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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel Chalobah[edit]

Nathaniel Chalobah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable footballer who fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 20:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Life^talk 20:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No first team appearances, no significant coverage, does not yet meet WP:NFOOTY or WP:GNG criteria. Deserter1 21:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Youth team player only, fails WP:NFOOTBALL. WWGB (talk) 02:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 12:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:NFOOTY and no significant media coverage to pass WP:GNG. --Jimbo^[online] 13:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:NFOOTY non notable player. Warburton1368 (talk) 22:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• [10], [11], [12], lol. 89.74.212.146 (talk) 09:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC) — 89.74.212.146 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 11:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL, as he never played for a senior team, and WP:GNG as the links provided above do not constitute significant media coverage. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 19:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:NFOOTY. TonyStarks (talk) 21:03, 31 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Favonian (talk) 20:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Knight Holdings[edit]

Knight Holdings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This nomination also includes the following closely related articles:

Knight Communications, LTD (UK) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Knight Communications, Inc (USA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The sourcing for these articles consists of a single trivial mention on a member of Parliament's web site, along with incorporation records. None of these sources come close to meeting the general notability guideline. I was not able to find any coverage of this company or its subsidiaries at all on a GNews search, so it appears unlikely that they have received significant third-party coverage in reliable sources. These articles have significant conflict of interest issues as well, and Knight Communications was recently deleted as spam. VQuakr (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undisputable Facts

• As per your note about Knight Communications being deleted as spam. This was simply because I had not formatted the references properly and therefore did not show correctly in the article. By the time I had seen the notification, the article had already been deleted.

• As for the statement of no notable sources, nor reliable sources, the Government of England and Whales, as wells the The British Parliament, as well as two different states within the United States Governement have all been cited.

• The reason why I placed this here to begin with, was due to a hearing which was held in the House of Lords, where Knight Communications was asked to testify. I was present at this hearing and tried to research the companies on Wikipedia and could not find any mention of them. I then decided to join Wikipedia to add these companies to the Encyclopedia.

• I have requested a copy of the article written by the Parliamentary Press on this hearing, but have not yet been given this document. Once I do, it will be cited.

Thank you AKnight2B (talk)

• Comment - Per your second point above, records of incorporation from a government web site, while reliable, do not constitute significant coverage. VQuakr (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• possibly keepthe article Knight Holdings if better sources can be provided , and, if so merge the other 2. there is might be justification for one article on a relatively major firm--there is no justification at all for trying to make three articles out of it. The component company names should be redirected to the main article. Trying to make too many articles when one would do is a rather reliable way of getting them all listed here. DGG ( talk ) 23:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis is this a relatively major firm? Per the lack of GNews hits mentioned in the nomination, I had trouble finding anything at all on these companies. VQuakr (talk) 00:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be right. Amended. DGG ( talk ) 01:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unremarkable companies with no significant coverage plus there's the conflict of interest/self promotion/advertising angle from the article creator. Delete the lot. MikeWazowski (talk) 03:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confilict of Interest MikeWazowski and VQuakr have both stated this is due to a conflict of interest, yet whenever I have requested of either of them on their Talk pages what the conflict of interest is, neither of them were able to tell me. MikeWazowksi had already deleted this article once without any debate, and without any time whatsoever to discuss the issue. AKnight2B (talk)

Actually, I've not deleted anything, as I'm not an administrator - I did tag it as spam, tho, which an admin apparently agreed with. As for the WP:COI, considering that your username is AKnight2B, and you're doing nothing but creating articles about a Christopher Knight and various companies related to him, your userpage says that you are an "American from New York City, whom now lives in London. I am in telecommunications", you've posted on your talk page that your name is Christopher Knight, just like the Christopher Knight you're writing about - I'd say that the conflict of interest here is pretty damn clear. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Significance

The Parliamentary hearings just started a couple of weeks ago, and are no due to conclude until the end of this year. The press were present at the first hearing; however, the phone hacking scandal had overrun the media and therefore caused limited publication. However, given Lord Lairds resolve and his strong desire to make a serious change in the UK, I believe this set of hearings shall be something that many a person and press will be extremely interested in researching. As these companies start popping up more and more in the press, I will gladly site the names and articles of the publications in reference and quote form. AKnight2B (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete - Virtually nothing on Google except this article, fails Wikipedia:CORP no significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources plus BIG conflict of interest Teapotgeorge^Talk 07:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A set of utterly unremarkable tech businesses. I don't see a claim of minimal importance here, much less historic notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Acusation of Conflict of Interest A few points:

• I did not create the Articles, I merely added properly formatted references
• Yes, My name is Christopher Knight; however, so are about 24million other people in the world (a potential exageration, but I believe it depicts my point)
• I AM in Telecom, as are millions of other people in this world (many of them with the name "Christopher Knight")
• I have absolutely no conflict of interest in this matter, as I was merely present when this discussion took place in Parliament, and decided to research it more. I found THESE articles, and added the references.
• The Articles are not about a person sharing my name, but rather about a company which has recently become of extreme interest to the Government in their discovery as to why people are overcharged for services in the EU
  • so AGAIN, please tell me where the conflict of interest comes into play AKnight2B (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

You did create the Knight Holdings article. You also created the Knight Communications article back on July 14, but that was speedy deleted. A single purpose account (who's never edited again) created Knight Communications, Inc (USA) and Knight Communications, LTD (UK) - I wonder what a sockpuppet investigation would uncover, as that seems a mighty interesting circumstance. As for the WP:COI, (repeating what I posted a few days ago) considering that your username is AKnight2B, and you're doing nothing but creating/editing articles about a Christopher Knight and various companies related to him, your userpage says that you are an "American from New York City, whom now lives in London. I am in telecommunications", you've posted on your talk page that your name is Christopher Knight, just like the Christopher Knight you're writing about - I'd say that the conflict of interest here is pretty damn clear. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sock Puppet

One simle question... Did you actually attempt to contact the individual and do a proper investigation into whether or not your accusations were accurate, prior to accusing and having two accounts locked?? If you look at the person's account whom you are accusing of beeing a sockpuppet, you will see their denial, but guessing they don't know to put the unblock command into their edit in order to attempt to be unblocked.

• I have no sock puppet
• If it were extremely unlikely for two people who don't know one another to have an interest in the same subject, then Wikipedia would not exist. AKnight2B (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

According to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AKnight2B, you do have a sockpuppet - the evidence was clear enough that (after an investigation by the appropriate admins with the necessary tools) you were blocked 24 hours for it, and the sock was indefinitely blocked. Please don;t try to play the victim here - you got caught and nailed - end of discussion. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MikeWazowski

• These personal attacks against me have got to stop!!!! I have no idea who you are, all I know is that your incessint lies and manipulation of this system to further your own agenda are in complete contradication to Wikipedia:Civility policy. There has been no proof of any kind submitted other than your allogations which you place on every page and article. The "sockpuppet" investigation does not state that I have one, as I do not. It merely states that it is possible, not different than it being possible that I am the Pope. Please stop your politicing for your own personal satisfaction or gain.
• This is a discussion as to the legitamacy of the Knight Articles, not me; therefore, if you would like to continue your personal attacks against me, I suggest you place them on my discussion page (which you apparently keep modifying to your satisfaction) and not on pages about articles.
• Please be Civil and Professional!AKnight2B (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Riiiiiight... you ask me for proof, then get upset and cry foul when I provide that proof. But to the main point of this whole discussion - you've not shown any proof that these companies meet the notability requirements. That alone will guarantee deletion for these pages. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Proof

• I am still waiting for proof, your making a personal accusation against me which noone is able to prove, and I have no idea of how I would even go about disproving, is not proof, it is merely more of your politicing.
• Again, this is not a discussion about me, therefore, please stop baiting and harrassing me on this discussion, this discussion is about whether or not the information about Knight Communications is accurate. Which again, I did not create, but merely added properly formatted references. AKnight2B (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I suggest you re-read this [13] and stop attacking MikeWazowski who has done nothing untoward. The discussion is NOT about whether the articles are accurate but whether they are notableTeapotgeorge^Talk 22:03, 30 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool F.C. 4–4 Arsenal F.C.[edit]

Liverpool F.C. 4–4 Arsenal F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I would have nominated this article along with Manchester United F.C. 4–3 Manchester City F.C. (2009) if I'd seen it earlier, but no matter. The same reasons for deletion apply: there are no sources to indicate this game's long-term notability, and even if there were, I still doubt that it would pass WP:ROUTINE. – PeeJay 20:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – PeeJay 20:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a historically important match like the 1989 classic and no records were set. Number 57 20:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No enduring notability, no records were broken, WP:ROUTINE. Argyle 4 Life^talk 20:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Despite the uncommon scoreline, just a WP:ROUTINE sports match that fails to meet WP:GNG criteria. Deserter1 21:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - No need to destroy Wikipedia with sadist bastards who ruin others' work all the time. Those people who have that as their primary duty ought to leave this place for good. Here is an article about one of the truly astonishing matches of last decade, a match that saqw eight goals between two massive clubs. Get real and stop being so stupid all. The. Time. Thanks. Roslagen (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on contributions, not contributors, or you might find yourself getting blocked. Anyway, everything you just said is a matter of your own opinion and doesn't explain why the game meets our expectations of notability for football matches. – PeeJay 22:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above, non-notable match. GiantSnowman 12:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the other comments, no more notable than a thousand other matches. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Another entertaining but non-notable soccer game. Vanadus (talk) 04:11, 27 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maxprint[edit]

Maxprint (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Without sources or context, there is no indication that this brand is notable. PROD was contested. VQuakr (talk) 19:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete as advertising/non-notable brand. MikeWazowski (talk) 03:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Ditto to the above. I am almost tempted to replace with CSD, but i will not. KING OF WIKIPEDIA - GRIM LITTLEZ (talk) 05:28, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester United F.C. 4–3 Manchester City F.C. (2009)[edit]

Manchester United F.C. 4–3 Manchester City F.C. (2009) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested PROD. Original reason for PROD was "No sources provided to indicate long-term notability of this game." PROD was removed with an attempt to address this issue, but still with no sources. In fact, the only external source is a link to The Guardian's statistical record of the game. – PeeJay 18:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – PeeJay 18:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• No, Mr. Deletion and Mr. Sabotage of other people's work, this is not an article worthy of deletion. When one of biggest intra-city derbies in English football end with seven goals scored, the last on six minutes stoppage time in the wake of the most complicated transfer of a player between the rivals, the you say it's worthy of a deletion. Holy mama.Roslagen (talk) 18:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That, of course, is your opinion, and you are entitled to it, but you need to provide sources to prove the game's noteworthiness in the media. Just because we think a game is notable doesn't mean it is. – PeeJay 18:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Instead of being so determined to move it away, how about you doing us a favour and help out with it? If so I may change my mind on you from being a discontributor to an actual pro-contributor...Roslagen (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would if I was convinced by the game's long-term notability. No records were set and it wasn't really an unforgettable match on the whole. As things stand, those are WP:FOOTY's inclusion standards for individual matches, and until those change, this game doesn't meet them. – PeeJay 19:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • No records were set in Battle of the Buffet or Battle of Old Trafford either, and I guess some people could forget about those too. Goal-spreading top matches or derbies will not be forgotten, and have long-term notability. Of course English football fans old enough to remember will have a huge likelihood to remember that Owen struck the winner in the 96th minute in the derby. Of course it is. There are no concerns whatsoever about that from my side. Only a brainwashed Wikimaniac would even consider the thought of doing that. Roslagen (talk) 19:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • The thing about the Battle of the Buffet and the Battle of Old Trafford was that they both made front-page news, rather than back-page. This game made little more than back-page news as there was very little fallout from it. – PeeJay 19:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Honest, front-page views in the sporting pages goes for any event. Now I challenge you on the sources, can you prove thsi game was not on the first page of any significant newspaper in England? I guess it certainly was. Until you've proven such a thing, this article is innocent until proven guilty. Roslagen (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm afraid not. The burden of proof is on you to provide sources to prove this game's notability. And the question isn't whether this game was on the front page, but whether anything happened in it that extended beyond sporting matters. – PeeJay 19:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As per WP:ROUTINE, "routine events such as sports matches... may be better covered as part of another article, if at all". Although 4-3 scorelines are uncommon, unlike Manchester United F.C. 9–0 Ipswich Town F.C. there was not any kind of record set and I don't believe it meets WP:GNG criteria. If the notability relates to the transfer of Carlos Tevez then some of the content could be incorporated into the relevant section of his article (if it hasn't been done so already). Deserter1 19:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing particularly special - derby matches are often full of goals/tension. Number 57 19:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The article doesn't indicate anything particularly noteworthy. On the other hand, it may be acceptable to create a new article on Manchester intra-city football rivalry, and include a summary of all the games between these two teams. --Noleander (talk) 19:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • We already have Manchester derby. – PeeJay 19:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, that's the best solution then. --Noleander (talk) 20:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I heard a European announcer talk about a "darby" once, and I had no idea what he was talking about. Now I know ;-) --Noleander (talk) 02:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No enduring notability. A high-scoring derby match doesn't justify a stand-alone article. If it did there would be thousands of them. Argyle 4 Life^talk 19:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:ROUTINE. No evidence of longstanding notability for this game. Parts of it could be salvaged for the Manchester derby article. Valenciano (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Merge any important info to the derby article. There's no sign of any outstanding notability for this particular match, unless it can be found. As Argyle says, at this rate we could have hundreds and hundreds of these articles. I'm also really bored with people saying that their articles are notable until somebody else proves that they're not. Mercifully, Wikipedia doesn't work like that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge any notable information to [[Manchester derby article. Warburton1368 (talk) 22:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - yet another non-notable match. Mention on Manchester derby, nothing more. GiantSnowman 12:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Entertaining match, but no notability. Vanadus (talk) 04:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Tedious. Szzuk (talk) 19:22, 30 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 03:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chase McBride[edit]

