel universe for almost half a century. (1963-present)
(2) One of these characters have appeared in a medium outside comics (video games) the same can't be said for most other comic book characters.
(3) The Notability guidelines state that minor characters can have an article if done in a "list of" format which is how this particular article is written. This is following a statement in the Wikipedia's own guideline and therefore doesn't automatically close the door on what is a non-notable major character in fiction. Going by what the guideline itself is stating it seems to me that an article like this one can indeed exist. Sure it needs work, but I think tagging on what it specifically needs to make it a better article is more resonable then doing something harsh as in deleting it outright. Giantdevilfish (talk) 02:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There's really no point in discussing this further:
  1. -> not a criterion for inclusion
  2. -> not a creterion for inclusion
  3. Contrary to what you're saying, no, the Notability guideline does not state that a minor character in fiction can have an article merely if done in a "list of" format. Here's what the guideline says: "Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines". And here is what the Manual of Style for Lists says: "Lists that are too specific are also a problem. The "list of one-eyed horse thieves from Montana" will be of little interest to anyone (except the person making the list)."
    You leave out parts of the guidelines that go against your interpretation, and you cling to footnote 7 while refusing to make it work with what is already established for lists. Particularly, WP:FAILN mentions "merging the article's verifiable content into a broader article providing context", where did you read that it allowed for the article itself merely to be reformatted into a list, as you suggest ? If the article itself is not notable, then it has either to be integrated in a broader article, or deleted, but whether in "normal" or in "list" format, every article has to be notable, lists are no exceptions. So envisioning this article as "List of Krakens (Marvel Comics)" will not magically solve the notability issue at all, because, remember, "Lists that are too specific are also a problem". You'd still have to find secondary sources proving that this would be a list worth having here.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here's what the guideline says: "Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines". It seems to me the article has numerous independent reliable sources. We have various comic book related sources (that are independent of the actual publishing company), a video gaming website as well as a pop culture themed website (which is what IGN has basically evolved into). How does that not apply here?. Particularly, WP:FAILN mentions "merging the article's verifiable content into a broader article providing context", where did you read that it allowed for the article itself merely to be reformatted into a list, as you suggest ? The way the article was originally written only featured one Kraken. Rather than have separate articles based on the various other Kraken's (most notably the Hydra villain who has been a major villain in the Secret Warriors book for a few years) all these other characters were then merged into one broader article encompassing the villains/monsters that have appeared within the Marvel Universe from the beginning using the Kraken name. It seems to gel with what is stated on the guideline. You'd still have to find secondary sources proving that this would be a list worth having here And the video gaming and comic book related sources are not secondary?Giantdevilfish (talk) 02:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - As I have already explained elsewhere, no, there is not enough coverage by independent reliable sources to make even a list. As I have said, barely being mentioned once in dubious and clearly unconsequential sources such as fansites, game walkthroughs (who wrote them ?) or ultra-short reviews as part of a plot summary will never count as being notable. So no, there's still nothing which would justify the existence of a "list of Krakens in Marvel Comics", remember, "Lists that are too specific are also a problem". If you absolutely want to make something of the article, at worst it could be redirected to Kraken, with mentions about comics inside a "in popular culture" section, but be sure that Krakens in Marvel Comics will never have their own article or list.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - We still have cites from various sources not affiliated with Marvel. The guideline asks for secondary sources. We have various secondary sources. I think your opinion of the secondary sources and the amount of coverage they portray is opinion. (You went from saying the MUAPP site is a personal site to now saying it can hardly be considered independant which is what exactly it is. Its a non-profit independant site that, like the Wikipedia, relies on contributors). Its not affliated with Marvel Comics. Having secondary sources listed under the citations is basically what the guideline is asking for. If the article needs more secondary sources than it should be tagged as such. Like "This article needs more secondary sources" or "this article needs more citations".etc. I think outright deleting an article is too harsh considering it has what the guideline is asking.Giantdevilfish (talk) 01:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I see you're completely avoiding any question about the value of the sources you're advancing. You cannot dismiss any concern about this just by saying "this is opinion". No, this is fact. All the sources are either dubious or incredibly insignificant, or both.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article reads like a plot-only description of a fictional character, thus it fails the general notability guideline in that it lacks "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", indeed the only sources are Marvel comics.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Kraken was writing and drawing the stories? Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean by that.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    1. "Independent of the subject" means sources not written by the subject itself.
    2. The subject is the Kraken
    3. The sources are comic books
    4. Therefore, the Kraken wrote the comic books. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - All of this can be solved with a simple thing: actually reading the guideline, which says "'Independent of the subject' excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator", which of course means that the guideline was also intended for "subjects" that are non-human and have been "created" (such as fictional characters) and defines, in these cases, that sources should not be close to the author/publisher/distributor/etc "affiliated" with this character. Of course the Kraken did not wrote any comic books and I don't think anyone with enough common sense would fall for that. Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - the Appendix to the Handbook of the Marvel Universe, CBR, IGN, Digital Trends and PSXExtreme are independent of Marvel Comics. --85.68.155.72 (talk) 20:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - the "Appendix to the Handbook of the Marvel Universe" appears to be a personal website thus not an appropriate source, and anyway, having only a short entry on this site doesn't define as "significant coverage" meaning "more than a trivial mention", same for CBR, IGN Digital Trends and PSXExtreme, which don't even mention the word "Kraken" twice.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - False statement !!! There are three times the word Kraken in 28. There are seven times the word Kraken in 37. How many do you count for an image ? Did you count monster, creature, ... ? 85.68.155.72 (talk) 22:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        It doesn't matter if a word is written twice instead of twice, it won't change the fact that these are all trivial mentions and not the "significant coverage, in details", that WP:GNG asks for.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - The Marvel Universe Appendix should be elevated beyond a simple personal style fan site because Marvel Comics themselves have used them for information and credited them in their various offcial index publications.Giantdevilfish (talk) 02:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Doesn't change the fact that there's no "significant coverage" in it either. And since the author, Jeff Christiansen, is a writer for official Marvel "Handbooks", it can't even count as independent.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Two of the Kraken's get coverage. (one is pretty indepth and that's more than can be said of alot of the other minor characters within the Marvel Universe) plus Jeff started this site before he began wrting (freelance) handbooks for Marvel. As well the site (which has numerous contributors that do not work for Marvel) is not affiliated with the publishing company. So yes it can still count as being independant. The same thing can be applied to the Marvel Chronology Project.Giantdevilfish (talk) 01:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        A short descriptive entry on a fansite is not significant coverage.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not currently persuaded by either set of arguments. However, if this article is kept, the WP:OR section headings with Roman numerals ("Kraken I", "Kraken II", etc.) need to be changed to something that is backed up by the sources. Also, please note there is a similar Kraken (DC Comics) page which probably should be either deleted or kept depending on what is done here. Richwales (talk · contribs) 02:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the aquatic monsters section can be changed into paragraphs.85.68.155.155 (talk) 07:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : I'm still not seeing it. Multiple appearaces by a very minor plot device and in most instances, not even the same creature. Again, do other forms of marine life receive this treatment? There are too many bends in the logic here. A sourced paragraph at the main Popular Culture page would do. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 21:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And about the characters named Kraken ? It is not popular culture. Popular culture shoud have a paragraph about Kraken in comics then in each Kraken (... Comics) it is possible to developed a little bit. If the problem comes from the list, the aquatic monsters section can be changed into paragraphs. And do not forget, characters named Kraken exist and their are not aquatic monsters.85.68.155.155 (talk) 07:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a form of marine life but legendary sea monsters of gargantuan size. You want other that receive this treatment see Thor (comics), Frankenstein (DC Comics), Frankenstein's Monster (Marvel Comics), Wendigo (comics), Sasquatch (comics), Demons in the Marvel Universe, Angels (Marvel Comics)85.68.155.155 (talk) 07:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bad examples. Mythology aside, Thor is a legitimate character. Frankenstein's Monster a character from a well-known work. The Wendigo and Sasquatch strong legends. Demons and angels should go without saying. I'm now convinced the small relevant portion of this article can be integrated into the Popular culture section. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 21:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thebladeofchaos really wants the chaos. The Kraken is also a strong legend. Many characters were Wendigo, many characters were Kraken. End of the story. 85.68.155.72 (talk) 21:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kraken in popular culture is a notable subject, the article cannot contain all the Kraken appearances. A section concerning comics in Kraken in popular culture would be great, additionnal information in Kraken (... Comics) is helpful. Futhermore Kraken is also a name used by different characters. When you click on Kraken (... Comics), it is logic to have the aquatic monsters and the characters. It is useful because you can see different interpretations and representations of the legend of Kraken. 85.68.155.72 (talk) 21:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The PC article can contain the relevant appearances. There are not many of those at the page under review. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 03:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Folken de Fanel. The article should be deleted as it exists now, the rationale being based upon the arguments presented regarding original research and synthesis. In short, this article is not presented as a unified concept. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 12:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Courcelles 00:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gibbs Street Pedestrian Bridge[edit]

