< 10 March	12 March >

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. T. Canens (talk) 05:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Collaborative Networked Learning[edit]

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

These two articles were both deleted as uncontested PRODs a couple of days ago. They have now been remade as cut-n-paste jobs, presumably with the same content as before. The PROD rationale was "no evidence of notability", which seems reasonable. The terms do get Google hits but not many. Adding "+Findley" to the search reduces Google Books and Scholar hits to almost nothing, which renders his coverage in the article suspicious of undue weight and promotion. The articles seem to advocate the ideas they cover and to overlap significantly. The author's name makes it very likely that there is a conflict of interests here. DanielRigal (talk) 23:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC) The references cited are not self-published by wikipedia definition--For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information 1.the material is not unduly self-serving; 1. it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities); 2. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; 3. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; 4. the article is not based primarily on such sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.62.40 (talk) 22:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The references cited are not self-published by wikipedia definition--For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information 1.the material is not unduly self-serving; 1. it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities); 2. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; 3. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; 4. the article is not based primarily on such sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.62.40 (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 00:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been tracking this articles and their usage for the last five years and have noticed the number of hits for both articles since the stastics became available. I have noticed that when doing searches that the articles have been used by researchers in the field of learning organizations, communities of practice, collaboration as well as education. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Chuck (talk • contribs) 01:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this self-advertisement by a concept created by Dr. Charles whatshisname, a/k/a Dr. Chuck. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, two concepts created by Dr. Charles Findley a/k/a Dr. Chuck. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No,Dr. Chuck is not affilated with any of the organizaed mentioned since they no longer exist but the work that was conducted there was seminal. The number of hits mentioned were not Google hits but interest of persons using Wikipedia view history. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Chuck (talk • contribs) 02:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying you are Dr. Findley, or you are not Dr. Findley? --Orange Mike | Talk 02:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - COI concerns on top of a lack of notability. Racepacket (talk) 03:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend view the references in the two article as an important inconsideation of the autencity of the claim. I would recommend consulting with the other see also's perhaps rather than using your own judgement as someone outside the particular field or area of research and education. You will do as you wish since you have taken on the person role to delete entries such as these threein question after five years of continuous use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.62.40 (talk) 03:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT - WP:COI, WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NOR, WP:PROMOTION for starters. jheiv ^{talk contribs} 05:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I know I'd be on my way to looking for a new thesis advisor if I was caught writing "inconsideation of the autencity", perhaps Dr. Findley's advisor was less demanging. :-) jheiv ^{talk contribs} 05:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the documentation and references need to be cleaned up. If you object to Dr. Findley directly being listed in the article text then a referene should be a simple resolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.62.40 (talk) 12:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that concepts which have been available for over five years, reviewed and edited by the readership from time to time is subject to deletion. I wonder if the goal of wikipedia has shifted so that it no longer wants to include and preserve wide range of concepts for future generations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Chuck (talk • contribs) 13:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per jheiv. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Contributors here may also be interested in the related AfD at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles A. Findley. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability... and is most likely a WP:COI issue. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 23:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is OR/ESSAY. —Lowellian (reply) 11:08, 16 March 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 redirect to The Last Airbender: Legend of Korra. T. Canens (talk) 23:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Korra (The Last Airbender: Legend of Korra character)[edit]

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

Not-notable: article is on a character for a TV series that has not yet aired, and the only sources are various Wikia wikis and one interview with the show creators (which is not in the article but does exist). — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 22:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Too early for a new character to come out. Sources can prove the show is notable but not the titular character. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 20:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Last Airbender: Legend of Korra -- Whpq (talk) 14:12, 15 March 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. T. Canens (talk) 23:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Clynick[edit]

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

Contested PROD, in which the PRODer's rationale was: No evidence of notability per WP:BIO. Unfortunately, I could not find anything else that is substantive to build an article or establish sufficient notability. Moreover, the "Biography and career" information is not verifiable, and I couldn't find anything in the list of external links given. –MuZemike 22:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) –MuZemike 22:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —–MuZemike 22:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nice guy, I'm sure, but does he need a whole WP article just for himself? If so then most professionals on the planet should get articles. Think of the hard disk space required! That's why we have notability guidelines. andy (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to a lack of independent, reliable sources that discuss this person in depth. Cullen328 (talk) 06:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sognificant coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 14:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another obscure, non-notable article. This is not a judgment on the person, just shouldn't qualify for a Wikipedia article. Midemer (talk) 18:59, 18 March 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 no consensus. T. Canens (talk) 23:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Names of small numbers[edit]

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

A parody of Names of large numbers. Never before have I seen a Wikipedia article parody another Wikipedia article. Georgia guy (talk) 22:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This doesn't seem remotely like a parody to me. Rather, it seems to be a perfectly appropriate complement to Names of large numbers. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 23:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How is it not a parody?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Georgia guy

This is not a parody, it is quite serious. Regarding Wikipedia articles whic parody others, I believe they exist, though I do not habitually read them, perhaps one of the specialty WikiProjects can provide a list of those.

@Georgia guy, I found a parody page for you by happenstance!: "Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles" by administrator FisherQueen (talk · contribs) who's part of WikiProject LGBT studies, and whose article bears the tag:

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

Pandelver (talk) 17:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ RadManCF

As RadManCF noted, it is "a perfectly appropriate complement to Names of large numbers." And it is far more complete, including its citations than the rudimentary article in the Simple English Wikipedia, "Names for small numbers" at http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_for_small_numbers which I have just found (this did not come up in searches within the main English Wikipedia). Should that article be merged with this one, or should the 2 wikis have separate content and slightly different article titles?