Chase McBride (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does not meet any of the criteria in WP:MUSIC. Third-party sources all appear to be local (where he lives) reviews, including two from the same local paper, and one from a blog of a local radio station. I'm not sure if he's received any "non-trivial coverage" about a national concert tour. Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. ukexpat (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:INDY, WP:RS, and WP:MUSICBIO. Could reconsider if/when any of his work receives significantly higher-level attention. Richwales (talk · contribs) 19:02, 27 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is clear, & I agree also, for the reasons specified, most clearly by Berian. DGG ( talk ) 18:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hostel life[edit]

Hostel life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Personal opinion, (brief) essay. Not encyclopaedic. Prod removed by author of article. Peridon (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unsourced opinion piece or original research. Valenciano (talk) 18:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unreferenced original research. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unclear importance and unclassifiable topic. Does it refer to child victimology? or runaways? or hostels? Bearian (talk) 18:21, 28 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 03:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trent Valley Gliding Club[edit]

Trent Valley Gliding Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable organization, fails WP:ORG Ahunt (talk) 17:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The following WikiProjects, within whose scope this article falls, have been notified of this deletion nomination: Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation, Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. YSSYguy (talk) 08:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Alexf^(talk) 17:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per nom. Mean as custard (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since the nomination is to delete the article as it fails to meet notability requirements, I think you need to explain your indication that it should be kept if it is a non notable organization. - Ahunt (talk) 01:25, 28 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. When ignoring rampant meatpuppetry, there is clear consensus here. causa sui (talk) 03:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fatimiya Sufi Order[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Fatimiya Sufi Order (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No secondary sources indicating notability. All statements are based on blogs or other self published sources. A search on Google for the term only shows other self-published sources. Jeff3000 (talk) 17:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keeep This is nonsense. I note that Jeff3000 is a member of the Bahai Internet Agency http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Baha%E2%80%99i_Internet_Agency taskforce assigned to wikipedia by the Bahai body. This person is engaging in an blatant act of religious persecution regarding this article.