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

It's a Ped bridge, people. There are thousands of them across freeways. Most of them aren't notable. This one isn't either Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 04:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The notability guideline does not consider how many there are or what type of object it is, but by topics that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time. While the bridge was in planning and before approval, there were seven reliable sources in the article. Now that construction is underway, there are a full dozen. The bridge is handily notable enough for the article to remain. —EncMstr (talk) 06:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - true it is just a ped bridge, but I prefer policy/guideline based arguments, and this clearly passes the WP:GNG. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Twelve reliable sources is certainly enough to justify the notability of this bridge. Jsayre64 (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for the reasons given above by others. SJ Morg (talk) 13:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Appears to pass WP:GNG with significant coverage (7 stories/news releases), in multiple independent reliable sources (3 in the Oregonian, 1 each for OHSU, DJC, SWCC, & the Trib) in addition to the several non-independent cites sourced to the City of Portland, which are only non-independent because of the nature of the subject and can't be seen as self-promotion or advertising. Valfontis (talk) 18:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Go Bolts Security[edit]

If you came here because http://www.reddit.com/r/hockey/comments/ivvzq/i_was_bored_the_other_day_and_made_a_wikipedia/, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

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

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

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

The article states "Go Bolts Security is a fictional security company..." Enough said. --Σ ^talk_contribs 02:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is an extremely weak argument. Are you saying that nothing fictional is on Wikipedia? If that's the case, let's delete the pages of all fictional movies and books. If there is a valid reason to delete the article, I at least believe it should be merged into the Tampa Bay Lightning page and have this page redirect there. This was a major story and spent an entire weekend on the front page of Yahoo. Scp333 (talk) 11:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - based on this quote directly from the Notability page:

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." I think the article can be removed from the Articles for deletion list. Scp333 (talk) 11:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I see your argument, but this is a bit of WP:NOTNEWS and notable only for a single event (I know that's for biographies, but 1 event doesn't count as notability enough); there's little chance of this being expanded. Although I applaud your usage of wiki-markup and the time you spent on the article (which is of considerably higher quality than in most of the new pages I see), I still believe it should be deleted. --Σ ^talk_contribs 02:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be appropriate to have as a sub section on the Tampa Bay Lightning page? Scp333 (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this could survive a merge, yes. --

Σ talk contribs

06:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to be a case of WP:NOT#NEWS, since the story (or "company") is not likely to have any enduring notability. Them From Space 11:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But it also states "Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." Scp333 (talk) 15:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't agree with the nomination reason, because Dunder Mifflin would fall under the same nomination criteria, but I do agree with Themfromspace, this news story was a one weekend only kind of story. It has no enduring notability. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 14:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But it also states "Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." Scp333 (talk) 15:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.231.40.3 (talk) 20:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why? -- $Σ talk contribs$ 06:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Basically just a local news story of just another non-notable dispute with an HOA. Newsworthy is not a synonym for noteworthy. Reso lute 03:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the 2010-11 Tampa Bay Lightning season. The subject does not warrant an article by itself, but I'm sure it warrants a section on that page. warrior 4321 06:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - major canvassing issue aside, this lacks the coverage required to show any sort of enduring notability. Yaksar (let's chat) 07:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Period. This is a clear NOTNEWS violation, and WP:NOT trumps the GNG. While no doubt Mr. Paul is unhappy that his 15 minutes of "fame" fizzled as quickly as it arrived, this is a very minor story, and NOTNEWS is specifically there to deal with the whacky ephemeral nonsense pushed by bored bloggers looking to fill the 24-hour news cycle.
Chalk me up as being opposed to a merge as well. In terms of the history of a major league sports team that's been around nearly 20 years and has won the Stanley Cup, this is a very insignificant incident which scarcely does pertain to the team. We don't include every wacky fan who wears a tinfoil Cup on his head and does the chicken dance after every goal, and we don't include every bench clearing brawl ever fought, and we don't include every fourth-liner's complaint about getting more ice time, and we ought not include this. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 08:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Merge, tending towards~~ Delete At best this article's notability is basically inherited from Tampa Bay Lightning—without the team, this would be meaningless—and might warrant a merge onto their page. However, where would it go or what would it be? It seems like a fun trivia fact at best, and as User:Ravenswing stated above, would not loom particularly large in the team's 20-year history. Cjmclark ^(Contact) 14:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Manhattan Project (book)[edit]

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

Non-notable book about the Manhattan Project by non-notable author. While there are important and notable books on the subject, this is not one of them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would agree, and readers on the web have given the book only moderate marks throughout. No noteworthy mentions by notable reviewers/journals/organizations. Nageh (talk) 09:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mind the Gap (band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Asserts notability with music on a Discovery Channel program, but sources are all related to concerts or otherwise trivial. Band's album was just deleted. Speedy renominating since last AFD had no participation after two relists. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--I've looked around, and can't find much reliable coverage of them, under this name or Cahn & Yang, which is a past name of the same band (that article should probably be looped into this AfD, incidentally). I'll change my mind if someone can show that they meet WP:MUSIC, but I can't. Meelar (talk) 20:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 03:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Praise break[edit]

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

Not Notable, possible Neologism Breawycker (talk to me!) 01:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Hallelujah! The term appears here, but it is not consistent with the definition provided in the article. Possibly WP:OR. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Might merit a mention in Contemporary worship or somewhere similar, but it doesn't appear to have received significant reliable-source coverage. Qrsdogg (talk) 16:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep --Mike Cline (talk) 13:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andre Julian[edit]

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

American financial expert. A lot of sources reporting on what he said but no detailed, independent coverage. Christopher Connor (talk) 05:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable financial person using status as a cable news talking head to try to get an article here. No sources and reads as a spam article pushing his various products. I have removed the creating editor's name template from this nomination as it is not needed in an AfD process. Nate • (chatter) 07:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article conforms to Wikipedia's core policies: NPOV , V and NOR. Regarding the 4th policy of notability, within Wikipedia notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. As such, if someone wishes to access background information on an "Andre Julian" that they had just seen on television, it is perfectly reasonable that honest and factual information be available for that person on Wiki. Thus the article on Andre Julian shows encyclopedic suitability, in conformance with Wiki's charter - to compile and provide trustworthy information on everything.

In response to the contentions of User:Mrschimpf

(Non-notable financial person): In Mrschimpf's usage, "notable" is being used in Wiki's secondary sense and - per Wiki's policies - is not of primary relevance. Even so, Mr. Julian is well known in his profession.
(No sources): Mr. Julian's broadcast appearances speak for themselves. A Wiki user is able to view those appearances to verify that Mr. Julian is what the article says he is and verify that he is an expert in the field. Inline citations, per Wiki guidelines on identifying reliable sources, are for material challenged or likely to be challenged and for all quotations and for contentious material, so technically the article is in conformance. Nevertheless, if Mrschimpf is contending that a more rigorous association to the References may be in order, whatever editing needs to be done to satisfy the editors can and will be done.
(pushing his various products): NO products are being pushed, for that matter NO products of Mr. Julian are even mentioned (other than Mr. Julian produces opinions), in the article. Any reader of the article would have to go elsewhere to identify what Mr. Julian's companies can offer. (Analogy - no one would possibly believe that the Wiki article on Steve Jobs has Mr. Jobs pushing the iPhone.) To repeat, all the Andre Julian article does is to provide biographical information on Mr. Julian.