(1) Fellow editors, particularly in mathematics, please add:

(1.2) sections regarding binary and other base unit exponential numbering systems
(1.3) sections regarding names for small numbers in human cultures and languages, featured in related articles
(1.4) specialty usage examples and terminology by field

(2) Should the Simple English Wikipedia article be merged into this one? I am not clear about the relationship between these 2 wiki's.
(3) See also references have been inserted in about a dozen other articles, most often those which also list Names of large numbers in See also
(4) Found one proposal online from a University of Bonn page, http://www.uni-bonn.de/~manfear/numbers_names.php suggesting -minplex as a suffix for reciprocals of numbers which are quantum multiples of googol. Comments please, and any knowledge of usage, even while these numbers are small enough that perhaps they are rarely used yet in science, economics and other fields. Pandelver (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the separate Simple English Wikipedia article initiated July 15, 2007 attests to the Wikipedia precedent of acceptintg this topic's significance as much as the English Wikipedia article on Names of large numbers initiated May 27, 2004 and extensively updated by many hands over just under 7 years now once it existed and people found it over time.

This small numbers article is also not a parody because the names and extensions of naming conventions reported in it are all correct, as are such names in the dozen other articles which also report on naming conventions and their variations.

What is it that you may have found funny or did not believe yourself, Georgia guy? Pandelver (talk) 23:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Simple English Wikipedia is a separate project, completely distinct from the main English Wikipedia in the same way that the Wikipedias in other languages are. We don't merge articles between the two Wikis. The two encyclopedias have different rules and policies, because of their differing missions. In particular, an article on names of numbers makes more sense in the Simple encyclopedia, because it is geared toward people whose command of English is very limited, such as people who are learning English as a second language.--Srleffler (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review input regarding seriousness of this article v. proposal for deletion as parody has been requested from WikiProject Mathematics.Pandelver (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review input regarding seriousness of this article v. proposal for deletion as parody has been requested from WikiProject Engineering. Pandelver (talk) 00:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review input regarding seriousness of this article v. proposal for deletion as parody has been requested from WikiProject Physics. Pandelver (talk) 00:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review input regarding seriousness of this article v. proposal for deletion as parody has been requested from WikiProject Numbers.Pandelver (talk) 00:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not exactly a parody, but not really appropriate for an article. The only information not obvious from Names of large numbers is the bizarre last column of the table, which seems to be WP:OR, and a short note on billion/billionth, etc. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to others here: the column that Arthur calls bizarre has been removed from the article.--Srleffler (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review input regarding seriousness of this article v. proposal for deletion as parody has been requested from WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology.

@Arthur Rubin, besides further editors adding sections and material, if in your opinion this article is not appropriate, should Names of large numbers and related sections of all other articles also be deleted Pandelver (talk) 00:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. From a mathematical point of view this is just as unnecessary and nonsenical as from any other. Notability is hard to asses for this kind of odd article, but it seems to fail GNG. To the extent that this should have any notability in a formal sense, it should be merged with Names of large numbers anyway, because that's the best organisation of the material. By the way, what they have on simple is completely irrelevant ehre. Among other reasons, it's a much smaller project, which makes it more likely that inappropriate things slip through. Hans Adler 00:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review input regarding seriousness of this article v. proposal for deletion as parody has been requested from WikiProjects Computer science, Mathematical and Computational Biology, History of Science. Pandelver (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just add this to the other article and rename it 'names of numbers'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.140.30.136 (talk) 00:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Hans Adler, 98.140.30.136 re: alternative point of view

(5.1) If the content in this article is merged with Names of large numbers since it has the best current organization (before parallel material grows on this topic), should the title of Names of large numbers be changed to something like Names of large and small numbers?
(5.2) Should the Simple English article also be merged if a corresponding large numbers article exists there, or in your opinion deleted?

(5.3.1) In your opinion, this is mathematically "unnecessary" to whom, to what readers, please, demographically or in relation to applications?
(5.3.2) In your opinion, should Names of large numbers and all similar material, if they are "nonsensical" when "in any other [here at Wikipedia?]" be deleted as also "unnecessary"? Pandelver (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep – serious subject and useful reference material. How could a list of SI prefixes possibly be original research? Boghog (talk) 00:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The column that Arthur complained about as original research is no longer in the article. The SI prefixes are fine.--Srleffler (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Arthur Rubin, Hans Adler, Boghog