Reality Sandwich has run an article on the Fatimiya Sufi Order, here: http://www.realitysandwich.com/node/76773, there are two separate interviews run by independent outlets, here http://in-a-perfect-world.podomatic.com/entry/2010-01-04T17_21_24-08_00 and here http://radiohuasca.blogspot.com/2010/01/radiohuasca-12.html. This meets all the notability guidelines of wikipedia and as such the reason for nominating this article for deletion is purely motivated by sectarian reasons. --Fatimiya (talk) 09:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As such I disagree with the reasons for nomination and vote against this article being deleted. --Fatimiya (talk) 10:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Let's stay on topic, which is about Wikipedia standards for notability and reliable sources. Making comments about the editor (which by the way are all untrue) has no place on Wikipedia (see no personal attacks). The article is largely not referenced. The few references that it has are links to blogspot, which is a blogging website and is self-published, podomatic which is a site for users to create podcasts and is self-published, scribd, which is a website to upload self-published documents. The only link that has some editorial oversight is the realitysandwich one, but other than that there is no coverage anywhere on the web, in books, journals, etc, and notability states that "A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization." Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 11:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You appear not to have even looked at the links given. There is only one single reference to a blogspot (which is in two parts) which links to the original upload of an interview conducted by a third party. The Reality Sandwich article is not a blogspot and that more than meets all standards of notability. The Podomatic link is also a third party. These interviews also exist on Youtube. I am happy to change the links from Podomatic and Blogspot to Youtube where the same interviews exist. The fact is, however, that you have nominated this article because you are a member of the Bahai Internet Agency taskforce of wikipedia and have a history of ideologically motivated deletion of articles and harassment of individuals who trump the ideological line of the Haifan Bahai organization to which you belong. You are not impartial here and the reasons for your nomination are not impartial either. I contend that your nomination is an act of bad faith and sock-puppetry on behalf of the Bahai Internet Agency: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Baha%E2%80%99i_Internet_Agency . Please note that your nomination for deletion and your subsequent activities in relation to this article are being recorded and will be publicly disclosed to third parties as an attempt by the Bahai Internet Agency of persecution of a non-Bahai religious group --Fatimiya (talk) 11:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please again, stay on topic, and refrain from personal comments. There is noting ideological here. The point is that virtually all the links above are all self-published (i.e. YouTube is self-published as well) and cannot be used to define notability. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 11:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stay on topic yourself. The links are not self-published. They are published by third parties. Cite me the guideline that third party links to Podomatic or Blogspot cannot be linked. These are by third parties. The Radiohuasca blog belongs to the host of the show itself (DJ Zart). And please bring a non-Bahai administrator to adjudicate this, please. Your reasons for nomination are ideological. As a member of the Bahai Internet Agency http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Baha%E2%80%99i_Internet_Agency taskforce of wikipedia you maintain a long track-record on wikipedia of religious harassment and religious persecution of all individuals and groups whom the Haifan Bahai organization to which you belong to deems to be ideological enemies. Your nomination is motivated and predicated by purely sectarian reasons, which negates any assumptions based on good faith given your track-record. Had there been any other editor but you, there wouldn't be an issue. That it is you, ipso facto demonstrates your nomination is ideological and originating in bad faith. Again, I ask an independent administrator to adjudicate this issue --Fatimiya (talk) 12:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC) The following link http://www.uq.edu.au/hprc/documents/Program_2008.pdf shows a lecture from 2008 at an academic conference given by a third party at the University of Queensland in Australia regarding the Fatimiya Sufi Order. --Fatimiya (talk) 11:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have pointed to the relevent Wikipedia articles. Self-pubslished sources such as blogs, personal websites, etc are not considered [[WP:RS]reliables sources. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 13:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify this for me Jeff. Is the University of Queensland a blog, a personal website or a self-publishing website? Which of these three is it? Help me out with this one. --Sevenislucky (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)— Sevenislucky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You are repeating yourself. No personal websites have been included in the article. In fact I removed a personal website from this article placed in it by the article's original author. Nothing in the links you provided, however, say anything about the non-inclusion of third party references to a subject, or interviews linked from a third party source, because these are all open to inclusion as verifiable third party sources. There are no personal websites referenced in this article. There are no personal blogs referenced this article. Third party verifiable sources have been included only. There is a blog of a Radio program linking to an interview in two parts. The blog is of the host of the radio program and not a personal blog, but a program blog. There is another one linking to an interview in one part on Podomatic. I am happy to move these to external sources now. We still have two verifiable sources which is more than enough for an article this size. --Fatimiya (talk) 13:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Jeff3000-I presented the paper, referenced above, at the 2008 'Alternative Expressions of The Numinous Conference', held at the University of Queensland. You have so far not clearly demonstrated any reason why the interviews cited here, including the one at the Reality Sandwich site, do not constitute valid third-party reference material. Should you wish to make this a matter of further definition, I will gladly assist you. I should make you aware that the content of this article is currently the subject of academic investigation and discussion by numerous parties in Australia and overseas, myself included. We will be closely monitoring this discussion, as there is a definite issue arising regarding an apparent editorial bias on behalf of certain editors towards the material presented. I look forward to the appointment of an unequivocally third-party adjudicator on this issue. Dr. Samuel Burch. School of English, Media Studies and Art History, University of Queensland.Samuel.Brc (talk) 13:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC) — Samuel.Brc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete As lacking significant coverage in 3rd party reliable sources. I'm open to changing my !vote if there foreign language sources that my searching missed. See WP:GNG, WP:CORP, and WP:RS for more details if you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia. (and just in case anyone asks: no, I'm not part of a conspiracy against whatever religion this group is). Qrsdogg (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I say KEEP. On the basis that first, the nominator is a Baha'i whereas the article mentions that the organisation concerned (Fatimiyya Sufi Order) has made statements contradicting the Baha'i narrative and this has led to an easily verifiable (with the help of Google) bitter and protracted public quarrel between the Baha'is and the convenor of the Fatimiyya Sufi Order. This is clearly a case of CONFLICT OF INTEREST if ever there was one. The nomination should be struck out on that basis alone. Second, even if there was no conflict of interest, the reasons given for deletion are spurious and clearly false. According to Google there really seems to be an organisation by the name of Fatimiyya Sufi Order and its existence is confirmed by many people not connected with it, from SOAS to 'realitysandwich'. --Sevenislucky (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)— Sevenislucky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note, the above editor is a single-use account created one minute before posting the above. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 18:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noted that Jeff. Thanks. I'm glad you noted it too. At least you noted something. I created this account just to post that comment and as you're a moderator you will hopefully note my IP address is 1) fixed and 2) different from all other commentators on this page. Have you anything to note about your failure to note that the Fatimiyya Sufi Order is recognised by SOAS, realitysandwich and others not connected with Mr Azal or his organisation? Please take note and refer to Google and the references list again. Thank you.--Sevenislucky (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)— Sevenislucky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note that editor Jeff3000 is determined to delete this article no matter what. I refer to the discussion above and to this link, here: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Baha%E2%80%99i_Internet_Agency . Unless Jeff3000 can show otherwise, I can't seem to find anything that says single-user accounts cannot vote or express their views about an article nominated for deletion. I remind Jeff3000 that Wikipedia is a community effort and that no editor here holds a personal propriety over the site. --Fatimiya (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). A single-purpose account (SPA) is a user account or IP editor whose editing is limited to one very narrow area or set of articles, or whose edits to many articles appear to be for a common purpose. Many SPAs turn out to be well-intentioned editors with a niche interest, but a significant number appear to edit for the purposes of promotion, showcasing and/or advocacy. For these reasons, experienced editors often scrutinize the editing activities of new editors and SPAs carefully in a discussion to discern whether they appear to be here to build an encyclopedia (perhaps needing help and advice), or alternatively edit for promotion, advocacy or other unsuitable agendas. The community seeks to attract new and well-informed users knowledgeable in a particular subject; at the same time it is not a platform for advocacy. Cind.amuse (Cindy) 01:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • I have already made it clear that I created this account just because I was concerned about the nomination for deletion. Judging by your comments, certain things have 'no bearing' on the question of whether an article can be deleted. These things are: having academic credentials to support a particular claim about a group (in this case the group Fatimiya Sufi Order) and being new to Wikipedia, which you have just stated will be treated as a crime. On the latter point, I have noted that EVERYONE who joined up like me to express their disapproval at the nomination for deletion has now been officially accused of sockpuppetry. And yet you accuse strangers of acting in bad faith? And you say new editors are welcome at Wikipedia but your view as an older member carries more weight. I simply don't accept that. Your opinions have no special status here.--Sevenislucky (talk) 13:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. (copyvio removed by Acroterion ) G12 copyvio of http://indigosociety.com/showthread.php?38059-Monotheism-and-the-Doctrine-of-the-Trinity/page2. While copyvio deletion policy takes precedent over AFD, the CSD tag has been removed by Fatimiya several times, so I am making notice here of the copyright violation. Due to claims of authorship and ownership of the content, I have also provided information for donating copyrighted materials. Cind.amuse (Cindy) 14:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This issue has been resolved so it is now a non-issue. Let the discussion re: nomination continue --Fatimiya (talk) 15:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I say KEEP. and don't delete the article - my name is Roya - I am the creator of this entry, I am a research and IT professional and the academic credentials of this order & persons are verified. I am an expert in Social Information Architecture & work within inter faith dialogue & for anti-extremism iniatives. The Fatimiya Sufi order, their Shaykh and it's teachings are recognized with letters of reference by Cambridge University and SOAS - School of Oriental and African Studies - London. The teachings described as Bayanism/Babism, and the schism between Bayanism & Bahaism - is recognized by scholars in Cambridge and London & worldwide. Further reference in artcile, EG Browne etc. Further academic soruces for references are available but not included yet due to time factors. It has been checked if the person / organisation named as Fatimiya Sufi Order & Nima Wahid Azal is victim of online bullying which we found by analysis to be positive. The methods of the declared enemies of this order - enemies due to different spiritual teachings and schism between Bayanis/Babis & the Baha'i - have not gone unnoticed by authorities and scholars. The issue of online bullying and silencing people of different beliefs through such methods has also been put forward to anti-extremism/cult monitoring groups. The Fatimiya Sufi Order under leadership of it's Shaykh Nima Wahid Azal is a genuine research and spiritual authority on Babism, the Bayan as well as the Bahai which are important & recognized branches of Shi'a Islam & Sufism. See for example speeches at SOAS. I can be contacted under the email address known to Wikipedia to verify my identitity & the academic credentials mentioned (copy of letters etc). I have now added 3rd party references to the article that highlight the wider relevance and academic importance. Infringement of copyright concerning the Fatimiya Sufi Order is impossible as the contributed material is unique & references are verifiable through historic sources & academics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royajakoby (talk • contribs) 15:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC) — Royajakoby (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment. Your academic credentials have no bearing on the notability of articles on Wikipedia. The article needs to establish notability through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The subject and article are both clearly lacking in this area. It's not enough to vaguely assert notability in a deletion discussion. The article itself, must document notability through the general notability guidelines. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 15:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete due to lack of notability established through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Cind.amuse (Cindy) 15:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. There appear to be rules for notability established for most articles and entries on wikipedia while another applied to this one. We have established independent notability 1) through 3 independent written references and 2) 2 independent audio interviews (which for an inexplicable reason you say we cannot include although there is nothing that says we cannot include them as references). Just as your earlier assertion about this article violating copyright (which it wasn't as that site itself was quoting from the Fatimiya site) so is your assertion now about the lack of notability. This is an excuse. There are articles on wikipedia with far less notability than this one yet they have been on wikipedia for years. Arguably there are interested parties intent on deleting this article, as this article is clearly being singled out because the nominator of the article has a history of this sort of behaviour with all other groups and articles deemed ideological enemies to the Haifan Bahai organization to which he belongs; this, given the fact that he is a sock-puppet of the Bahai Internet Agency: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Baha%E2%80%99i_Internet_Agency and has not denied it. Also due to the baseless accusations that have been made here (esp. the sock-puppet ones, that are clearly designed to disenfranchise the voices who wish this article to stay), and contrary to your assertion earlier that there is no conspiracy, clearly given the behaviour here of assorted parties there is absolutely no other conclusion to be made than that this is precisely what is going on. Thankfully there are three institutionally affiliated academics here who have now witnessed this spectacle for themselves and can record it for posterity about the standards of moderation and nomination on wikipedia, and the kind of manipulative bureaucratic red-tape that is employed to silence and censor legitimate entries --Fatimiya (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Actually, I haven't commented about any audio interviews. There are a couple of external links (Radiohuasca) that are dead though. I tried to find a link at the waybackmachine.org, but there was nothing there. Please note, that we cannot use blogs such as those on blogspot.com to support notability. On another note, yes, the content was created as a copyright violation. The copyright holder has not officially donated the material to the Foundation. This content was removed by the reviewing administrator, as a clear violation of copyright law. Regardless of your claims to authorship, unless (and until) you provide proof of copyright ownership to the Foundation, it remains a copyright violation and as such, we cannot accept the content on Wikipedia. I really don't understand why you don't choose to follow through on donating the content to Wikipedia, if you are indeed the owner of the copyright. Of the three citations that directly support article content, only one (realitysandwich.com) mentions the subject in any great detail beyond peripheral mentions. This simply doesn't equate to significant coverage. I'm personally not connected to any conspiracy. And I'm certainly not intent on seeing the article deleted. My focus is on ensuring that notability for the subject has been established in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I have personally performed a thorough search of "Fatimiya Sufi Order" in books, news, and online sources that may support the article. The only content that I have found amounts to self-published material. As far as different rules for notability from one article to the next, all articles about churches, religions, or religious orders require significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. Cind.amuse (Cindy) 01:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Cindy, the link you quoted as proof for copyright infringement - http://indigosociety.com/showthread.php?38059-Monotheism-and-the-Doctrine-of-the-Trinity/page2 - is actually original material quoted from the Fatimiya itself, it only looks like it is from Lawrence Gillian - due to bad editing/visual placement. The actual article by Gillian is this: http://www.adishakti.org/_/centrality_of_the_divine_feminine_in_sufism.htm. (Roya) As for genuine material - I have included 3rd party references to EG Browne etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royajakoby (talk • contribs) 16:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC) — Royajakoby (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment. Actually, I didn't identify an author of the material. I simply identified the copyright violation, which was appropriately removed from the article. The material appears to be based on the works of Laurence Galian and two other individuals. (I agree that there was bad editing/visual placement.) It's also messed up on the Fatimiya Sufi Order webpage. Regarding the EG Browne link, quite puzzling, since the link never once mentioned the subject of the article. Please note that the http://fatimiyasufiorder.org website clearly has a notice of copyright at the bottom of the page (not that one is required to ensure protection). Wikipedia wouldn't use the material even if the copyright notice didn't exist. We simply cannot use any copyrighted material on Wikipedia, unless it is officially donated to the Foundation. And in this particular case, the content was never donated. Cind.amuse (Cindy) 01:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The above editor has voted twice. Also E.G. Browne never comments on the principle subject of the article, as he died well over 70 years before the apparent start of the Fatima Sufi Order. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment E.G. Browne clearly commented and extensively documented the Azali-Bahai division, esp. the murder of Azali (i.e. Bayani) leaders by the Baha'is. What are you talking about? And it is Fatimiya not Fatimi --Fatimiya (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment E.G. Browne documenting the aforementioned issues http://www.h-net.org/~bahai/diglib/books/A-E/B/browne/tn/tnappx2.htm --Fatimiya (talk) 17:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Yes, E.G. Browne did write about the Azali-Bahai disputes, but he did not write about the subject of the article, which is the Fatimaya Sufi Order, because he died 70 years before it started. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fatimiya, Jeff300. F-A-T-I-M-I-Y-A. Please note the correct spelling for the main word of the article you yourself nominated for deletion --Fatimiya (talk) 09:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brooks Sattva (talk • contribs) 20:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC) — Brooks Sattva (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KEEP This article has met all criteria to KEEP. This article has shown more credability than many other long standing articles. Those seeking deletion seem to have an agenda other than community participation in Wikipedia.--Al Zulfikari (talk) 23:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)— Al Zulfikari (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete The first two sources are not independent. The third source might be independent or it might be a press release handed to the University. Zero GBooks or Gnews hits, so it there just aren't enough reliable independent sources to show notability. Edward321 (talk) 05:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edward321, are you referring to the program for the 2008 'Alternative Expressions of the Numinous Conference', held at the University of Queensland in association with the Studies in Religion Department, for which papers needed to be accepted by the conference's organising panel? If so, this is demonstrably not the case. If I need to clear this up, I will. Those supporting the deletion of this article need to CLEARLY state why the web-magazine, Reality Sandwich, published by Evolver LLC, and covered by wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_Sandwich, is not valid. Daniel Pinchbeck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Pinchbeck) is the magazine's editorial director. The article referred to was a feature article, not a blog, thus it was subject to editorial review. Essentially, the editors supporting deletion are suggesting that Reality Sandwich, and by implication, its editorial director/team, are not reputable. Is this the case?Samuel.Brc (talk) 07:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first two sources are independent. If Edward321 has evidence that they are not independent, let him show the evidence that they are not (that still means something here, right? Evidence). I've now put in a third independent source from Sufi.Net that has also been linked in other articles on wikipedia as a reference of notability. Clearly this article meets all the criteria of notability. BTW what is the result of the sock-puppet investigation against the three people here? --Fatimiya (talk) 09:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - it is clear almost all hits on the internet are self-published, blogs, email discussion areas announcing the group for publicity, etc. The only third party ref I saw was a blurb which was ONLY a quote from one of the blurbs. The first source is under the heading "PROPAGANDA ANONYMOUS'S BLOG", the second only mentions it with almost no commentary, the third indicates only a session at one conference designed to look at small groups and the presenter is a member of the group, and the third is another blog by a recent investigator of sufi meditation and is again mentioned only as a member of a long list of alternative sufi meditation groups. How does any of this reach notability? It doesn't. Smkolins (talk) 12:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SmKolins. Please see here: http://www.realitysandwich.com/fatimiya_sufi_and ayahuasca. It is listed as "Feature" under the category "Pysche". Therefore, the article is a feature, though it was also posted under this users blog. Get your facts straight, please. And what does your pejorative suggestion regarding the 'size' of the groups mentioned at the conference mean? And just for the record, is Reality Sandwich a reputable source, or not? Samuel.Brc (talk) 12:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All features on Realitysandwich must go through an editorial process. Propaganda Anonymous is a writer on the site and as a writer of the site has their own blog. No one on Realitysandwich can publish a feature without editorial oversight and no individual article is published without reference to the blogger-writer who authored it. This is that site's policy. Smkolins is welcome to write the site and ask them about this policy. Clearly there is a determined ideological motivation initiated by the wikipedia taskforce of the Bahai Internet Agency to delete this article. Canard and red herrings are presented as arguments regarding notability. Double-standards are being employed instead which in a court room setting would indict said parties for collusion and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. As such, insofar as this matter is concerned, a complaint has been filed as of today with a body who investigates claims of religious persecution and discrimination, and against the Bahai Internet Agency and their activities on wikipedia. Archives of this discussion together with archives of previous instances when users Jeff3000, Edward321 and their friends have done similar have been forwarded to the body.--Fatimiya (talk) 12:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm not seeing how the group meets the standards in WP:NOTE. Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wildthing61476-Your reasons being?Samuel.Brc (talk) 14:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No independent sources, zero hits for the group, all the sources that are found are self-published, which are not reliable sources. In short, I don't see where notability is being met. Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lack of independent reliable sources. - MrOllie (talk) 16:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The article represents a recognized Sufi order and the work of its founder presents a rigorous, authentic, contemporary scholarship that illuminates the path of Sufism. Gloria Erickson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gloriaerickson (talk • contribs) 01:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC) — Gloriaerickson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Nobody is questioning that it is a recognized order, or that it exists. Wikipedia has rules for notability that every article must meet, and this one currently does not. That's not to say that the order isn't valid, but for now at least, it doesn't meet the established guidelines for an article on Wikipedia. That's not to say it never will, there are many articles that were initially deleted as not meeting Wikipedia's guidelines for notability, but later did end up being articles that met these guidelines. For now, however, the article does not. - SudoGhost 02:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As per my comment above. - SudoGhost 02:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The article meets all necessary criteria to exist. This wouldn't be the first page containing ideological differences to certain groups that has been hounded into deletion Rowan3001 (talk) 09:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC) — Rowan3001 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — [[User::Rowan300|:Rowan300]] ([[User talk::Rowan300|talk]] • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete per lack of notable media coverage, I didn't see anything except for the group's website on both Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 21:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SwisterTwister- What are you talking about? Why is almost everyone supporting deletion ignoring the Reality Sandwich article? Nobody has given a straight answer as to whether they perceive this as a reputable source or not, as per my comments above. This article was actually recast on a news feed at the University of Western Sydney. http://mcm.uws.edu.au/feed/article/189495/collapse/ajax/ajaxSamuel.Brc (talk) 00:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Reality Sandwhich article is a blog. Most blogs are considered self-published sources, and are not sufficient to establish the notability of an article's subject. As this blog entry seems to be the only reference being suggested as showing notability, the article therefore does not have sufficient notability. - SudoGhost 12:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The article on Realitysandwich is not a blog it a featured article. Calling it a blog is a misrepresentation of how Realitysandwich works --John Theodore Sanders (talk) 15:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC) — John Theodore Sanders (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This link makes it pretty clear on being a blog. It's a bit hard to misrepresent such a thing when it's right there at the top of the page (and part of the URL). - SudoGhost 16:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, SudoGhost, it doesn't make it clear it's a blog post, because the article isn't a blog post. The blog you are referring to is a collection of the ARTICLES etc (including blog posts), submitted by the contributor, Propaganda Anonymous, so it did appear in this users blog after it had been published as a feature. This is how Reality Sandwich works. Did you even read my comments above regarding the editorial process at Reality Sandwich? See here again: http://www.realitysandwich.com/node/76773 The article is a "Feature" article, in the "Psyche" category, and that is how it appeared when it was originally published. It's a bit hard to misrepresent such a thing when it's right there at the top of the page. Samuel.Brc (talk) 23:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When it says Blog in big letters across the top of the page, it's hard to argue that it isn't. The "Feature" article is a blog by another name, calling it otherwise does not make it so (it isn't a collection of blogs and non-blogs, and nowhere does it say the blog post is an article, but instead breaks the blog posts into different tags). This is not a reliable third-party source, and it is not enough to establish the notability of the article. However, even if the blog is not a blog, and is 100% a reliable source, articles require multiple reliable sources, not a single reference of questionable reliability. This alone is not sufficient. - SudoGhost 23:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Pinchbeck has a 'Blog' here http://www.realitysandwich.com/blog/daniel_pinchbeck, in which his FEATURE articles are then re-posted, so as you can see, unless you are questioning the reputation and reliability of the site and its editors, you really have to admit that this is a genuine article. If this is so, surely the fact that there ARE multiple other sources, including two audio interviews by third parties, a verifiable paper at a religious studies conference, and footage of a talk given at the Society of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London (to which one does not just walk in and start talking), does in fact establish that a notable discourse exists regarding this subject. The existence of a conference paper about this subject should also suggest that further academic discourse is on its way (noting also that the Reality Sandwich article was also recast in a news feed at the University of Western Sydney, as mentioned above), which would mean that rather than delete this article, it should be kept with a note for future expansion.Samuel.Brc (talk) 00:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are blogs. Not articles. That they are "featured" on their own website does not make them cease to be a questionable self-published source. - SudoGhost 00:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you're suggesting the whole of Reality Sandwich is a blog, not a web magazine? Go to page of 4 of the 'Psyche' category of the feature articles, and you will see the article clearly labelled 'Feature'. http://www.realitysandwich.com/psyche?page=4 . Every contributor of 'feature' articles also links to their own blog page, which is a secondary collection of their articles. This is how the website works. I don't know how this can be made any clearer. The article in question went through editorial review, ie it, and all the other feature articles, are 'features' first, and blog posts second. If you wish to argue differently, I suggest you go and change the Reality Sandwich wikipedia entry from a web-magazine, to a blog. See below:

"Reality Sandwich is a web magazine published by Evolver LLC, a privately held company. The site is intent, as its tag line expresses it, on "evolving consciousness bite by bite". Subjects run the gamut from sustainability to shamanism, alternate realities to alternative energy, remixing media to re-imagining community, holistic healing techniques to the promise and perils of new technologies. It offers a forum for voices ranging from the ecologically pragmatic to the wildly visionary. Content includes essays, short news stories, video clips, and audio podcasts. Over 1,000 articles have been published on the site since its launch in May, 2007. Author Daniel Pinchbeck serves as the magazine's editorial director, and SonicNet co-founder Ken Jordan is its publisher. Contributors include Douglas Rushkoff, DJ Spooky, Erik Davis, Alex Grey, Stanislav Grof, RU Sirius, Sharon Gannon, and The Yes Men."Reality Sandwich Samuel.Brc (talk) 01:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. You're really not getting anywhere with the back and forth on this issue. With all due respect, you're simply not going to convince experienced editors according to your lack of knowledge about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. There's simply no point to it. It has been explained to you over and over again to no avail. I suppose it comes with experience. I would like to invite you to consider reading and reviewing the policies on verifiability and reliable sources. Once you familiarize yourself with the policies, you may have a better understanding and be able to clearly identify what is acceptable on Wikipedia. And what is not. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 02:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am arguing the point because I believe the editor in question, and indeed the editor who originally nominated this article for deletion, are incorrect in labeling this source as either 'self-published', or as a blog. As per wikipedia policies, Questionable sources:

"are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited."

I am arguing the validity and reputation of Reality Sandwich as a resource, under the editorial oversight of Daniel Pinchbeck. I would also like to note this point. The content of the article relates to material on Bábism, Subh-i-Azal, the Bayani movement and Haoma, amongst other things. Whilst presenting a counter-narrative, which certain editors who have worked on these topics in relation to the Baha'i Faith may not agree with, this article relates to a significant socio-religious discourse (which has been initiated within the academy as per the conference proceedings, and is also mentioned in a typological list of Sufi groups by a full tenured Professor of Sociology here http://sufi.religionsnet.com/), and presents clear future potential for improvement as more scholarly research is made available. As far as inclusion goes, this should mean that this is not an example of an entry constituting an indiscriminate collection of information.Samuel.Brc (talk) 03:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is nothing (that I can find) that either supports or denies oversight of the Propaganda Anonymous blog. It is, however, a blog. Blogs lacking oversight are considered self published. See WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB for more information. Please note that even if we accept that oversight is provided, the sourcing still does not establish notability in accordance with the general notability guidelines. On another note, it is futile to argue the reputation of Reality Sandwich. Reputation is not among the criteria that establishes notability on Wikipedia. And the http://sufi.religionsnet.com/ is self-published by Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. his "full tenured" status has no bearing on the fact that the website is self-published. Again, recognizing the appropriateness of various sources and whether or not specific references meet the criteria for reliability comes with experience. While your enthusiasm is commendable, it is simply a bit misguided. Your arguing is essentially landing on deaf ears, because the rationale is not in compliance with policy and guidelines. While assuming good faith about you personally, you may wish to review this link regarding invitations extended to others, requesting them to participate in this discussion. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 04:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy- no, it is a feature article (with a tag saying 'feature') that appears, as all feature articles do, as blog posts on the individual contributor's blogs. http://www.realitysandwich.com/psyche?page=4. Period. Whatever you may say about 'deaf ears', I personally don't care how many times I have to repeat this point, as the fact remains that this is not self-published. All articles go to the author's blog page after being published. For example, if you go to editorial director, Daniel Pinchbeck's, page and click on the first entry in his blog, it will take you to the related feature article/news item etc, which is not designated as a blog. Do you see how this works? Entry on an individual contributor's blog is SECONDARY to the publication of the article as part of the content of the magazine. The same applies to the article in question here. You go to the user's blog page, which is a collection of their articles, and it takes you to the feature page. As I suggested to another editor, if you disagree with this position, you'd probably best go and change the Reality Sandwich Wikipedia entry to reflect your assertion that this is not in fact a web-magazine, but a collective blog, or series of blogs. I'm not backing down on this point, 'deaf ears', selectively deaf ears, or otherwise. Furthermore, to quote SudoGhost, "Nobody is questioning that it is a recognized order, or that it exists." As per deletion guidelines, For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort. I have added the Fatimiya Sufi Order to the list of Sufi Orders here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Sufi_orders#F, and since SudoGhost says there is no reason to doubt the Order's existence or recognition, this should not be an issue. So are you prepared to support wiping this one out completely, even with an independent mention in university conference proceedings and internal linkages to major historical articles within Wikipedia? Samuel.Brc (talk) 07:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. You're certainly entitled to your opinion. I really don't want to argue the issue anymore. The horse is long.gone.dead. On another note, I think adding the organization to the List of Sufi Orders was great! I realize that you initially arrived at Wikipedia merely in a desire to participate in this deletion discussion. These discussions can often get a bit heated with quite a bit of repetition of arguments and statements. While we may not share opinions of this particular article, I maintain respect for you and I appreciate that in spite of the disagreement, you have maintained your cool during the discussion. That said, I would like to invite you to consider staying around after the discussion is over. I don't know if you're aware of this, but Wikipedia has "WikiProjects" within the community that bring editors together that share common encyclopedic interests. We have a specific WikiProject that may interest you, that focuses on religion. Here is a link. You'll notice that there are also specialized workgroups and potential workgroups that focus on one particular religion. It doesn't look like Sufi Orders are represented within the WikiProject. Would you consider sticking around and participating in this area? It can actually be a lot of fun! I invite you to check it out. If you are interested, add your name to the list of members on the project page and spend some time checking out all their resources. And of course, if you have any questions about it, please feel free to contact me anytime. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 10:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The editorial board and site owner of Realitysandwich have been notified of the manner in which certain wikipedia editors here have deliberately misrepresented that site and the work it does. It has been explained to how Realitysandwich works. Another editor even requested the site itself be contacted. Instead the editors here have stuck to their guns and continued their misrepresentation. --John Theodore Sanders (talk) 19:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC) — John Theodore Sanders (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete - not notable. No significant, verifiable, third party references. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 14:06, 31 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as an obvious hoax. TerriersFan (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arcadia High School (Maryland)[edit]

Arcadia High School (Maryland) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The is a fictional high school. It's only existence is a web site, which according to this link is the also web site of the horror filmmaker Jeremy Kasten. There are no reliable third party sources to show this school exists or ever existed. It is certainly not a public school in Baltimore GcSwRhIc (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unverifiable, and apparently if it were it would be a non-notable fictional location DGG ( talk ) 23:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I second DGG's analysis. In addition, I looked at the whois for the "official website" and it's registered via an anonymous registrar, which no real school would ever do. Sailsbystars (talk) 11:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoax, seeing as it's not listed on the City Schools website. SheepNotGoats (talk) 14:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Easy decision Djohns21 (talk) 05:26, 26 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 03:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Liddle Kidz Foundation[edit]

Liddle Kidz Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Little to no truly independent sources to establish notability; the sources already in article are minor references on trade websites. Google news, scholar and book searches I tried did not find any independent sources to establish notability. Yobol (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• References for Liddle Kidz Foundation

Of 13 sources, 9 are sources independent of Liddle Kidz Foundation.

Google news, scholar and book searches do not find results for many of the entries on Wikipedia.

A Google search of "liddle kidz foundation" returns 471,000 results.

A Google search of liddle kidz foundation returns 14,000 results.

Sources 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 are from sources independent of Liddle Kidz Foundation – they include:

Touch Research Institute Published Research Articles in J Dev Behav Pediatr -

(copyrighted text from http://www.handsonbabies.co.uk/train/accreditation/ removed by Gurt Posh (talk) 00:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]

(copyrighted text from http://www.prweb.com/releases/non-profit_goodwill/greatnonprofits_donors/prweb4598114.htm removed by Gurt Posh (talk) 00:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]

(copyrighted text from http://www2.guidestar.org/rxg/help/faqs/about-guidestar/index.aspx removed by Gurt Posh (talk) 00:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Massage Today & Massage Magazine –

Both of these references are to professional healthcare publications. These publications are recognized as unbiased, industry leading publications.