In response to the contention of User:Christopher Connor

(no detailed, independent coverage): All the relevant statements are supported in the article, in particular Mr. Julian's credentials: his position, his titles, his background. These relevant statements can be verified from within Wiki via the user clicking on References and External Links. Mr. Julian's Publications speak for themselves. If Mr. Connor wishes statements in the article to be attached to their own citations, we can certainly move in that direction.

Note: The article on Andre Julian was modeled after the Wiki article on Edward Witten. In the Edward Witten article, other than for quotations or awards, absolutely NO sources were cited. To be sure, the article on Dr. Witten belongs on Wikipedia. By any standards of fairness, Andre Julian's article should also be kept on Wikipedia.

Disclosure: User:Ann12h (talk) is one of the contributors to the article.— Ann12h (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 07:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Inserting links to his books in the Kindle store and his MMA record is clearly spam. Those are certainly not needed at all. Nate • (chatter) 04:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe some of the info can be verified. However that's not enough to pass notability, which requires significant independent coverage. None of the sources are good enough for that. (I think the MMA fighter is a different person.) Christopher Connor (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are currently no Wiki criteria for Notability:People:businessperson or Notability:People:commentator. But with minor (i.e., no attempts to change the sense of the criteria) modification to Notability:People:Entertainers, Mr. Julian meets the following criteria for notability:

Has had significant appearances in multiple notable financial television shows or other productions.
Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of finance with his expert opinions. (Stress on prolific.)

It has already been asserted that the Wiki basic criteria have been met. There is

verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources (Evidence: many appearances on the most famous financial broadcasts in the US).
significant independent coverage or recognition
widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field

It seems that it is only with Item 2 that we may differ, where Mr. Connor is stressing the "independent coverage" part of Mr. Julian as lacking, we are stressing that the "recognition" part of Mr. Julian as fulfilled. Ann12h (talk) 01:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt Julian would be considered an entertainer. You've had to change the notability guidelines to try and make him notable; I think that says everything. I've already said that those reports aren't about him, they just report what he said. That doesn't qualify as significant coverage. I asked you on my talk page whether you could find sources that are reliable, independent, and give significant coverage, but you haven't done so yet. Merely quoting guidelines and asserting he meets them isn't enough. Christopher Connor (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response You are missing the point(s). No one even remotely asserted Mr. Julian is an entertainer nor have any notability guidelines been changed. Currently there is no category for Notability:People:commentator. I just gave an example of notability guidelines in a media category, guidelines to which Mr. Julian would have conformed. Mr. Julian is not an entertainer. On another point, you keep harping on "independent coverage" on him, I keep harping on "recognition" of him (refer to #2 in Wiki criteria above). Mr. Julian is recognized by the top (notable) financial reporting media, enough to have been vetted and asked to participate in their analysis of and opinions on financial events (professional recognition does not get much better than that). The Wiki rules clearly state "or recognition", which his references do support. Are you changing the rules? You must be aware I get it - you have been insisting on "significant coverage". Are you insisting that your interpretation of the rules excludes recognition from consideration? That would be so wrong, in violation of Wiki rules.

Please note that this matter is too serious for you to go off on unsupported speculations or conduct erroneous logic. This has already been evidenced by your 'thinking' Mr. Julian the financial expert is not the same person as Mr. Julian the MMA participant. He most certainly is. I suggest you reassess the logical correctness of what you assert "coverage or recognition" to mean. I'll give you a little help. Or is a logical disjunction, only one assertion has to be true for the statement to be valid (and the rule satisfied).

Nevertheless, Mr. Julian's references are being revised to support your concerns. My objective is that those references conform to Wiki policies, guidelines and standards. Your interpretations of anything should not be in violation of these same Wiki policies, guidelines and standards. Your response is welcome, preferably one where you do not speculate and one where you specify any misinterpretations on my part. Ann12h (talk) 23:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merely being quoted isn't "recognition" with regards to notability. If he is notable, the sources would be reporting on his life and career, not merely on what he says. Also, importance isn't equivalent to notability. Why bring up the irrelevant entertainer guideline if he doesn't fit under it (and then change it)? I said I thought he wasn't the MMA fighter because few financial experts participate in MMA, and I could find no sources that linked the two (none still in the article). I may have made a mistake, but in any case it makes little difference to this AfD because he isn't notable as an MMA fighter. It would be helpful if you could source the info in the article using inline citations. That would help in determining notability. Christopher Connor (talk) 00:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have deleted the references to the books on Amazon. I thought they were needed for verification. (I think the MMA fighter is a different person.) As far as the MMA record. It is in fact the same person. Andre does participate in MMA. He is in fact the owner of the gym, "Reign Training Center". That gym is operated as Mark Munoz's Reign Training Center. Mark is a middleweight in the UFC and currently ranked in the top ten in the world on most MMA polls. Mark is the face of the gym, but Mr. Julian infact owns it. I deleted it regardless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisb3637 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC) — Chrisb3637 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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) 00:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't doubt that Mr. Julian is an expert whose opinions are solicited, but the question here is whether or not he is a notable expert. Although Mr. Julian has been quoted in major media, he - as the article's subject - fails to pass WP:BASIC of WP:BIO which states: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The references and external links generally fall into one of two categories: 1) they support that he has been quoted (but not biographically covered) in major media, or 2) they appear to be affiliated with Mr. Julian, thus failing the "independent" clause of WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Location (talk) 04:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response In fairness to Mr. Julian, he is far more notable than "David Muir" was when Mr. Muir's page went up years ago, and Andre Julian has had far more exposure than, until recently, David Muir had (in fairness to Mr. Muir, he has been assigned the weekend news anchor spot, so now the comparison becomes arguable). Why was not Mr. Julian's notability, by virtue of his appearances on and having been vetted by the top financial news networks in the country, afforded the same courtesy as, in this example, David Muir's article? None of Mr. Muir's references and external links are secondary, each link is either to to his employer or to Ithaca College, his alma mater. Wiki cannot have double standards.