(6.1) Should the notes regarding unused terms be trimmed out, leaving the used terms for their relevance to those in several fields who seek to corroborate standard, comparative and shared names for these numbers?Pandelver (talk) 00:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(6.2) Will this list of number names benefit the vast majority non-specialist Wikipedia readers in understanding what numbers are indicated when found in other literature, television, online, and also when they read professional materials? Will it help them formulate their own statements to others, including in homework, science and technology and computing discussions? Is this issue (6.2) one of Wikipedia's valid effects on its reading public including those who have not yet come to Wikipedia until they search for topical information? Pandelver (talk) 00:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What is done on Simple is irrelevant here. What is done here is irrelevant to Simple. Discussion here should be limited to what is on en.wikipedia.org. If you need to discuss Simple, the place to do that is simple.wikipedia.org. LadyofShalott 00:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Wikipedia is not a dictionary. — Fly by Night (talk) 00:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, now that I edited it by deleting the questionable content and rewording it to sound less silly. It's a simple but worthwhile article. --Steve (talk) 01:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I was quite, er... “surprised” that such an article exists, but I can't see any particularly strong reason why the encyclopedia would be better without it. I wouldn't oppose merging it into somewhere, but I can't think of a good merger target right now. --A. di M. (talk) 01:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Steve. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 02:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge little numbers with big numbers. This is basic science and engineering information, and belongs in any encyclopedia. It is discussed in any modern engineering or science introductory textbook. The pages on large and small numbers should be merged. See Herrick, Noll, Brumbach, Stephan and countless others which have tables of prefixes (these stick to the powers of 1000, as in Engineering notation, but other tables include the in between powers of ten like "centi" or deca".Edison (talk) 04:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, either with names of large numbers or some other article. The information itself is encyclopedic but there's not enough to justify the presence of a separate article. I also echo, per wp:other stuff exists, that we should measure this on its own merits and not on the presence of articles of similar scope here or on other projects. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 04:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If we can keep a straight face housing articles called Death threat, Vehicle door, and anything this [guy] has ever done, we can certainly keep this awkwardly named article. Eric ^talk 05:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - duplicates contents of the first table at orders of magnitude (apart from the final two entries, "octillionth" and "nonillionth", which are unsourced and sound bogus to me). Gandalf61 (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not agree with the rationale of the nomination which in any case does not suggest which deletion policy or guideline is being invoked. Any OR aspects should be removed but this does not involve article deletion and what would remain is still viable. There is certainly an overlap of a general kind with Names of large numbers so I would not necessarily object to a merge. However, the best presentation there might well be to have two tables with a redirect from Names of small numbers to the section containing the small numbers table. It is not at all clear to me why this would be better than two cross-linked articles. I do not accept the arguments that the article is mathematically obvious or unimportant. Many people will not have a full understanding of the terminology. The article as a whole is not suitable as a dictionary item. That individual words can be included in a dictionary is irrelevant. Thincat (talk) 14:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Burn it with fire I.e. redirect to names of large numbers and protect. Anyone who can't put "-th" behind a word isn't going to read an encyclopedia to find out. Just another article than needs to be kept clear of original research and other nonsense. —Ruud 14:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Remember that not everyone using the English Wikipedia is a native speaker of English. Imagine, for example, someone from Europe with very limited English and whose native language uses the long scale. The correct English word for 10^-12 is not trivial for this reader.--Srleffler (talk) 23:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think Names of large numbers makes this (despite its name) sufficiently clear already. Anyone wondering about my extreme reaction, probably hasn't seen Other names of large numbers before it was deleted. —Ruud 01:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is as valid and useful as Names of large numbers. Not every article needs to have deep content to be worth keeping. We could merge the articles on large and small numbers under a new title, but I don't think that would actually be more useful or readable. --Srleffler (talk) 23:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment wasn't this stuff transwikied to Wiktionary years ago? 184.144.160.156 (talk) 07:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this with Names of large numbers into one article Names of powers of ten (or perhaps, shorter, Powers of ten, which then would need a hat note referring to the documentary Powers of Ten). (Sticklers for precision may prefer Names of powers of 1000, but that's not nearly as nice as a search term.) I don't think this was meant to be a parody, if only because it did not mimic the columns with authorities, which borders the ridiculous on the wrong side. It also has a useful innovation: the SI prefixes. --Lambiam 19:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Arthur Rubin and Ruud Koot. The WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments aren't holding water. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a joke or parody, obviously created in good faith, but orders of magnitude (numbers) has all the same content and is much better organized. No clear need to separate this list into "big" and "small" numbers. Dcoetzee 02:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge Clearly it is parallel to the "large numbers" article and so the fates of both reasonably should be tied. Say to "Table of order of magnitude terms"? Collect (talk) 13:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Names of large numbers is worthy if an encyclopedia article because it has useful information on etymology and history. There is no scope for such expansion in the article under discussion (since to convert a large number to a small one just requires adding -th to the end). At most, a paragraph on small numbers can be added to the Names of large numbers article. Sławomir Biały (talk) 03:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful.216.96.14.215 (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See WP:USEFUL. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The original charge of parody seems moot or resolved now[edit]

As all our collective comments except the first editor's do not consider this to be a parody, and we have moved on to consider instead:

fundamental worthiness of this subject, and how much of it is covered by the article so far
whether its content should be merged or moved or whether its name should be changed

Pandelver (talk) 00:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should the article be renamed 'Names of small numbers and quantities'?[edit]

It's no longer only about cardinal numbers, so that early section has been headed appropriately. And it's now not only a parallel to part of Names of large numbers, it states names of numbers and quantities idiosyncratic to numerical smallness. Physics and cosmology sections have been added. More sections may be added by various editors. Pandelver (talk) 00:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with describing this as a parallel to names of large numbers is that noln is an article with actual, meaningful prose and citations. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 02:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I recently deleted the physics sections, see Talk:Names of small numbers. I don't think that including "small quantities" is a good direction to move in, because "small quantities" is not a meaningful concept, and also because "small numbers" and "small quantities" are two different topics that are almost unrelated. (IMO.) See talk page for more elaboration. :-) --Steve (talk) 06:06, 16 March 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. T. Canens (talk) 23:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

T-Mobile Flash Mob[edit]

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

Although there are videos and links about this topic, this is by its very nature an advertisement, and does not merit an article. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 21:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article seems to be advertising for advertising, and is unreferenced to boot, and lacking any assertions of notability. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 23:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some (very few) advertising campaigns can be notable, but after a quick search, I've concluded this advertising campaign definitely isn't. There aren't even any real assertions of notability in the article. Delete. Jenks24 (talk) 16:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blatant advertising. Flashmob already exists as an article. Nothing noteworthy regarding a flashmob generated by one mobile carrier over another. Mariepr (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:56, 16 March 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 speedy delete. (Recreation) Essentially identical to the previously deleted version, and still no sources. — Coren ^(talk) 00:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Lepidopterists[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has no sources or references to establish the notability and it currently fails WP:GNG. JJ98 (Talk) 21:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 11 March 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. T. Canens (talk) 23:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gepra[edit]