(copyrighted text from http://www.facebook.com/MassageMagazine?sk=info removed by Gurt Posh (talk) 00:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Massage Therapy Radio -

Massage Therapy Radio is a professional, internationally broadcast radio program supporting the healthcare field of massage therapy. Industry experts and professionals are interviewed and profiled during their programming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmyEliz (talk • contribs) 15:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability per WP:ORG from WP:Reliable sources; borderline WP:SPAM. Gurt Posh (talk) 00:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of third-party coverage, I didn't find any on both Yahoo! and Google. SwisterTwister talk 21:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no evidence of notability from verifiable, third-party references. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 14:08, 31 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. per consensus, for the reasons specified. DGG ( talk ) 18:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Illinois Club Baseball[edit]

Illinois Club Baseball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Club sport at a college. Whoopie. There are tens of thousands of them in existence, with less than .01% meeting thresholds for notability. This is not an exception. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Clearly not a notable subject. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. Rlendog (talk) 00:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - vanity page for a non notable school/college sports team (not a major league per WP:NSPORT. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
• Delete Lacks independent sources with significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. —Bagumba (talk) 23:17, 28 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 03:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn Xiana Moon[edit]

Dawn Xiana Moon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Singer-songwriter that fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:COMPOSER. Actor that fails WP:NACTOR. Article appears to be autobiographical. | Uncle Milty | talk | 15:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteSeems pretty clear; what is given in the article does not amount to notability DGG ( talk ) 18:10, 31 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. joe decker^{talk to me} 16:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laissez-faire fraternity[edit]

Laissez-faire fraternity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I declined a speedy deletion on this, because the author claims on the talk page that it is "a well-established economic think tank which bears significant influence on economic, academic and political culture of the United States." If so, independent references should be easy to find, but I can find none. All that exist are connected with Georgian International University, with which the Fraternity seems to be closely connected: it has endorsed a book written by the University's President, Zviad Lazarashvili; the University has a scholarship in its name; and it has already awarded the University the "2012 Laissez-faire Medal of Freedom" according to the University's website - which was only set up on 19 May this year, though the University article says it was established in 1812. Also, the articles on the Fraternity and the University are by the same SPA author. JohnCD (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I was the original editor who proposed speedy deletion. I too have been unable to find any reliable source coverage of this organization to establish notability, which was the reason I originally nominated it for speedy deletion. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This organization has not received enough coverage in independent sources to satisfy the general notability guidelines. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no evidence for real existence., let alone even worth considering notability guidelines. Fails WP:V. I deleted the p. on the Georgian International University as a copy of its website, but I doubt even its real existence. The argument against a SNOW deletion is that the contributor of the article does need a chance to demonstrate actual sources. I cannot prove there are none, and stranger things have turned out to be real. DGG ( talk ) 20:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with above. No quality evidence.--Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 10:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of notable mentions. I didn't see anything on both a Yahoo! and Google search. SwisterTwister talk 20:59, 29 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Clear POV fork; I shall make a protected redirect after the deletion. DGG ( talk ) 18:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic Macedonians of Greece[edit]

Ethnic Macedonians of Greece (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

POVFORK of Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia. At one point there was a separate article on the ethnic Macedonians ("Aegean Macedonians") in Greece, but it was decided by consensus to merge with the former article on "Slavophone Greeks". This is the same group, just that some identify as Greek and some not. At the time it was decided it was best to have a single article and deal with the identity question there. Athenean (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• support Wasn't it agreed some time ago that this was just a POV fork of the original article and that it should stay a redirect? That way or the other, I do not see the purpose of yet another article that repeats the original but with someone's nationalistic views included. --Laveol ^T 16:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• support: prime purpose of the POV fork seems to be the contentious notion that the north of Greece is inhabited by ethnic Macedonians. Other than that the overlap to Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia amounts to 100%, so why have two articles on the same subject? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Due to the utter confusion that this interpretation causes. Moreover, ethnic Slavs that inhabit Macedonia in Greece are not ethnic Macedonians (albeit a recently promoted claim) i.e. they are not the descendents of Alexander the Great's Macedonia. This is pure fantasy and invention.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 17:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The article, as yet, does not provide any genuine distinction between itself and Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia. I suggest that the material be merged into Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia, and if an editor wants to perform a WP:content fork they discuss the rationale in that article's talk page. A content fork may be acceptable, but a POV fork is not. --Noleander (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly Oppose - The opposition to this article has mainly come from Greek and Bulgarian users, who do not generally recognise the existence of the Macedonian people and the seperateness of the Macedonian language at all, let alone as a minority population in Greece.

This article deals with the many people who personally identify as ethnically Macedonian. The term "Slavic-speakers" has historically been used to degrade the Macedonian ethnicity, and is considered highly perjorative to people who identify as ethnic Macedonians. There is however enough information about the ethnic Macedonians of Greece (and their diaspora), which in any other circumstance, would have left them with their own article a long time ago.

The Macedonians in Greece have:

• A Political party
• Non-governmental organisations
• Cultural organisations
• Macedonian language courses
• Several Macedonian language newspapers
• Elected Macedonians to a number political positions
• Macedonian language radio stations
• Produced a Macedonian-Greek dictionary
• Printed Macedonian language school books and language primers
• Sought recognition from the Greek government as a minority group
• Sought recognition to have their lanaguge taught in schools
• Been recognised by a plethora of English and French language publications, as an unrecognised minority group living in Greece. (If necessary, I will provide sources to back up these facts)

These people are not some "fringe group" as many of the Greek users would have everyone believe. In spite all of these examples of the self-identification of the ethnic Macedonians living in Greece, Why is it not possible for them to have their own article on Wikipedia.Lunch for Two (talk) 02:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. - Lunch for Two (talk) 13:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commment: My point exactly. "We need to have our article, where we can push our POV, since they have their articles where they push their POV." In other words, a POVFORK. For example, I note Lunch for Two is copy-pasting the same information in both Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia and Ethnic Macedonians in Greece [14] [15]. This is forking, pure and simple. All of the information about this group can be easily included in Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia, I don't see why we need a separate article. Any new information can also be included there as desired, without any problem. Most importantly, however, it was decided by community consensus to merge these articles a while back, and re-creating the separate article is a violation of that consensus. Considering the user responsible is a returning user who is most likely aware of that consensus, this borders of disruptive editing. Athenean (talk) 00:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Response; I am not aware of any other ethnic groups on Wikipedia which have been forcibly grouped together with people who share completely different ideologies (belief that they are ethnically Greek vs ethnic Macedonian), customs (adoption of ethnic Greek customs, rituals and celebrations vs preservation of tradition customs, rituals and celebrations) and ways of life (accepting and fostering assimilation into the mainstream Greek ethnicity vs preservation of the Macedonian language and identification as ethnic Macedonians). It is an unacceptable POV to place people under titles which they completely reject, in order to please one side of the argument (Which it should be noted, constantly denies the existence of the seperate Macedonian people and language). The debate will not be able to progress until this POV is sorted out.
• Furhtermore, I am not aware of an ethnic group which has shown so much self-identification, yet is forcibly reduced to being placed under the title of "Slavic-speakers"; which is a perjorative and offensive title these people clearly reject.
• As for some information being transferred, yes, it has. I will tell you why, it is because I for one had initially posted much of the information on the "Slavic-speakers" page, only in the absence of this page. Now that this page has been created, it only makes sense to transfer the information here, and write about those people who identify as "Slavic-speakers" (as is made clear by the title of that page).
• The fact is that given the lack of notable information about so called "Slavic-speakers" (which is made clear by the fact that hardly any of the article is actually about people who identify as "Slavic-speakers"), the article primarily revolves around the ethnic Macedonians, given the existence of a new article it is only normal for that information to be moved there. The article can then revolve around those who call themselves "Slavic-speakers" Lunch for Two (talk) 08:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly Oppose - The arguments of the nominator (and supporting users) lack validity and appear to be the consequence of their highly nationalistic agenda. More over, I will present Wikipedia with an important quote from the Human Rights Watch, published in 1994, on the condition and denial of the Ethnic Macedonian minority of Greece, by the Greek Government:

"The Greek government denies that a Macedonian minority exists in Greece. It refers to ethnic Macedonians as "Slavophones" or "Slav-speakers." The official Greek position is that the Greek state is ethnically homogeneous, the only exception being the Muslim minority in western Thrace (the Turkish minority32) whose existence was confirmed in 1923 by the Lausanne Treaty."^[1]

Full Report can be viewed here.

Since this is also Wikipedia (an international Encylopedia,) deleting this article would be in clear violation of the most basic user and human-right, the recognition of one's ethnic existence.--Xythianos (talk) 04:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user is a Persian ultranationalist troll [16] who is wikistalking me and is clearly only voting here out of spite. This is in apparent retaliation for a content dispute over at Ancient history [17]. Athenean (talk) 05:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Even in Greek census such minority exist, even though the number is small. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 10:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing alert: The preceding comment is result from canvassing on the Macedonian Wikipedia. The comment reads: "If you have time, please, vote here (link to the article) as Greek user are once again trying to delete the article. Help is needed so that Macedonians in Greece have their article on the English language version of Wikipedia. If there are other users, please, vote.".--Laveol ^T 10:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly oppose: for two reasons: first, because this is an encyclopedia and as such it is an obligation of Wikipedia to include all views within it and document them objectively. Secondly, because language does not mean ethnicity. "Slavic-speakers" is Greek POV to refer to the Macedonians in Northern Greece. I use that in Greek as well, but this is not a Greek encyclopedia, nor is it a platform to promote the Greek (or Macedonian) POVs. However small the minority in Greece is, it deserves its own article under an appropriate name and not a subsection of an article on speakers of Slavic languages in Greece. Likewise Turks in Germany should be a subsection of Turkic speakers in Germany, which would also include Azerbaijanis in Germany, Kazachs in Germany and Turkmens in Germany. Another more relevant example would be Hellenic-speakers in the United Kingdom instead of Greeks in the United Kingdom, which would also include Cypriots in the United Kingdom.

Wikipedia is not a platform for pushing POVs, and if the article is kept I believe it should be very well-sourced and reviewed by people neutral to the Greek-Macedonian dispute. --Philly boy92 (talk) 11:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe the article should be moved to Ethnic Macedonians in Greece, "Ethnic Macedonians of Greece" sounds like Greece owns the ethnic Macedonian living within it, like "Music of Greece", "Culture of Greece" etc. --Philly boy92 (talk) 11:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per Athenean. A Macedonian, a Greek. (talk) 21:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. These matters had been sorted a couple of years ago. The User:Lunch for Two has joined Wikipedia specifically to edit articles that have quietly prospered following a protracted debate followed by an arbitration. All parties came to an agreement and this has met the approval of those involved. Please see, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2 *** Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia). Politis (talk) 22:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you please point to which points of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2 and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia) are applicable to this article title? On an initial reading I can't see anything on either page that says or implies that the people who are, in plain English, ethnic Macedonians should be referred to in Wikipedia as "Slavic-speakers", any more than ethnic Swedes should be called "Germanic-speakers" or ethnic Portuguese "Romance-speakers". Phil Bridger (talk) 23:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Agree. I can't find any reference to this, could you please direct us to the correct part of these two pages where relevant information can be found? --Philly boy92 (talk) 23:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair point. The Macedonia related article edited (IMO trolled) by the new user have survived over the last 2 years due to a lengthy arbitration process that made different editors with different priorities come to an agreement. All editors have respected the arbitration. But there is more to it than that, and this is my point here, editors have also refrained from changing the names of articles which, in many cases are redirected. Politis (talk) 23:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The NCMAC and ARBMAC2 are completely irrelevant here. Regarding this article, Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia was originally created by User:PMK1 under the name Aegean Macedonians back in '08. There was also an article called Slavophone Greeks for those Slavic-speakers that identified as Greeks rather than ethnic Macedonians. At some point (I think it was either 2009 or 2010), it was decided to merge these two articles into a single article called Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia. This was discussed on some talkpage (I think that of Slavophone Greeks). I've tried to find the discussion but because of all the merging I have so far been unable to find it. I remember User:Future Perfect at Sunrise was part of the discussion, and he might know more. Here it is [18]. Athenean (talk) 23:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is for these above reasons why debate about this topic should once again occur. It has been over 3 years since the issue came to the fore, and during this period many people have had the chance to reassess their own personal beliefs given the increased scholarship and information now available for this subject. Compared to 3 years ago, there are significant more Greeks (on Wikipedia and more widely) who do recognise the existence of ethnic Macedonians living in Greece (this in itself is a significant shift). In the future due to better hinformation and greater tolerance I can only see more people also coming to this conclusion. Lunch for Two (talk) 09:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to start a new debate, which is fine, the way to do that is to propose that the article be recreated on a talkpage, then let the debate begin. Not by creating a fait accompli and then hoping for "consensus by default" (once an article is created "keep" votes have an inherent advantage, as in the event of an inconclusive AfD the article is kept by default). Athenean (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per policy in wiki about Balkan minorities. There is no need to create the same articles with a diferrent or similar name (we have Slavic speakers in Greece and its enough). I remember a similar situation where 'Greek minority in Albania' and 'Northern Epirotes' were merged, although the terms are not completely the same. Alexikoua (talk) 21:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I fail to see the logic in this. Are you suggesting that the fact that I speak English makes me ethnically British? Likewise, does speaking the Macedonian language make someone Macedonian? They would very well have a Greek consciousness and still speak Macedonian. Language and ethnicity are two very different things, and in this case "slavic speakers" is a Greek-POV euphemism for the small albeit existing minority of Macedonians in Greece, which also includes non-Macedonian slavic speakers. Also, what wikipedia policy on Balkan minorities?--Philly boy92 (talk) 22:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no wikipedia policy on Balkan minorities, but the thing to keep in mind here is that there is one group of people, not two. Regardless of how they are named or how some of them identify, they are never treated in the literature as two separate groups of people. Thus there should only be one article, where nomenclature and identity are properly discussed. The title of the article may well be up for discussion, but that is a separate matter that can be dealt with a move request as Noleander points out. Athenean (talk) 03:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - One of the arguments of the "keep" editors is that a better name for the slavic-speakers of Greece is the phrase "Ethnic Macedonians of Greece". That may be true, but the best process to use to reach that goal is to work on the Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia article, improve it, then propose a rename to "Ethnic Macedonians of Greece" using the WP:REQMOVE process. --Noleander (talk) 01:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true, however in this circumstance it is unlikely to happen. There is no way that Greek users will allow the whole article to be renamed "Ethnic Macedonians of Greece", because not all of the Macedonian speakers identify as ethnic Macedonians (I personally would not agree with this move either). I believe you have possibly missed the main issue in this debate, and I urge to read both articles again, and then reassess the situation.