I appreciate that Wiki reviewers currently stress that notability means significant independent coverage. Yet the rules (WP:NRVE of Wikipedia:Notability) clearly state "or recognition". I am stressing the latter interpretation, in conformance to Wiki criteria, for which Mr. Julian has been amply, significantly and independently recognized - as evidenced by the independent vetting by those notable financial news programs.

As a last comment, in Mr. Julian we have an individual who is providing expert assessments of the financial world. These assessments may be heeded by millions of influential people and may result in significant impacts on our economy. Common sense would dictate that a brief encyclopedic entry is in order. Ann12h (talk) 07:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1) The article is not about David Muir. 2) Christopher Connor has elaborated on the "recognition" argument above. 3) There are lots of experts on television everyday who aren't necessarily notable experts. Location (talk) 12:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per sources; Andre is mentioned in many articles but more than that he is a corporate executive for several noteworthy companies. There is currently a detailed bio on Julian in Business Week [70].Silent Bob (talk) 10:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The bio is copied from a company in which he has a vested interest. It's not an original write-up by Business Week. Location (talk) 12:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point but I think you are missing mine... Business Week has to get their information from a source but the two keys for this debate is that this link is significant coverage and proves noteworthiness because Business Week wouldn't go through the trouble of creating a profile page for the guy if he was nobody worthy mentioning. Now I'm not saying this page should be big, but it shouldn't be deleted because it just passes standards.Silent Bob (talk) 12:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we differ on the importance of the bio. The subject submits a bio to Business Week's IT guy and voilà... he has a profile page. There are many, many similar pages located there. Location (talk) 15:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Location I looked over the Business Week list and you are mistaken... Their list is editorially controlled and submissions/corrections are reviewed, researched and changed if information isn't verified by their team. This is a credible news site and the second most trusted outside of Forbes which also has a similar profile list for noteworthy executives. The point is that this source is a verifiable third party source that provides significant coverage on the subject of this article. Wikipedia policy on sources such as this are clear... and we all know that Business Week has editorial discretion over what it publishes on its site. Wikipedia can only rely upon sources such as this to verify statements made within articles. Newspapers obviously get their information from primary sources and original research it is Wikipedia's job to trust credible sources for its information. This source substantiates Julian and in my opinion buys his article time on Wikipedia. If he is notable then more news will follow and the article will grow; if not then some later day I might be inclined to with you... but not today.Silent Bob (talk) 07:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you, Location, seem to deem murderers and aged or deceased somewhat obscure sports figures to be of importance (and that's perfectly OK), so yes, some of of do differ. I deem a financial expert who's comments may be heard by millions and who's comments may influence our economy as important. Although you may not have acquired a level of interest to identify prominent people in the financial field, it seems pretty clear via the many, many sites that pop up on Google that Mr. Julian is highly recognized by experts in his field.

But neither your opinion nor my opinion has that much weight. The issue at hand is whether Mr. Julian meets the Wiki standards of notability (see also WP:BIO). We know Mr. Julian has received significant attention and recognition in his field, in conformance to Wiki basic criteria. We are here to present arguments as to whether that's enough. Mr. Connor correctly, since at this time those are the Wiki standards, is emphasizing secondary and independent coverage. I am, also in conformance to Wiki standards, emphasizing secondary and independent recognition.

Your last statement is quite an exaggeration. There are exactly 2 similar references (and those, to his bio). The other references (with the exception a couple of sites that give his credentials) are to the different sites of different major financial news organizations that have and are broadcasting Mr. Julian's commentary. Ann12h (talk) 23:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Interest", "importance", and "notability" are all different terms. I certainly edit in lots of articles with subjects that meet the Wikipedia consensus of "notability". How about you? Have you edited any other articles but this one?

One not need be a financial expert to see that this subject's bio is one of thousands listed on the Business Week website, and that is no exaggeration. Just look at the bottom of their home page where it links to Private Companies and click it: "Your search for A returned 51,427 private company results." If you start clicking the "People" tabs under those companies, I think you'll find plenty of biographies. Then you can move on to letter B. The point here is that having a biography on Business Week does little to establish notability. Location (talk) 01:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike with Mr. Connor whose statements are logical, cogent and usually on point (and let's be clear, I have an opposing contention with Mr. Connor re: Mr. Julian), any conversation with you is of no consequence. You are illogical, you obfuscate and go off point. To wit:

Business Week is not part of the Andre Julian article nor referenced in the article nor did I bring it up. Why harp on it?
Interest has nothing to do with anything (other than your lack thereof in many, many topics of consequence).
I will not embarrass you with a list of books and academic journals that I've edited, but let me just state that your Wiki editing might not qualify you to monitor kindergarten recess. Even you should be aware that quantity without quality is useless.
I would appreciate that you cite chapter and verse of Wiki policies, guidelines and rules and how articles do or do not conform to or meet the Wiki policies, guidelines and rules. Your hand waving is out of line.