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

No secondary source coverage established. Non-notable company in Georgia. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 21:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. a consulting group that works in Pubic Relations since 2002. GePRA works on promoting persons and brands as well as helping to improve the social responsibility as one of the main social values.... intends to help establishing trustful and collaborative relations in society. It's aim is to introduce and implement professional and effective methods of Public Relation. Don't make fun; their English is more surefooted than my Georgian. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it is unsourced, and will be very difficult to source. Such a pity, as they are working in an emerging field. Perhaps it can be re-created later. Bearian (talk) 19:20, 12 March 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 deleted already. Bearian (talk) 19:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miriam Henriquez[edit]

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

Non-notable character in (presumably) Spanish TV industry. Produced some soaps but returned with no secondary source coverage. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 21:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: CSD:G7 - author has blanked the page, so it's gone now. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:49, 12 March 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. T. Canens (talk) 23:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of invertebrates[edit]

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

A random list of various invertebrates, ranging from the lesser water boatman to spiders. While there's room for a taxonomically correct list (we have several similar such) this isn't more than an indiscriminate list of fauna. Acroterion _(talk) 21:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The recently-created List of crustaceans by the same editor has similar problems. Not yet sure if it's been copied from somewhere. Acroterion _(talk) 03:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It does: copy paste from [1]. User blocked for 24 hours for copyvio after warning, and this page is explicitly marked. Acroterion _(talk) 03:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe so, yet a vague list is better than no list at all...right? DonaldET3 (talk) 21:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not if it was a copyright violation, as the first edit was [2], and as a number of your contributions have been.No information is better than random links. Acroterion _(talk) 00:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Re above: because an article or a list does no harm, it does not mean that it should be kept. It must satisfy criteria laid down by WP guidelines in order to stay. We can list the classes in the phylum of invertebrates, but we do not need to list anything below that taxonomical level. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 21:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What makes Acroterion think that the information on "http://www.naturegrid.org.uk/biodiversity/invert_english.html" is copy-written? I looked over the whole page and found no notes saying that the information was subject to copyright.DonaldET3 (talk) 02:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia operates under the free-content CC-by-SA license.
- Unless material on other websites is licensed under the same terms, it may not be used.
- An absence of explicit copyright is taken under law and Wikipedia policy as equivalent to all rights reserved.
- Wikipedia policy doesn't permit you to copy anything from anywhere, except under narrowly defined terms - if you don't understand this, you should not be contributing here. It's a very serious matter. Acroterion _(talk) 03:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question to nominator. Which exactly taxonomically correct lists of invertebrates do we have? Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 02:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- List of placental mammals and sublists (yes, I know they're vertebrates, but we do have some useful lists), for example. Acroterion _(talk) 03:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Either change this to being a "list of lists of invertebrates", or just delete. There are millions of species that could be included on such a list, so it would be much better to make this a list of lists rather than trying to include them all here. If there is no desire to change this to being a list of lists, then delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Invertebrate which has much the same high-level content currently. There's much scope for more specialised lists of invertebrates - endangered; economically important; found in particular ecologies. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all major phyla of invertebrates are already included in Invertebrates. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 14:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch, I am recovering from a 24 hour editing block. Acroterion claims that I violated copyright, and the only website which I did violate copyright did not clearly mark itself as so. I did go to a clearly copy-written website only to reference a list of invertebrates. It was a LIST. I did not copy any creative work from that website, it was a plain list of nonfiction facts which I would have been accused of "original research" if I did not site sources which fully back-up the information. Is it really legal for a copyright to get in the way of publishing such plain facts? DonaldET3 (talk) 17:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As has been explained at greater length on your userpage, you may not copy material from elsewhere on the Internet, except under narrowly defined circumstances. If you copy freely-licensed material and don't explicitly attribute it, it's plagiarism - passing off the work of others as your own. You were warned and did it anyway. As a matter of principle, while it's possible for someone who understands copyright to legitimately use list-format material, your copies clearly don't fall under such an exclusion, as the lists involved are selective and distinctive, as opposed to a mere mass of material. Now that you know all this, I'm sure you won't make those mistakes again. Acroterion _(talk) 19:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Original Research and WP:Copyright violations are not a Catch-22, DET3; the solution is to write what other people have said, but in your own words. Anarchangel (talk) 04:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I say whatever you do to the vertebrates, you should do the same with the invertebrates. That is the second reason why I tried to start this list. We might avoid potential organization problems if we prepare for those "millions of species" that User:Metropolitan90 is talking about. DonaldET3 (talk) 03:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd support that; as I said, a taxonomically-rigorous list is fine. As with the vertebrates, it will require a hierarchy of lists, rather than one giant list or the present mixed list of species, genera, families, etc. Acroterion _(talk) 03:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't approve of !votes saying "strong delete" or the like, but if I did, I would be using superlatives here. The whole thing is a terrible idea and should be deleted at the earliest opportunity. This list can never be anything like complete. Invertebrates cover 98% of all animal species, so it wouldn't make sense to exclude the remaining 2% if they were to be listed. Even a list of crustaceans is unfeasible; a list of all invertebrates is unimaginable. Note also that, unlike Vertebrata, Invertebrata is not a taxon in current usage. It is a paraphyletic group, meaning that its members have nothing in common other than the absence of a spinal cord. (You might as well make a list of wingless animals, or animals that aren't flatworms.) The correct analogy, instead, would be that if we have a list of all vertebrates, then we should have lists of the other taxa (note plural) at similar ranks, perhaps for each phylum. Even that would be stupidly cumbersome in some cases, but would at least be a reasonable comparison. The appropriate method would be to list together all the higher taxa that make up the invertebrates, and then add the vertebrates, too, because there's no reason to exclude them. That list already exists, and is at animal (and phylum), where it belongs. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a redirect to List of lists of invertebrates per Metropolitan90 Anarchangel (talk) 04:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Invertebrates" is not a good category. You could argue for a redirect to lists of animals, but separating off one subphylum is absurd. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Considering the millions of invertebrate species, this list can never be close to complete, and as such must be arbitrarily selective. This is exactly the kind of thing that categories, not lists, are designed for. —Lowellian (reply) 11:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to make a list of crustaceans on Notepad before I turn it into an article on Wikipedia, and Lowellian might be right about the length of the list. It is currently over 1,500 lines long! DonaldET3 (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then it's woefully incomplete. There are an estimated 50,000 described species of crustaceans (no-one knows the exact number without carrying out very extensive taxonomic revisionary work). For comparison, see the list of squat lobsters here, which only covers a couple of families. I suggest you find other avenues of contribution than producing arbitrary, selective lists of massively diverse higher taxa. Lowellian is right that the category hierarchy serves this purpose perfectly well. --Stemonitis (talk) 04:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Impossible to make a complete list. If you want to add this information to wikipedia, I suggest you make genus articles and list the species there. Ruigeroeland (talk) 14:36, 17 March 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. postdlf (talk) 02:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tericka Dye[edit]