It is not about being a "better name" but rather the right to their own name (which they have chosen for themselves). Lunch for Two (talk) 02:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's article naming policies are not about their "own name they have chosen for themselves", or about what "the Greek users will or will not allow", but rather what is the most commonly used name in the literature. Athenean (talk) 03:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Athenean, you know very well that Greek users will not allow the "Slavic-speaker" of Greece to be ever changed to "ethnic Macedonians" of Greece. Ideally, Yes, Wikipedia does try to use the most common name used in literature, however in relation to Macedonian issues there are a series of terms which may not be the "most commonly used name in literature" however for the purposes of this project have been adopted by the Wikipedia community. (Take "Slavic dialects of Greece" which is an invented term used on Wikipedia only to artificially unite languages (Macedonian language in Greece and language of the Greek Pomaks); even though all of these dialects have some form of page on Wikipedia already (Solun-Voden dialect, Prilep-Bitola dialect, etc.) where they are assessed from a linguistic and not political viewpoint) Lunch for Two (talk) 06:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Using "the Greek users" and their seeming omnipotence as an excuse to avoid having a discussion on the title is highly disingenuous. I think you give Greek users waaaaaaaaaaaaay to much credit here. If they were as powerful as you would have us believe, this article would called Republic of Skopje or something like that, and you know it. So enough already with all this stuff about "the Greek users would never allow it so let's not have a debate and call it what I want to call it and be done with it", this fools no one. There is absolutely no reason not to have a single article, and a frank debate about the title, rather than two POVFORKS. Athenean (talk) 05:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, there is merit in what I am saying regarding the strong lobby present on Wikipedia. Now that you have finally acknowledged that this article is a POVFORK, namely a "Greek-POV euphemism" as an ethnically Greek user here has already pointed out. Now, unless the name of this article is changed, I cannot see how this POV issue will be resolved. In fact there are many more sources in literature which point out this existence of "[ethnic (possibly Slav/ic])] Macedonians of/in/from Greece", or alternatively "Aegean Macedonians" as they are also widely known, then there are of the "Slavic-speakers of/in/from Greece".

I am just putting these here to highlight (of course is not definitive) the approach that literature has taken

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) 359 hits on google books

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) 712 hits

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) 376 hits

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) 69 hits

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) 34 hits

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) 7 hits

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) 21 hits

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) 0 hits (Although this is the name of the article, I only created it with that name ("ethnic" Macedonians) due to the fact that a Wikipedia arbitration has decided that all articles dealing with Macedonians, should use the term "ethnic Macedonians") - However in literature more widely, simply Macedonians is used (as is supported by the finding of this little exercise).

vs

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) 8 hits (+ One, which is a copy of the Wiki article)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) 19 hits

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) 1 hit

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) 17 hits

• If we are going to use literature as a guide about what to do, we are better off renaming this article to either "Ethnic Macedonians in Greece" (simply "Macedonians in Greece" would be the best option, however again this would conflict with the Wiki arbitration) or "Aegean Macedonians"; and then have a section regarding those who identify as Greeks and provide a link to here. Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia can be merged into the current article; if we are to use literature as a guide.

You may believe that the lobby is not that strong, however the fact that this article, with almost minimal references in literature, has been kept for so longer over much more mainstream terms, speaks for itself. Lunch for Two (talk) 06:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - I'm still trying to figure out if these two articles are describing the same group of people or not. The discussion above seems to imply it is a single group, but has two different names, depending on the political inclination of the speaker. So my question is: Editors who believe that there should be two different articles, can you describe some groups of persons that are in the "Slavic speaking" group, but who are not in the "Ethnic Macedonian" group? Or vice versa: identify some groups of persons that are in the "Ethnic M" group but not in the "Slavic speaking" group? And, whatever your answer is, what is the magnitude of these "non intersection" groups? 1% of the the Slav speakers? 10%? --Noleander 03:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Reply - The magnitude of the non-intersect groups can be judged by the list of things which the ethnic Macedonians have done to self identify as such (posted above). It is quite a significant group.

There are groups who can be classified in the "slavic speaking" but not "ethnic Macedonian" category; these people espouse a local/regional consciousness, whilst others call themselves ethnic Greeks. However these people (in the latter category) have a sort of 'phantom' presence on the article which was merged with "Aegean Macedonians" (another name for ethnic Macedonians of Greece), in order to include these people. And by this I mean that this article mainly revolves around people with an ethnic Macedonian consciousness and their self-identification; however hardly mentions those people with a local affiliation or Greek affiliation (despite the fact that the name of "Slavic-speakers" is best suited to them). Lunch for Two (talk) 15:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Noleander: Precise figures are hard to come by, but from what I know from the literature, there are an estimated ~200,000 Slavic-speakers, the vast majority of whom identify as "Slavophone Greeks". The number of Slavic-speakers with an ethnic Macedonian consciousness is again impossible to pin down, but has been estimated by human rights organizations (e.g. Greek Helsinki Monitor) at 10,000-30,000. This is based on extrapolating from the number of votes the ethnic Macedonian party "Rainbow" received in the 2004 elections (3,000-4,000 votes), while it hasn't participated in elections since 2004. As for all the magazines, newspapers and cultural organization as such that Lunch mentions, they are tiny and their circulation is small. By my own estimate, I would say roughly ~90% of Slavic speakers in Greek Macedonia identify as Greek, the remaining 10% as ethnic Macedonians. The 10,000-30,000 figure seems reasonable to me. As far as I know there are no non-Slavic speakers with an ethnic Macedonian consciousness. There is only one group of people, some of which now identify as Greeks, some not. But the language they speak is identical, ditto the customs and culture, and they have common ancestry. Most importantly, they are never treated as two separate groups in the literature. Athenean (talk) 20:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC

I have read that Nova Zora magazine has a circulation of 20,000; but that is not the main issue here, although it does dispute your claims regarding ethnic identity correlating with the results of Rainbow. It is impossible to put a figure on the number of people with a Macedonian, Greek or local identity. It is however, refreshing to see that Athenean does recognise that there is an ethnic Macedonian population living in Greek Macedonia; and only with recognition of this fact can any real debate occur.

It is true that many people of this group have been assimilated and now identify as Greeks. However, the presence of partly assimilated population groups does not facilitate the invention of new terms to describe them (as is the Wikipedia invention of "Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia")

• Take Poles in Germany. Here we have a large group of people some of which have a Polish identity, whilst roughly a million people of Polish descent (according to the article), whilst although not differing from the 'Polish identifying people of Polish descent' (in heritage, culture, etc.), now have another identity (presumably German).
• Such a large population (~ 1,000,000) does not necessitate the creating of another page "Lechitic speakers of Germany" or "West Slavic speakers of Germany" (To 'avoid' the POV of calling them Poles), but these people are simply dealt with in the text of the page. Not only would coining new terms conflict with WP:NOR; but having to create a new term would be a POV inconsistent with the literature upon which Wikipedia is meant to be based (And by this I mean that literature, if notable enough a topic, should have its own terms to describe them already).

Given that we now agree that they are of the "same ancestry" (and it is obvious what this common non-Greek ancestry is), I dont see why we can't merge Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia into this article and have a WP:CONTENTFORK about those who do not identify as ethnic Macedonians, and link to either Ethnic Greeks or Macedonians (Greeks) (Preferred option). I also don't see why there cannot be a new chapter in Macedonians (Greeks) to deal with these ethnic Greeks with different Origins and Culture (these are two sub-chapters on that page), and to provide any notable information about the people with a Greek ethnic identity on that page.

• Is this not an acceptable compromise? It leaves recognition of those persons with an ethnic Macedonian conscioussness whilst also providing detailed infomation on both (1 and 2) pages about persons with a Greek ethnic identity. I think that this is a fair compromise from both sides. Lunch for Two (talk) 06:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - If you look at this situation, it's really not much different than the one with Iran and Azerbaijanis, because Macedonians have their own country like the Azerbaijanis. Yet however, indigenous Azerbaijanis are and have always been found in Iranian region of Azerbaijan, the same way that Ethnic Macedonians are indeginous to the Macedonian region of Greece. Remember, borders are a new invention after the world wars and these kind of issues are common in many places throughout the world today. We cannot deny a people's right to existence, just because maps were redrawn and for them being speakers from a different linguistic branch. Azeris are Turkic-speaking yet indiginous to the Azerbaijan region Iran in again the same way that Ethnic Macedonians are Slavic-speaking yet indigineous to the Macedonia region of Greece (I've done my research). I hope this helps some of you realize that it's pointless trying to deny someone's ethnic existence, even if it's only Wikipedia.(it doesn't make it any less hurtful). Remember, politics shouldn't also be involved in making our decisions on here. After all, there is a page on the Ethnic Azerbajanis of Iran, so why shouldn't there be one on the Ethnic Macedonians of Greece? My advice is to keep this page, but just make it well sourced and have editors review it that are far away from the conflict, so that there is a neutral unbiased approach to its form. You could also look into renaming it, "Greek Macedonians" is an option :) And good luck.--Xythianos (talk) 03:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This from the editor who nominated Tajik people for deletion [19] on the grounds that the existence of a separate article on Tajiks was "offensive to the Persian nation". Athenean (talk) 04:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The only reason 'User Lunch for Two' created his account 10 days ago (18 July 2011) [20] is to create a controversial article and then keep editing it irrespective of the AfD notice or past agreements {http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Lunch_for_Two}. His working knowledge of Wikipedia indicates, IMO, he has edited or perhaps is editing Wikipedia under a different name. If I am right, this could be a serious matter. If I am wrong, what is the explanation. Politis (talk) 10:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not aware of a Wikipedia policy which prevents users editing article which have an AfD on them. Lunch for Two (talk) 14:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cannot comment on Lunch for Two's past editing pattern, but his notion of "Ethnic Macedonians" in Greece is so terribly far in POV lands that his position is literally undistinguishable from that of the foreign department of the Republic of Macedonia. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• We can argue on this all you want, but I can just as easily say that your opinion is that of the Greek ministry of foreign affairs. Please don't make the same mistake that most Greeks do. Just because someone is Macedonian doesnt mean he is a nationalist, and likewise the fact that I am Greek does not mean my position will be that of Greece. Also I don't get how the notion of ethnic Macedonians in Greece is "POV", everyone knows they are there. They even have a party, if you remember, which got 7,000+ votes. --Philly boy92 (talk) 08:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You can say that — as long as you don't forget to mention the 200+ foreign ministries which support Greece's position. Which makes your position extreme POV and that's the point of this AfD, isn't it? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Which 200+ foreign ministries? I think that you'll find that most of the world's governments who have any interest in the matter are totally exasperated by this childish naming dispute. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Philly boy: I think it was more like 3,000-4,000 votes in the 2004 elections, which was the last one Rainbow participated in. Athenean (talk) 20:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'User:Lunch for Two' should probably be blocked[edit]

Is there an admin anywhere here? User:Lunch for Two should probably be blocked for bad faith edits, and his/her status as a potential Sock Puppet looked into. The user must know exactly what I am talking about. Politis (talk) 00:21, 30 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. causa sui (talk) 03:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Van Rossum[edit]