To me, it is clear that two objectives of the Wiki community is to accept articles of encyclopedic suitability and to make existing articles better. It is really only constructive criticism that helps in moving towards those objectives. Ann12h (talk) 02:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note. The article needs to be better written and the many many other sources added it to help make this at least a C or B level.Silent Bob (talk) 10:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to Wiki guidelines for notability it is stated that notability is an inclusion criterion based on the suitability of an article topic. Although there is a WP:Basic criteria of notability, there are many additional criteria. This article entry clearly falls into the category of Creative Professionals as Mr. Julian is a professional in the investment and financial field. In the WP:Creative professionals category, item 1. says that a person is notable if, "The person is regarded as in important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors". Grammatically, it is important to understand that an 'or' statement requires either of several inputs to be present in a group of inputs separated by the word 'or'. Although it can be argued that Mr. Julian is an important figure in the investment world, it is not even a necessary argument to make. It is clear that Mr. Julian is, 'widely cited by peers'. He is referenced by independent, verifiable and well respected sources that are not affiliated with Mr. Julian. His comments and opinions are cited in television media and in print by sources like Bloomberg, CNBC, Fox News, etc. This obviously supports the wiki criteria of a notable person who is widely cited by peers.Wikidawbomb (talk) 15:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)— Wikidawbomb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. I think if we define entertainer logically as anyone who appears on a commercial braodcast medium that seeks to gain money by drawing in viewers, than Julian qualifies and he would thus qualify as notable. I know it is odd to call him an entertainer, but that seems a reasonable use of the guidelines, and since wikipedia is not a beauracracy we can use guidelines in reasonable ways.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merely appearing on tv doesn't constitute notability. Regardless of whether a subject meets any subject-specific guideline, they still have to meet the GNG. We are past the stage of presuming there are sources, and have actually looked for them. People have been in contact with the subject in an attempt to find suitable references. A lot of text has been pasted explaining things. If, after all that, there are few good sources, it's obvious to me that the subject isn't notable. Christopher Connor (talk) 07:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G7 at author request. JohnCD (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Rising 3[edit]

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

Article too soon: fails wp:FUTURE & wp:essay. Haruth (talk) 00:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) –MuZemike 05:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - coverage is minimal and speculative. While undoubtedly this will need recreation in the future this feels very WP:TOOSOON. Probably could have been WP:PRODed, but no biggie. --Teancum (talk) 12:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The consensus is that the criteria for inclusion is too vague (e.g. what counts as 'celebrity' or 'active'?) and that it fails per WP:MOSSAL and MOS:LIST PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hong Kong celebrities[edit]