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

Not notable either as a porn actress (fails WP:PORNBIO, lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources of her film work) or as a teacher (fails WP:TEACHER) and fails WP:BIO, in the news only for having to give up the teaching career when her acting background was exposed in 2006 and in 2011. Per WP:BLP1E (the two job loss incidents are a repetition of the same basic event) and WP:NOTNEWS. WP:BLP also says "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment."Edison (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - rationale is different from the nominator. Based mainly on NOTNEWS. BLP1E does not apply because they are two separate events 5 years apart even though they are similar. Further the multiple press coverage cited in the article demonstrates that wikipedia would not be the primary vehicle for the spread of claims. I agree this is sensationalistic material though low on the notability scale of the two events and would just add to the harm. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Multiple press coverage. Passes WP:GNG and I can see this article being of use to someone researching the transition of people from the adult film industry into the "mainstream". Some have done this and some have failed to make that transition. In the end, we're an encyclopedia and I see this as valuable to that end. Dismas|^(talk) 01:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I first saw this story reported on USAToday, and in checking to see if it happened to be in wikipedia, I saw that the wikipedia article gives broader and deeper information. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dismas says it has news articles (agreed) and that it is useful and interesting. Bugs says "I saw it in USA Today." These arguments do not address WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E as well as other deletion reasons given in the nomination. Edison (talk) 05:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You missed the part where I went to wikipedia to see if there was more in-depth info. And there was. I often use wikipedia to try and find out more about something I might see mentioned in the news. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article.