Ron Van Rossum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Appears to fail WP:NMUSIC. Article was tagged to improve secondary sources to help establish notability, but tags were removed with only primary sources added. I have tried to search for reliable secondary sources to establish notability, but am unable to locate them. My search may be hindered by my inability to search in either French or Flemish, so I hope an editor capable in those languages will be able to turn up more reliable sources. But unless that happens, it appears that this musician does not yet have the notability required for an article on Wikipedia. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - No page on the Dutch WP about him. Notability seems questionable. MakeSense64 (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. —ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Ron Van Rossum is a well known jazz piano player, especially in Belgium and Holland, but unfortunately he has no homepage. Where is the difference to this article about Hein Van de Geyn: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hein_Van_de_Geyn ? No secondary sources are cited there. So if you remove Ron, please remove Hein as well, and many others... As I participated to a jazz workshop last week and met a range of famous Belgian jazz musicians, I was motivated to write articles about them in wikipedia, in English, German, French and Luxembourgian. My motivation has now fallen near to zero. --Christian Ries (talk) 15:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Christian Ries, if you feel that Van Rossum is notable, then please do provide reliable sources to indicate that. You may find the writings at WP:SOURCES useful in guiding your search for such sources. In terms of the other musician you mention, please review WP:WAX, and if another article is not appropriately sourced, please try to add reliable sources to it as well. If you are unable to locate such sources, then by all means nominate it for deletion as well. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jazz notified. AllyD (talk) 23:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there nobody else who has a comment or will this be decided by one admin alone? How about some contributors to the wikiproject jazz? By the way, I don't think it's a question of having a feeling about something. I know Mr. Van Rossum and I know a little bit about the Belgian Jazz Scene. I suppose the English Wikipedia is not restricted to west coast, east cost and her majesty's subjects? --Christian Ries (talk) 18:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As has been said above, the essential issue is to locate reliable sources demonstrating notability. I've found a couple of passing mentions at Allaboutjazz but essentially passing mention as sideman (e.g. Jack Bowers review) which isn't enough. Rather than speculate about restrictions on the English Wikipedia, better to seek out some references. AllyD (talk) 19:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because of a lack of independent reliable secondary sources to establish notability. If Christian Ries or others believe I am in error here, please carefully review WP:MUSICBIO and explain in detail (with appropriate sources) how the subject meets at least one of the listed criteria. Richwales (talk · contribs) 16:56, 30 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. joe decker^{talk to me} 16:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bush League (band)[edit]

Bush League (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

no real notability shown for this band. releases not on important label, touring lacks coverage. prod removed without real improvement saying "Fixed some grammar errors and the Maurice link as Maurice (band). Note that a major member of Slint and Endpoint had played in this band while playing in their own respective bands at the time." Notability is not inhereted. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No indication from the article that the band passes WP:MUSIC, unless reliable independent sources can be found about their U.S. tour. This band is hard to search for on Google News & Books due to all the false positives that show up, but I made a reasonable effort nonetheless. I couldn't find anything about them, tour or otherwise. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 11:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - ... local band ... headlining shows at local venues ... opened for touring bands ... toured the Midwest and Southeast. 3 EPs, no Charts. Regarding a major member of Slint had played in the band - from David Pajo: ... is best known for his guitar work ... has contributed to many line-ups, playing and recording with ... (11 bands). This band doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (music).--Ben Ben (talk) 14:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Unless someone can show how the band meets one of the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (music), it should be deleted. --Noleander (talk) 19:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 24 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Courcelles 03:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Aldershot[edit]

List of bus routes in Aldershot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Wikipedia is not a place for travel guides - that is what Wikitravel is for. Nor is it a place for minority interests such as bus/plane/train spotters - that is why the foundation set up Wikia. Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 11:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revising my nomination for those who may not have read the specific guidance in WP:NOTDIR - WP:NOTGUIDE states that travel guide content belongs at Wikitravel or Wikia travel instead. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 14:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A simple list of bus routes is neither a directory or a Travel Guide. Re WP:NOTDIR. A list of bus routes is not "Genealogical entries", "The White or Yellow Pages", "Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business", "Sales catalogs", "Changelogs or release notes", "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations", "A complete exposition of all possible details" nor really a "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics", so WP:NOTDIR does not have any points within that a list of bus routes would contravene. Re WP:NOTGUIDE, I won't list all the points again, but the only one that could be argued a list of bus routes is against is point 2, "Wikipedia is not a Travel Guide". However, this is referring more to using Wikipedia as a sort of holiday travel guide with tourist destinations, restaurant, hotel or venue as it says in the text. You wouldn't use a list of bus routes to actually plan a trip out on the bus, therefore a list of bus routes is not a Travel Guide. You'd need the complete bus timetable for it to be anywhere near a travel guide. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 18:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a revised List of bus routes in Hampshire. This would be a county-wide list, to match the formats of the other List of bus routes in England. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 12:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - is there a particular reason why all of these have been nominated separately?? It would have made it much easier if there was a joint nomination. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 12:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there such a thing? I agree, if it could be done it would be better. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 14:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No independent sources have been provided. The only sources provided are the web sites of the companies that operate these bus routes. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not to say sources are not readily and easily available. Travelne South West being an obvious independent source... Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 19:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and a compendium of popular culture. It is not a universal list of bus routes, nor should it be. There are places on the internet where this information may be rapidly obtained, riders do not and should not be coming to Wikipedia for this information. Carrite (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK then, if you actually check, you will find that "There are places on the Internet where this information may be rapidly obtained" is completely wrong, and that actually this information is very hard to find all in one place, especially for Hampshire-wide information. Unless of course you did actually check before making such a statement, and you can give a link that will show the same information in a similar format...? Besides, why should information about buses not be included on Wikipedia, when 1) there is no policy against it and 2) There is far more information about train, ferry and plane services, meaning without buses there's an odd hole in coverage? Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 19:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so you're saying this should be kept since it's valid original research that can't be found elsewhere?!? Lists of bus routes is pretty much a textbook definition of unencyclopedic local cruft. Carrite (talk) 03:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If lists of bus routes were "textbook definitions of unencyclopaedic local cruft" then they would be mentioned, explicitly or implicitly, in at least one of the pages we have giving examples of things that Wikipedia is not for. However, they don't appear in such lists because they are neither unencyclopaedic nor cruft - unless you are going to present any evidence to the contrary? Many of these list of bus route articles are sourced, none of the others has been shown to be unsourceable. Just because there is no single place on the internet that gives easily accessed encyclopaedic coverage of a subject does not mean that we should delete our coverage of the topic - indeed our job is to be that single, easily accessed provider of encyclopaedic coverage. Thryduulf (talk) 11:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It is most unlikely that significant coverage in reliable secondary sources will ever be found for this material. The article fails General Notability Guideline, Notability of Standalone Lists guideline, Wikipedia is not a Directory, Wikipedia Stand Alone List Guideline Wikipedia is not a Travel Guide and Wikipedia is not a list of indiscriminate information. If this sort of material is kept it is always liable to become outdated and a source of misinformation if editors concerned lose interest. Even if we have legal indemnity against any unfortunate consequences of providing wrong data we have a moral responsibility to avoid doing so, not to mention the potential damage to WP's reputation. It is not just a case of not liking it as there are sound reasons for not keeping it.--Charles (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we delete all our articles in case they are out-of-date? I found several sources in two minutes, I'm sure others might improve on this in the future.--Pontificalibus (talk) 20:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have add sources that show bus routes in Aldershot are notable. Perhaps rename to Bus services in Aldershot or merge to List of bus routes in Hampshire, but there is no reason to delete.--Pontificalibus (talk) 20:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Appropriate and standard article. If it listed times and bus stops, it might be a directory. But it doesn't. Relevant gazeteer-like encyclopedic information a/c policy. DGG ( talk ) 23:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - nominating 8 "list of bus routes in ..." LISTS, with 'rubberstamp' rationals, separately was pointless. If your rational was the same in all of them, why not do a single AFD for the Group of them. All my keep reasons are stated in the currently ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Peterborough (2nd nomination) Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 00:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is a perfectly notable article which just needs a little expansion, is all. Rcsprinter (talk) 12:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (although I wouldn't object to a merge, it would imho be second best). This is a perfectly encyclopaedic, referenced list. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Peterborough (2nd nomination) for a detailed refutation of the arguments that WP:NOT disallows lists of bus routes. Thryduulf (talk) 16:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per my comments here, I disagree with the nomination statement. It's also sourced and does not include useless information. Could do with a more in depth lead but certainly shouldn't be deleted. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with other similar articles into List of bus routes in Hampshire. Delete rationales that such lists are intrisically against policy are misguided since none of the cited policies prohibit such information provided it can be verified, which it can (kudos to Pontificalibus for the independent refs btw). Merge because the town has fairly few bus routes, many of which run into other areas of the county and are duplicated in other such articles (e.g. route 1 is also listed in List of bus routes in Farnborough & Fleet area). Contracted routes are operated under contract to Hampshire county council (not a smaller division), the available sources seem to cover the entire county and other similarly sized counties are covered in single lists. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:05, 27 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Merge may be a viable option, discussion should continue on the talk page. Courcelles 03:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Alton, Bordon and Tadley area[edit]

List of bus routes in Alton, Bordon and Tadley area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Wikipedia is not a place for travel guides - that is what Wikitravel is for. Nor is it a place for minority interests such as bus/plane/train spotters - that is why the foundation set up Wikia. Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 11:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revising my nomination for those who may not have read the specific guidance in WP:NOTDIR - WP:NOTGUIDE states that travel guide content belongs at Wikitravel or Wikia travel instead. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 14:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A simple list of bus routes is neither a directory or a Travel Guide. Re WP:NOTDIR. A list of bus routes is not "Genealogical entries", "The White or Yellow Pages", "Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business", "Sales catalogs", "Changelogs or release notes", "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations", "A complete exposition of all possible details" nor really a "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics", so WP:NOTDIR does not have any points within that a list of bus routes would contravene. Re WP:NOTGUIDE, I won't list all the points again, but the only one that could be argued a list of bus routes is against is point 2, "Wikipedia is not a Travel Guide". However, this is referring more to using Wikipedia as a sort of holiday travel guide with tourist destinations, restaurant, hotel or venue as it says in the text. You wouldn't use a list of bus routes to actually plan a trip out on the bus, therefore a list of bus routes is not a Travel Guide. You'd need the complete bus timetable for it to be anywhere near a travel guide. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 18:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion.  Adam mugliston  Talk  11:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - And WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid reason for a keep. Show me one substantial, independently published source for ANY of these Original Research Bus Route Cruft pieces, please. Carrite (talk) 03:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - into a revised List of bus routes in Hampshire. That article would match the other List of bus routes in England and be a county-wide list. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 12:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No sources have been provided at all. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source will be provided soon. I am currently going round articles I created, referencing them and satisfying colouring issues. I will need some time, but please see my user page for progress towards this.  Adam mugliston  Talk  15:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not to say sources are not readily and easily available. Travelne South West being an obvious independent source... Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 19:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, of course, I know that. It's just I can't do them all at once. I didn't think Traveline would be an independent source. Thanks.  Adam mugliston  Talk  19:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and a compendium of popular culture. It is not a universal list of bus routes, nor should it be. There are places on the internet where this information may be rapidly obtained, riders do not and should not be coming to Wikipedia for this information. Carrite (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK then, if you actually check, you will find that "There are places on the Internet where this information may be rapidly obtained" is completely wrong, and that actually this information is very hard to find all in one place, especially for Hampshire-wide information. Unless of course you did actually check before making such a statement, and you can give a link that will show the same information in a similar format...? Besides, why should information about buses not be included on Wikipedia, when 1) there is no policy against it and 2) There is far more information about train, ferry and plane services, meaning without buses there's an odd hole in coverage? Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 19:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so you're saying this should be kept since it's valid original research that can't be found elsewhere?!? Lists of bus routes is pretty much a textbook definition of unencyclopedic local cruft. Carrite (talk) 03:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If lists of bus routes were "textbook definitions of unencyclopaedic local cruft" then they would be mentioned, explicitly or implicitly, in at least one of the pages we have giving examples of things that Wikipedia is not for. However, they don't appear in such lists because they are neither unencyclopaedic nor cruft - unless you are going to present any evidence to the contrary? Many of these list of bus route articles are sourced, none of the others has been shown to be unsourceable. Just because there is no single place on the internet that gives easily accessed encyclopaedic coverage of a subject does not mean that we should delete our coverage of the topic - indeed our job is to be that single, easily accessed provider of encyclopaedic coverage. Thryduulf (talk) 11:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It is most unlikely that significant coverage in reliable secondary sources will ever be found for this material. The article fails General Notability Guideline, Notability of Standalone Lists guideline, Wikipedia is not a Directory, Wikipedia Stand Alone List Guideline Wikipedia is not a Travel Guide and Wikipedia is not a list of indiscriminate information. If this sort of material is kept it is always liable to become outdated and a source of misinformation if editors concerned lose interest. Even if we have legal indemnity against any unfortunate consequences of providing wrong data we have a moral responsibility to avoid doing so, not to mention the potential damage to WP's reputation. It is not just a case of not liking it as there are sound reasons for not keeping it.--Charles (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:SAL do not mention buses or anything transport related, while WP:NNC clearly states most lists do not have to satisfy GNG.  Adam mugliston  Talk  20:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Just being the list is a normal article. It is not indiscriminate or over-detailed unless it starts listing the detailed routes. I am unable to understand the opposition to these articles if someone wants to maintain them. DGG ( talk ) 23:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - nominating 8 "list of bus routes in ..." LISTS, with 'rubberstamp' rationals, separately was pointless. If your rational was the same in all of them, why not do a single AFD for the Group of them. All my keep reasons are stated in the currently ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Peterborough (2nd nomination) Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 00:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is a perfectly notable article which just needs a little expansion, is all. Rcsprinter (talk) 12:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the information but possibly reorganise (merge or split), as it's not clear whether Alton, Bordon and Tadley are a cohesive area for the purposes of bus service provision. If they aren't then the content should be reorganised to better match such coherent area(s). Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Peterborough (2nd nomination) for a detailed refutation of the arguments that WP:NOTDIR disallows lists of bus routes. Thryduulf (talk) 16:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Per my comments [21], I disagree with the nomination statement. The article does need sourcing though. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with other similar articles into List of bus routes in Hampshire. Delete rationales that such lists are intrisically against policy are misguided since none of the cited policies prohibit such information provided it can be verified, which it can. Merge because the area has fairly few bus routes most of which run into other areas of the county and are duplicated in other such articles (e.g. route 64 is also listed in Bus routes in Winchester, Hampshire), many of the routes are operated under contract to Hampshire county council (not a smaller division), the available sources seem to cover the entire county and because that's how other counties are covered. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:02, 27 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Merge may be a viable option, discussion should continue on the talk page. Courcelles 03:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Andover[edit]