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

A list of names with an ambiguous selection criteria with no notability, per WP:MOSSAL. MOS:LIST states that "Don't leave readers confused over the list's inclusion criteria or have editors guessing what may be added to the list", which it does not. As 'celebrity' is a bit subjective as well as 'mainly active in the media'. How many mentions is considered 'active'? ... one, three, ten, fifty? For example Jay Chou is listed but he is Taiwanese and based there, he is of course active in HK media as are most other Taiwanese or Mainland China artists, eg Show Luo or Jolin Tsai, because they go to HK for promotions, concerts etc. But listing them as 'HK celebrities' is a bit of a stretch. I am sure most of the BLP on the list are notable but the reason for grouping them together is not. The list does not serve any purpose except provide a trivia list that is already partly cover by List of Hong Kong people, hence a bit of a WP:CONTENTFORK. Michaela den (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. —Michaela den (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Michaela den (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2011 (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) 00:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom; and as 'celebrity' is an impossibly vague term, inclusion here amounts to OR. asnac (talk) 13:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. most of the keep votes are assertions or citing non reliable sources. The consensus is that the sourcing doesn't match our inclusion standard. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slender Man[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is basically an article on a "meme" sourced to the source of the meme itself. It is not notable, and having one single article discuss it (more tongue-in-cheek than anything) does not make for notability. Drmies (talk) 00:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note--I didn't see in the history that it had already been nominated once, and I see why I didn't see it: the consensus was delete. Drmies (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Discussion in just one reliable source is not sufficient to establish notability, and especially not sufficient to support extensive content that isn't discussed in that source. This article relies on primary sources such as blogs and user-edited fan sites to support discussion of this "meme" far beyond the description in the single reliable source. It seems that the intent of the authors of this article is to publicize and legitimize this non-notable meme, and that's not what Wikipedia is for. Cullen328 (talk) 01:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, it has been Confirmed by Know Your Meme, OhInternet, Encyclopedia Dramatica, and has three ARGs, and has four blogs devoted to it, let alone mentioning it. BUT THAT'S NOT ENOUGH TO WORK WITH?!?!?!?!?!?! The person who nommed this must have been temporarily idiotic at the time. - Another n00b (talk) 07:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You cite ED as a source. Interesting. Well, maybe at ED your language is acceptable as well. Drmies (talk) 20:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For now, I'll challenge the assertion that it is inherently non-notable. I'm also looking up more sourcing possibilities. I'll weigh in more when it's not 2:30 AM. Thanks, bye. Cougar Draven (talk) 07:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No one asserted, AFAIK, that it is inherently non-notable. I look forward to reliable sources establishing notability (not Encyclopedia Dramatica, of course). Drmies (talk) 20:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - God. If you'll excuse my language, 'fuck' no not Encyclopedia Dramatica or whatever they've turned themselves into. And I've been searching for two days now for another appropriate source. I'll be honest, if this article loses out in the end, I won't lose sleep over it, as I've already got it archived completely for re-introduction when some reliable source writes an article. Cougar Draven (talk) 03:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - All right, now then. Resubmitting. Keep, as there are two reliable, non-OR sources to be had. I've seen articles survive on much less. This is a notable internet phenomenon, perhaps more polarizing than, say, Nyan Cat, but just as visible. (And, for the record, though I know this is a point neither for or against, but "Nyan Cat" has 14.9 million results on Google. "Slender Man" has 24.8 million. Indeed, the primary source for that page is also KYM.) Also, per WP:FICTION, perhaps the article could be rewritten to focus more on the creation and implementation of the Slender Man. Also, this may just be speculation here, but this seems like an embryonic discussion. Internet-based (YouTube specifically, but not limited therein, of course) episodic films are generally a new thing. At least, dramatic ones, so far as I know. If anyone can fill me in on any others, I'm all ears. Basically, this is a new thing, and Wikipedia doesn't have any content policies for it yet. Speaking of Marble Hornets: it could be a film, it could be a television series. Which it is depends on who you're talking to. Either way, the internet content platform is something that Wikipedia is unsure of. It ascribes non-notability to things automatically based on where they are released, and honestly, I'd like to see it changed. At the core of my argument: if Nyan Cat and Philip DeFranco can have pages, then so can Slender Man, and, eventually, Marble Hornets (which may have been a better choice to begin with). Cougar Draven (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, this is an article detailing extremely prolific character of the internet and has spawned hundreds of ARGs and similar mediums based around the character. I really don't see how it's non-notable. Mack ^{(Yackity Mack)} 08:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, it appears to fail the general notability guideline, which applies to fictional characters, as well. While I appreciate sites like ED (or whatever it is now) and KYM, they do not fit Wikipedia's definition of reliable sourcing. Qrsdogg (talk) 16:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—I have to agree that this article lacks suitable citations needed to satisfy WP:GNG. Blogs are typically unsuitable, per WP:USERGENERATED. I was unable to find more reliable citations. Hence, I can't support a keep. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article most certainly deserves to be kept here. Those of you stating that this article needs to be deleted clearly haven't bothered to read the stories and watch the videos created around this character. If this article is going to be deleted, then all the others surrounding fictional characters might as well be also. The Slender Man has spawned a huge internet following and it's ridiculous that we're even having this debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.13.186 (talk) 23:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC) — 24.17.13.186 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. There seems to be a bias in wikipedia against internet phenomena...people don't seem to think they're "proper" enough for Wikipedia, and experience that same sort of vicarious embarrassment when one brings up 4chan in meatspace. It belongs, simply because it fulfills the criteria. Significant coverage because an actual newspaper covered it. Reliable because those sources are secondary and not biased. There are numerous sources. They are independent of the subject. Slenderman is mainstream enough to warrant seven references from the mainstream (but not a reliable source of course) site cracked.com, including its own article. Why? Because slender man is relatively very well known to anyone familiar to internet culture, much more so than most other memes. More than Salad Fingers, at least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.170.163 (talk) 12:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC) — 71.233.170.163 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- We have a bias against internet phenomena? Have you looked at Category:Internet forums, for instance? And no, there is no significant discussion in reliable sources. There is one single newspaper article which is hard to take seriously. Drmies (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not agreeing or disagreeing with you here, but "hard to take seriously" does not make it unreliable. Barring one or two minor errors (naming the series as "The Marble Hornets", for instance) the article is true, and in a reputable publication. Also, out of curiosity: do student newspapers for major universities count as "reliable"? Cougar Draven (talk) 05:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - It depends on which paper, I think. If it has "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" it should be ok. For example, I've cited The Harvard Crimson a couple times without anyone complaining. The East Peoria State Technical College Gazette-Times might not fly, however. Qrsdogg (talk) 01:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm hopeful that the University of Alabama's The Crimson White would qualify. Now I just have to wait and see. Cougar Draven (talk) 04:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After 5 minutes of looking around, I found at least a few "possible" sources:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheSlenderManMythos

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/333/151/Legend_and_Legacy_of_the_Slender_Man.html

mr voo doo . hubpages . com / hub / The-Slender-Man-Legend-Something-Awful-Lurks (For some reason wikipedia "blocked" this link - it's a legit site though.)

And this gaming news site even gives mention to him:

http://www.gamingunion.net/news/watch-out-new-minecraft-mob-looks-like-slender-man--5916.html