Keep I attended high school in the late 1970s in the Midwest. The band and orchestra directors were both committing statutory rape with/on their students, and those of us who knew about it couldn't get the administration to address the problem. The band director was moved to another school, and the orchestra director went into "early retirement." Both these teachers should have faced then, at the least, the attention given to Ms. Dye today; meanwhile, I can only, and at worst, imagine that she survived some system similar to that which failed my classmates; and that unlike my teachers then, she poses no threat whatsoever - unless of course we don't want our children to learn that there are predators in the world, that said predators have and will get away with hurting others. If we are to overcome the damage done by the "teachers" who got and get away with the worst of things, we must embrace those who survive the worst of things and even entrust them with a mere hour of our children's scholastic day - for people that have lived through such things might just teach with genuine dedication; and they might be the first to call out any teacher crossing the line, or anyy system failing to stop it. Ever consider that? I think we all should. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.98.191 (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a joke, right? Edison, you are joking. You have to be. Either that or you have a personal adgenda that you are pushing here. For over five years this article has been here and now you just wander by and start trying to stir things up. Name any other porn teacher who has been fired from their job before. And not just once, but twice! There are HUNDREDS of articles in Wikipedia about porn stars. Why should this girl be any different? You are just trying to push a personal agenda here. User:RenamedUser5 (talk) 07:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I understand the point by that WP:BLP1E may not apply, on the grounds that she's been outed as a ex-porn actress on two occasions rather than one, both are minor, and both can be seen as a continuum. In effect, her claim to notability here is that she's an ex-porn star who has hit the news twice when that prior life was revealed. Otherwise she is not a public figure, is trying to keep a low profile, and is unlikely to hit the news again. Meanwhile, she's be trying to move away from her (not very controversial) past by changing her name, and having this coverage here has some risk of causing her harm. WP:NOTNEWS probably does apply, but for me the main reason to delete comes down to a consideration of the harm this article risks causing someone trying to rebuild their life after being outed, compared to the public interest served in having this article in the future. Given that I can't see any special enduring value in the article, but I can see a risk of harm to the subject, I think the apparent intent of BLP (as outlined by Edison), BLP1E and NOTNEWS comes into play. - Bilby (talk) 12:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As noted earlier, the article has been here for nearly 4 years now, and suddenly someone decides it needs to be deleted. Well, my guess is that Edison stumbled across it because of the recent news coverage. You do have a point about the potential for causing harm, given that the subject has not been accused of breaking any laws (has she?) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Given that there are 3.5 million articles, there are likely a large number that have lingered for 4 years before being brought to AFD. I would love to see an age tabulation of article that have been deleted in the last year. Granted, new crappy articles are more likely to be spotted on "new article" or "recent changes" patrol. Longevity of an article in no way satisfies WP:N or any other guideline I can think of for why an article belongs in an encyclopedia, and there is no rule at all against bringing a 4 year old article to AFD. Doesn't this article predate both WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS, so when it was created all anyone would have looked at was "Is it in the newspapers?" which is no longer a sufficient excuse to keep an article about a person of dubious notability who is publicized for one thing she is seeking to put behind her? Edison (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just in regard the question regarding breaking laws - no, there hasn't been any accusation along those lines, and she wasn't fired from either position (rather, her contract wasn't or won't be renewed). - Bilby (talk) 06:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG easily. There is ample coverage dating back to 2006; she appeared on Dr. Phil as well. This passes WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E in that these are two separate events (note she did not get suspended in 2011) and that this incident is not routine news. Routine news is a teacher having sex with kids; this unfortunately happens way too often. But national coverage is received (and a spot on Conan, too!) in notable, non-routine cases like this. There is plainly no violation of NOTNEWS or BLP1E here. The reliable sources are many and they do not stop after one month. She is (marginally) notable for being an adult film actress as well, and if BLP1E should be further argued here, this must also be taken into consideration. There is no "one event" occurring here, it is a series of events. /ƒETCH COMMS / 22:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to point out the abundance of international coverage she has received: El Comercio, La Vanguardia, El Mundo, Peru.com, Dat Viet, Ngoi Sao, La Voz Libre, El Diario, and Cho Sun, to name but a few. It is clear to me that the subject of the article being discussed here passes WP:GNG. /ƒETCH COMMS / 22:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- - There is no amount of news about one event which is not covered by WP:NOTNEWS. A teacher being exposed as a former porn star of little notability is "one event," the first time, and "one event" the second time. Edison (talk) 01:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Last I checked, 1+1=2. Regardless, WP:NOTNEWS covers routine news events. Otherwise, we could delete Deepwater Horizon oil spill as well, because all it ever received was news coverage. I wouldn't call being fired for the same reason twice, in two different instances, and attracting national attention both times, routine, because it does not occur regularly. The coverage in reliable secondary sources means that the subject passes WP:GNG and I'm not sure where your argument is going at this point. /ƒETCH COMMS / 01:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - If she was trying to be 'undercover' or low profile, then why did she put herself into the public eye as a school teacher? If i did porn, the last thing I would be doing is standing up in a classroom and teaching children. it's just commonsense that parents would be really really upset at having a porn star teach their kids. Plus, after being caught the first time, why did she do the very same thing again? Monica Lewinsky is only known for one event or one thing, yet she has an article, too. Adolf Hitler only did one thing, too (kill the jews), yet he has an article. Neil Armstrong also only did one thing, and then left the public eye, yet his article continues. User:RenamedUser5 (talk) 04:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        RenamedUser5, with all due respect, your argument falls apart after Lewinsky. Hitler and Armstrong have many more reasons each to have an article besides killing jews and landing on the moon, respectively. Hitler would have an article as a head of state and Armstrong did many things before and after walking on the moon. Dismas|^(talk) 04:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral The refrences look OK... --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 14:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth is "neutral" supposed to mean at AfD when the rationale is, "The refrences [sic] look OK"? Yes, they look very pretty, anything else you wanted to add that's relevant to policy? /ƒETCH COMMS / 19:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to say delete but since I have no idea who she is, it may be someone famous I don't know. THe article is cited properly and use notable sites as references. --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 20:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That makes even less sense. You're saying that, if you knew her, you would prefer deletion of this article, but since you don't, you're !voting neutral (which means you made an edit here that means nothing) because ((cite news)) is pretty? Also, please note that "notable sites" does not mean "reliable sources". Conservapedia is a notable site but no one would ever use it as a reference on Wikipedia because it is ... well, I'm not going to go there. Could you please present a policy-based rationale for your opinion? Thanks, /ƒETCH COMMS / 22:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I am saying is that I do not quite know if she's famous enough or notable enough for Wikipedia's standards. Based on the writing and the references, I would say weak keep. However, based on WP:PORNBIO and WP:NOTNEWS, I would say she's not notable enough. All in all, I support inclusionism so I would say meh, weak keep. --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 23:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am now even more confused. If you do not know whether she is worthy for inclusion, why are you commenting here blindly? You should either examine the topic or abstain from making uninformed comments. Your opinion should take into account the relevant policies, not the quality of the writing. In addition, just because you tend to agree with a certain viewpoint (in this case inclusionism), does not make a rationale-less !vote any more valid. May I ask again, that you clarify your position? What specifically (not just "the references") makes you believe that keeping the article is a good decision? /ƒETCH COMMS / 03:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily passes WP:GNG Pilotbob (talk) 17:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the article wasn't notable, it wouldn't have come up again in the media. Patcat88 (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Given WP:NOTNEWS, the previous argument counts for nothing. Edison (talk) 01:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails PORNBIO and NOTNEWS. A high school teacher who used to be a porn actress briefly is not notable. Its tabloid fodder and an embarrassment to the local community, nothing more.. "Coverage in reliable publications" is not an excuse to cover everything the newspapers ever report..♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment She was not a porn actress "briefly, Blofeld." She was a porn actress for many years.^[1] "Many years" is NOT the same as "briefly". User:RenamedUser5 (talk) 04:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate on your last statement? How much coverage do you think is necessary for this subject to pass WP:GNG? I believe I have already covered the NOTNEWS argument above; the coverage is not "routine". /ƒETCH COMMS / 22:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know this wasn't directed at me, so my apologies for commenting in this part. But the GNG describes what we need before including an article. It covers necessary, rather than sufficient, conditions, thus it is reasonable to not include an article even if it meets the GNG as other concerns may come into play. That said, in this case, the idea that a teacher would not have her contract renewed because of a past indiscretion is not special - it happens all the time. The only unusual factor is that she was an ex-porn actress, which turns it into tabloid fodder. If, one day, this story becomes more important - in particular if it is cited outside of the narrow confines of the event - then I'd support including it. Just not at the moment, especially given the risk of ongoing harm to the subject. - Bilby (talk) 03:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying, but the issue is that it was more than just one event. I have found coverage on Google News that covers multiple events: her suspension, her lawsuit to get the job back (and subsequent dropping of the suit), her appearance on Dr. Phil, her second outing. /ƒETCH COMMS / 05:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a very important sociological issue involved. What this woman did in her youth, while not illegal, is causing her to suffer job discrimination. It is adequately documented that she has in effect lost two respectable jobs because, in essence, she herself is not considered “respectable.” There is no discussion that she is in anyway incompetent performing her teaching duties, nor is there any mention that she has tried to sexually influence, or corrupt, her students. There is absolutely no indication that she had or attempted to have sex with any of her students.