List of bus routes in Andover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Wikipedia is not a place for travel guides - that is what Wikitravel is for. Nor is it a place for minority interests such as bus/plane/train spotters - that is why the foundation set up Wikia. Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 11:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revising my nomination for those who may not have read the specific guidance in WP:NOTDIR - WP:NOTGUIDE states that travel guide content belongs at Wikitravel or Wikia travel instead. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 14:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A simple list of bus routes is neither a directory or a Travel Guide. Re WP:NOTDIR. A list of bus routes is not "Genealogical entries", "The White or Yellow Pages", "Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business", "Sales catalogs", "Changelogs or release notes", "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations", "A complete exposition of all possible details" nor really a "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics", so WP:NOTDIR does not have any points within that a list of bus routes would contravene. Re WP:NOTGUIDE, I won't list all the points again, but the only one that could be argued a list of bus routes is against is point 2, "Wikipedia is not a Travel Guide". However, this is referring more to using Wikipedia as a sort of holiday travel guide with tourist destinations, restaurant, hotel or venue as it says in the text. You wouldn't use a list of bus routes to actually plan a trip out on the bus, therefore a list of bus routes is not a Travel Guide. You'd need the complete bus timetable for it to be anywhere near a travel guide. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 18:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion.  Adam mugliston  Talk  11:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - And WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid reason for a keep. Show me one substantial, independently published source for ANY of these Original Research Bus Route Cruft pieces, please. Carrite (talk) 03:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a revised List of bus routes in Hampshire, a county-wide article to match with all of the other List of bus routes in England. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 12:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and a compendium of popular culture. It is not a universal list of bus routes, nor should it be. There are places on the internet where this information may be rapidly obtained, riders do not and should not be coming to Wikipedia for this information. Carrite (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK then, if you actually check, you will find that "There are places on the Internet where this information may be rapidly obtained" is completely wrong, and that actually this information is very hard to find all in one place, especially for Hampshire-wide information. Unless of course you did actually check before making such a statement, and you can give a link that will show the same information in a similar format...? Besides, why should information about buses not be included on Wikipedia, when 1) there is no policy against it and 2) There is far more information about train, ferry and plane services, meaning without buses there's an odd hole in coverage? Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 19:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so you're saying this should be kept since it's valid original research that can't be found elsewhere?!? Lists of bus routes are pretty much a textbook definition of unencyclopedic local cruft. Carrite (talk) 03:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If lists of bus routes were "textbook definitions of unencyclopaedic local cruft" then they would be mentioned, explicitly or implicitly, in at least one of the pages we have giving examples of things that Wikipedia is not for. However, they don't appear in such lists because they are neither unencyclopaedic nor cruft - unless you are going to present any evidence to the contrary? Many of these list of bus route articles are sourced, none of the others has been shown to be unsourceable. Just because there is no single place on the internet that gives easily accessed encyclopaedic coverage of a subject does not mean that we should delete our coverage of the topic - indeed our job is to be that single, easily accessed provider of encyclopaedic coverage. Thryduulf (talk) 11:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It is most unlikely that significant coverage in reliable secondary sources will ever be found for this material. The article fails General Notability Guideline, Notability of Standalone Lists guideline, Wikipedia is not a Directory, Wikipedia Stand Alone List Guideline Wikipedia is not a Travel Guide and Wikipedia is not a list of indiscriminate information. If this sort of material is kept it is always liable to become outdated and a source of misinformation if editors concerned lose interest. Even if we have legal indemnity against any unfortunate consequences of providing wrong data we have a moral responsibility to avoid doing so, not to mention the potential damage to WP's reputation. It is not just a case of not liking it as there are sound reasons for not keeping it.--Charles (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I lose interest, I'll make sure I put an AfD tag on this article. But for know, I'm fully interested and will continue to update regularly. And please stop quoting WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL, as we have already established, these have nothing to do with a list of bus routes. Also WP:IINFO does not mention bus routes or anything related to travel.  Adam mugliston  Talk  20:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You do not own this article.--Charles (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course I don't. All I'm saying is, I'm still interested and I will update it, so I am an editor who is not losing interest, meaning the outdated problem is solved. Plus, per WP:NNC, GNG does not have to be satisfied.  Adam mugliston  Talk  20:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Just being the list without excessive timetable or fare details makes this a normal article. It is not indiscriminate or over-detailed unless it starts listing the detailed routes. I am unable to understand the opposition to these articles if someone wants to maintain them. I similarly am unable to see that they are more functional in a combined article, though iI would not rule that out as a possibility if it would satisfy the objections. The important thing is the content, not the division into articles. DGG ( talk ) 23:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - nominating 8 "list of bus routes in ..." LISTS, with 'rubberstamp' rationals, separately was pointless. If your rational was the same in all of them, why not do a single AFD for the Group of them. All my keep reasons are stated in the currently ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Peterborough (2nd nomination) Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 00:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this is a perfectly encyclopaedic (partially) referenced list. Indeed it's better than some other lists around, although I'd prefer to see less emphasis on the current operating hours in favour of a discussion of them historically, this is a content issue (which might be better in a different article) that does not warrant deletion, just the normal editing and discussion processes. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Peterborough (2nd nomination) for a detailed refutation of the arguments that WP:NOTDIR disallows lists of bus routes. Thryduulf (talk) 16:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The page needs a prune, removing timetables and some other frivolous information. However per my comments here I disagree with the nomination statement. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with other similar articles into List of bus routes in Hampshire. Delete rationales that such lists are intrisically against policy are misguided since none of the cited policies prohibit such information provided it can be verified, which it can. Merge because the town has fairly few bus routes, some of which run into other areas of the county and are duplicated in other such articles (e.g. route 76 is also listed in List of bus routes in Basingstoke). Contracted routes are operated under contract to Hampshire county council (not a smaller division), the available sources seem to cover the entire county and other similar sized counties are covered as single lists. The minute route detail isn't necessary, just the main list. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:02, 27 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Merge may be a viable option, discussion should continue on the talk page. Courcelles 03:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Eastleigh & Romsey[edit]

List of bus routes in Eastleigh & Romsey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Wikipedia is not a place for travel guides - that is what Wikitravel is for. Nor is it a place for minority interests such as bus/plane/train spotters - that is why the foundation set up Wikia. Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 11:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revising my nomination for those who may not have read the specific guidance in WP:NOTDIR - WP:NOTGUIDE states that travel guide content belongs at Wikitravel or Wikia travel instead. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 14:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A simple list of bus routes is neither a directory or a Travel Guide. Re WP:NOTDIR. A list of bus routes is not "Genealogical entries", "The White or Yellow Pages", "Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business", "Sales catalogs", "Changelogs or release notes", "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations", "A complete exposition of all possible details" nor really a "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics", so WP:NOTDIR does not have any points within that a list of bus routes would contravene. Re WP:NOTGUIDE, I won't list all the points again, but the only one that could be argued a list of bus routes is against is point 2, "Wikipedia is not a Travel Guide". However, this is referring more to using Wikipedia as a sort of holiday travel guide with tourist destinations, restaurant, hotel or venue as it says in the text. You wouldn't use a list of bus routes to actually plan a trip out on the bus, therefore a list of bus routes is not a Travel Guide. You'd need the complete bus timetable for it to be anywhere near a travel guide. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 18:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion.  Adam mugliston  Talk  11:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - And WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid reason for a keep. Show me one substantial, independently published source for ANY of these Original Research Bus Route Cruft pieces, please. Carrite (talk) 03:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a revised List of bus routes in Hampshire, a county-wide article to match with all of the other List of bus routes in England. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 12:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and a compendium of popular culture. It is not a universal list of bus routes, nor should it be. There are places on the internet where this information may be rapidly obtained, riders do not and should not be coming to Wikipedia for this information. Carrite (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK then, if you actually check, you will find that "There are places on the Internet where this information may be rapidly obtained" is completely wrong, and that actually this information is very hard to find all in one place, especially for Hampshire-wide information. Unless of course you did actually check before making such a statement, and you can give a link that will show the same information in a similar format...? Besides, why should information about buses not be included on Wikipedia, when 1) there is no policy against it and 2) There is far more information about train, ferry and plane services, meaning without buses there's an odd hole in coverage? Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 19:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so you're saying this should be kept since it's valid original research that can't be found elsewhere?!? Lists of bus routes are pretty much a textbook definition of unencyclopedic local cruft. Carrite (talk) 03:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If lists of bus routes were "textbook definitions of unencyclopaedic local cruft" then they would be mentioned, explicitly or implicitly, in at least one of the pages we have giving examples of things that Wikipedia is not for. However, they don't appear in such lists because they are neither unencyclopaedic nor cruft - unless you are going to present any evidence to the contrary? Many of these list of bus route articles are sourced, none of the others has been shown to be unsourceable. Just because there is no single place on the internet that gives easily accessed encyclopaedic coverage of a subject does not mean that we should delete our coverage of the topic - indeed our job is to be that single, easily accessed provider of encyclopaedic coverage. Thryduulf (talk) 11:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It is most unlikely that significant coverage in reliable secondary sources will ever be found for this material. The article fails General Notability Guideline, Notability of Standalone Lists guideline, Wikipedia is not a Directory, Wikipedia Stand Alone List Guideline Wikipedia is not a Travel Guide and Wikipedia is not a list of indiscriminate information. If this sort of material is kept it is always liable to become outdated and a source of misinformation if editors concerned lose interest. Even if we have legal indemnity against any unfortunate consequences of providing wrong data we have a moral responsibility to avoid doing so, not to mention the potential damage to WP's reputation. It is not just a case of not liking it as there are sound reasons for not keeping it.--Charles (talk) 20:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:SAL do not mention buses or anything transport related, while WP:NNC clearly states most lists do not have to satisfy GNG.  Adam mugliston  Talk  20:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Just being the list without having excessive timetable details makes this a normal article. It is not indiscriminate or over-detailed unless it starts listing the detailed routes. I am unable to understand the opposition to these articles if someone wants to maintain them. I similarly am unable to see that they are more functional in a combined article, though iI would not rule that out as a possibility if it would satisfy the objections. The important thing is the content, not the division into articles. DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - nominating 8 "list of bus routes in ..." LISTS, with 'rubberstamp' rationals, separately was pointless. If your rational was the same in all of them, why not do a single AFD for the Group of them. All my keep reasons are stated in the currently ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Peterborough (2nd nomination) Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 00:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is a perfectly notable article which just needs a little expansion, is all. Rcsprinter (talk) 12:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a perfectly encyclopaedic referenced list. Yes, it needs a bit of work on colour and it could (and should) be expanded but these are not reasons for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Peterborough (2nd nomination) for a detailed refutation of the arguments that WP:NOTDIR disallows lists of bus routes. Thryduulf (talk) 16:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per my comments [22], I disagree with the nomination statement. Though the article needs improvement, I do not see that it needs deletion. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with other similar articles into List of bus routes in Hampshire. Delete rationales that such lists are intrisically against policy are misguided since none of the cited policies prohibit such information provided it can be verified, which it can. Merge because the town has fairly few bus routes, some of which run into other areas of the county and are duplicated in other such articles (half of the routes in Eastleigh also serve Winchester and/or Southampton and are listed in their articles too). Contracted routes are operated under contract to Hampshire county council (not a smaller division), the available sources seem to cover the entire county and other similar sized counties are covered as single lists. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:13, 27 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.