So what's the big deal?...174.62.155.87 (talk) 11:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC) — 174.62.155.87 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete The notability guidelines mention the requirement for multiple independent reliable sources - this has one (I note that the above sources would not appear to meet the reliable source criteria). I couldn't find any more when I searched, and so I feel that this subject fails to meet the criteria for inclusion. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RECENTISM and WP:GNG. No assertion of notability in multiple independent reliable sources. Only one decent source, the Star-Tribune story, and since Wikipedia is not a newspaper, that's not the best source on internet memes. None of the other sources meet the standard for WP:IRS. Not impressed with the assertions for keeping or the links provided above. BusterD (talk) 18:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough coverage in reliable sources (sorry, KnowYourMeme isn't one of these). TV Tropes wiki page is user-generated content, and the others do not appear to be reliable sources. Further more, this book merely mentions Slender Man, and focuses more on the YouTube content more than on the fictional character. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 21:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep for obvious notability, citations and sources. --Jeff24 (talk) 19:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Slenderman has become notable enough to spawn at least one homage within a distinct sub-community of geek culture - a confirmed upcoming Minecraft mob, the "enderman", has been acknowledged by the game's creator as being inspired by this meme. See Notch's comment here. I have no opinion on whether or not that makes Slenderman notable enough to be kept (I've retired as a Wikipedian, hence my not being signed in), but I noticed this AfD while reading the article and figured that this new info may be of interest to those discussing the AfD nomination. --67.83.26.49 (talk) 21:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Slenderman is a testament to how new media has changed the way stories are told and developed. Though not as notable as the Brother Grimm or Hans Christian Anderson (truth be told their stories not told through movies are very vague to the 21st century person) Slenderman shows how people can still invent a new monster to haunt you. Like many regional monsters known mostly to the inhabitants of those areas, like the MothMan & Jersey Devil Slenderman may not have the greatest notability but in the community were he exists he holds a strong presence. The page is not badly written at all and sources exist they have not just been cited and used yet. With a good night of TLC from a strong and seasoned Wikipedia-er this article will be top shape. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmsome (talk • contribs) 02:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

STRONGLY suggested keep. I think that this is a trustworthy article, sited from enough source, and useful. A lot of people want to know about the Slender Man, and where it originated.

I like this article, and reference it a lot. Wikipedia is smart, but without this article, Wikipedia will be one article dumber.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.134.146 (talk) 03:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article goes beyond the sources. I would also strongly urge against bolding sentances (especially in extra large letters) and even more against using multiple punctuation in a row. Both give the impression that you are trying to cow other editors into agreeing with you and are just not politie behaviors leading to positive discussions. I know it can be frustrating when an article you worked on is nominated for deletion, but deletion is not the end of the world and yelling about it (which is what these behaviors amount to) does no good.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Would have sent it for speedy if i'd seen it. Szzuk (talk) 15:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this will be any support to the Keep side, but here's an article from a French web magazine on Marble Hornets which encompasses the Slender Man. I know English articles are preferable, but I would think at least this shows proliferation outside the often language- and culture-limited realm of web memes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.176.66.6 (talk) 16:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: there are three Youtube series and four blogs devoted to this, not to mention coverage on multiple Internet information websites. Wikipedia has articles devoted to MUCH more obscure memes, so I don't see why people in this discussion are suggesting to delete it based on its "obscurity". Cyan Ryan^(talk) 17:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothy Marion Campbell[edit]

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

Biographical article with notability concerns. Google Scholar shows no results for this individual. No significant coverage in Google Books, either. No evidence that works by this individual have been included in museum collections, art reviews, etc. Contested prod. Neutrality^talk 16:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Neutrality^talk 16:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, at least one of her works is in the Victoria and Albert Museum, see here. Note also that she seems to have been generally known as "Marion Campbell". --GuillaumeTell 20:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. And a GBooks search on "Marion Campbell" + pottery seems to turn up someone of the same name who did archeological work on pottery. I can't tell if they're the same person, but this doesn't look all that straightforward right now. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CommentMarion Campbell" + Hornsea also brings up a plethora of references to her works. Millers antiques site has a flower holder of hers and ebay has a fair number of of her named works on offer. The V&A (as mentioned above) also has her work. My vote is to Keep this article.--Harkey (talk) 20:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An antiques guide and an eBay listing are not significant coverage (i.e., works that treat the subject directly in detail) in reliable sources. These links show that this individual existed, not that she is notable. Neutrality^talk 16:46, 15 July 2011 (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) 00:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification Further to Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's query, there were two Marion Campbells around at about the same time; the archaeological one died in 2000 (evidence here). asnac (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Power-Up: How Japanese Video Games Gave the World an Extra Life[edit]

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

Non-notable book. The article fails to establish the importance of the book other than the fact that it exists. Jonny2x4 (talk) 20:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs work, but source review (hit the books link up top, in particular) shows that actually this book has drawn some commentary and looks to easily satisfy the WP:GNG (and yeah, I mean while disregarding the results that are just it being mentioned that the author wrote it). —chaos5023 (talk) 17:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It is a book that is cited a fair number of times (example) but I'm not sure yet that it passes WP:NBOOK. I haven't seen any significant coverage. However, over the past month I've been coming across Kohler's name repeatedly in my research and I'm wondering if we should have an article on him. This can then be included there. Marasmusine (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We should, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Kohler (2nd nomination). It's a shame that one wasn't relisted. 28bytes (talk) 02:16, 20 July 2011 (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) 00:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K-1 Spain Battles 2009[edit]

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

also nominating:

another sprawling series of articles just listing sporting results of a non notable sporting event that fails WP:GNG and WP:EVENT for lack of indepth third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 23:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 04:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All of these events were held by a large promotion and feature regional Grand Prixs. -- WölffReik (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:ITSNOTABLE. please provide evidence of third party sources to meet WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 14:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All WP is not a sports results service, no indication that these are notable events all fail WP:GNG. Mt king ^(edits) 00:33, 19 July 2011 (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) 00:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Events lack notability and coverage. Astudent0 (talk) 17:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, non notable events. Jezhotwells (talk) 06:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://www.amazon.com/Androphilia-Rejecting-Identity-Reclaiming-Masculinity/dp/0976403587