This is a prima facie case of morality vs. legality. The “wrong” committed by the subject of the article was to engage in sexual activity on camera, for pay, in a state in which this is not a crime. The wrong, committed by the at least the first school district, was to fire her without giving her a valid reason; instead they hid behind weasel words like “disruptive influence.” The school district realized that they were in such a weak position legally that instead firing her, they paid her to the end of her contract, and then just didn’t renew it. A hearing might very well have resulted in a finding that there were insufficient legal grounds for firing her.

That would have been unacceptable to the school district, obviously. The issue here is when does morality, as defined by the local community standards, trump individual civil rights? This woman’s civil rights are being denied her. Her legal ability to fight for her rights to practice her profession is apparently being circumvented by threats of ostracization, either implied or overt. How is this not an important story? Seercat (talk) 02:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're making a case for keeping the article, which is fine. But since you bring it up, there is no constitutional right to be a teacher, especially a teacher of the underage, so I don't think the civil rights issue would fly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, so many people don't really understand the US Constitution. Check out Amendment 14, Section 1, the Due Process clause. That would be good a starting place. The idea that the Constitution would have to specifically enumerate each and every right of the individual was and still is a ridiculous idea, one that the Framers didn't fall for. The Constitution reserves all rights to the states and individuals except what it specifically sets aside for the Federal Government.Seercat (talk) 03:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How would due process apply here? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Her right to a hearing to protest her firing was circumvented by the first school district by the quasi legal tactic of paying off her contract, and then they refused to renew it. Her job performance was not an issue apparently. They cited a vague and subjective rational for not renewing it.Seercat (talk) 03:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The most she could expect from them is money, since they can't be forced to give her the job back. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they could be forced to give her job back. Monetary damages in a case like this would be the fall back option.Seercat (talk) 03:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Schools cannot be forced to hire or rehire someone they consider to be a bad influence or a potential danger to the kids. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 03:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they could be forced to give her job back. If they had had a hearing, she could have presented her side of the story, and tried to convince the school board that she was a decent teacher. If the school board didn't present proof to the contrary, and fired her anyway, she could have sued to force the school district to give her back her job. The reason that the Due Process Clause is part of the US Constitution is to limit unfair behavior by governmental agencies, and to protect an individual from adverse action that results in detriment. She probably would have prevailed. Seercat (talk) 04:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how. Schools have the right to protect their kids. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The school has a right to teach students that they live in a democracy, one that protects the rights of all individuals. They don't have unlimited power to restrict who can or can not be a teacher. This country was founded on the principle that all are equal in the eyes of the law. I don't dispute that the school had a right to question her qualifications, what I'm saying is that they didn't play fair. And, that was the worst possible lesson they could have taught these students.Seercat (talk) 04:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one has a constitutional right to any specific job, especially one where they're exposed to an audience considered vulnerable. Can you imagine the outrage in the community if they took her back? Parents would likely sue the school district for putting their children at risk. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really, you need to brush up on the Constitution. And, read the sources for this article too. The students and their parents supported the teacher. She was put on paid leave until her contract expired against the stated wishes of the parents of her students.Seercat (talk) 05:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do people who worship Satan or are members of NAMBLA have constitutional rights to be school teachers? I would hope not. User:RenamedUser5 (talk) 04:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First Amendment Freedom of Religion would indicate that they would. Satanists anyway, don't know who NAMBLA is/are so can't comment on them.Seercat (talk) 05:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. A school could not be compelled to hire a known satanist, regardless of their alleged qualifications. Meanwhile, known membership in NAMBLA, which is a national organization of child molesters, would absolutely be a disqualifier from teaching anyone who's underage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 05:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK Bugs, prove it. Where in the Constitution do you find "except for Satanists or Satan worshipers?" I know I'm going to catch it from the moderator, but really! Where do you get your information about what rights schools have. Witches, Wiccans, and NeoPagans, are frequently mistaken as devil worshipers by Christians. Some of them have fought and won court fights to keep their jobs as teachers. Why not Satanists too? They are entitled to the same protections under the Constitution that Christians and Jews are. I agree with you about this NAMBLA thing though. That's sick. Seercat (talk) 06:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where in the constitution does it compel a school, or any other institution for that matter, to hire anybody that wants a job just because they are theoretically academically "qualified"? Institutions have hiring rules. They're not allowed to discriminate based on race or sex, unless the job calls for it (the acting profession being an obvious example of that), but they can certainly use discretion in many other areas. For example, they might not want to hire teachers who smoke. And if they think a teacher's character is questionable or that they would prove problematic in some other way, they don't have to hire them, or as in this case, they can let the contract lapse. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, the First Amendment has a Non Establishment Clause. By refusing to hire a Satanist, the school would implicitly be establishing a religious test as a qualification for employment in a public position. That is so not allowed. I know you don't like this, but you live a country where this is the law, not what you think should be right. A Witch, a Wiccan, a Christian, a Druid, a Jew, a Santeria practitioner, whatever, can not be discriminated against, whether or not people like or, don't like, their religion, belief, or faith. (A non public employer, such as the Catholic Church, has a much greater degree of freedom to discriminate than a public, governmental, agency, such as a local school district; kind of the same way a photographer is free not to hire a obese bikini model, a Satanist in a Catholic school wouldn't be a good fit.)

It's not a religious test, it's a concern over possible harm to the children. If you can find a case where a public school has hired an openly satanist or wiccan teacher, I'd like to know about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can bluntly say "wrong" as much as you wish, but the fact is this, it is you who is wrong. You want the US Constitution to be too flexible, protecting those whom you agree with, and not protecting those who you would rather not be protected. This is the same reason the American Civil Liberty Union gets so much flack when they defend Nazis. Either the Constitution applies to everyone or it is a worthless piece of paper. Lastly, your "there is no Constitutional Right to Blah, Blah Blah," just proves that you really don't understand the basic principles embodied in the Constitution. If you wish to continue this debate, go ahead, have the last word. This is mine. If you send me a message, I would be delighted to debate with you in private, but not here.Seercat (talk) 00:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RenamedUser5 and Bugs, you do not know what you are talking about. There is nothing against the law about worshipping Satan if you so please and it would indeed be protected as a religion. If a Satanist harmed a child, that would be covered under existing laws, but there's nothing even implicit in the idea of Satanism about harming children unless you subscribe to the myths of the Satanic Ritual Abuse hysteria. NAMBLA is not a "national organization of child molesters" either, but an advocacy group for pedophiles and pederasts working to repal age of consent laws. Yes, I find this disgusting, but it's not quite the same thing. In the case of a publicly known membership of NAMBLA, the school district would possibly have a case, however, if you cared to read the article on the subject, you would see that there have already been a number of legal cases attempting to indict NAMBLA as a source of crimes against children, and all have failed in court. So honestly I'm not sure what would come of such an event. However, your mentions of Satanists and NAMBLA members are red herrings. Starring in porn is not comparable to either except in an extremely myopic 400-Club universe.--Vlad the Impaler (talk) 09:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She was not fired. Her contract was not renewed. Since she was fully paid off on her contract, that would all that she is entitled to. User:RenamedUser5 (talk) 04:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The key question would be, was there anything in the contract that guaranteed the right to renew or at least to negotiate a renewal? Or was such renewal strictly at the discretion of the shcool? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fired, contract not renewed, same thing in this case. Since there was no hearing, this was what a lawyer would call a constructive discharge.Seercat (talk) 04:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. When you contract for a job, you are entitled to that job for only a specific amount of time. Once that time is up, that's it. You are done. This is very common with teachers. It is only AFTER you get tenure that your job is protected. That is what all the teachers and such are bitching about all across the U.S., that school districts and local governments want to do away with tenure so they can more easily cut budgets. User:RenamedUser5 (talk) 05:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Worked at UC Berkeley for twenty years, so I know something about how these things work. The question is, if her past had not become an issue, would her contract have been renewed? If it would have been, then the argument that it was just her time to go is meaningless.Seercat (talk) 05:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for a contract instead of a hire is precisely in order to be able to say "Bye!" once the contract is up. If she were a tenured employee, it could be different. But unless her contract stipulated that she had a renewal option, then I don't see where's she's got a case. It's a contract. Unless the contract stipulates otherwise, I don't see how they could be compelled to renew. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For most people, porn star = hooker. What if she had been a former murderer, but was a really excellent PE teacher and the school didn't know that she was a former murderer? A teacher is expected to have the highest of morals because they are teaching vulnerable young people how to be proper and successful adults. That's great that she got out of the porn / hooker business (or is not longer a murderer), but that doesn't mean that I would want her to teach my children (when I decide to have kids).User:RenamedUser5 (talk) 05:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But a porn star is NOT a prostitute. It is not illegal to act in porn. Neither are comparable to murder except that both prostitution and murder are illegal (even then, there's a huge difference). If someone was a convicted murderer there would be an obvious compelling reason not to hire them for a job among children. What is the implicit harm that a former porn actress would cause?--Vlad the Impaler (talk) 09:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia should have the basic decency not to punish people for something in their past as was done in The Scarlet Letter. No notability as either a teacher or as a porn actress. Just titillating tabloid journalism. Many bio articles such as this have been deleted on the basis of doing the decent thing and avoiding further harm to the subject. Wikipedia is too prominent and too permanent a forum for something such as this. Edison (talk) 04:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More prominent than USA Today??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, so you finally admit that your position is based upon a POV in wanting not to "punish" this lady. Morality does not have anything to do with wikipedia articles. If that were the case then a great many articles would be deleted. Anyone who opposes a particular article could then say that the article is immoral in their opinion and have it deleted. I don't see anything immoral about this article. Where or not her acts as a porn star are immoral or as a former porn star now teacher of children are immoral do not matter. User:RenamedUser5 (talk) 04:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall, in the more recent case she basically outed herself. I do share some of Edison's concerns as to whether there's a risk of harm to the subject as per BLP rules. And while I'm arguing in favor of notability. There is still some question about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a minor point of clarification - a student identified her in a film, and she chose to inform the school. I guess you woudl say she was outed by the student. - Bilby (talk) 04:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What risk of harm do you refer to, Baseball Bugs? That people won't hire her to be a teacher cuz she's a porn star? Guess she shouldn't have done porn then. It's not like anyone is going to beat her up, so I do not see what harm might befall her. And the fact that these news articles are not only local (from the St. Louis area), but national - and international- as well, is not the fault of Wikipedia. It's her fault for not using some commonsense with her career & life decisions.User:RenamedUser5 (talk) 05:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And you are right, Bilby. I mentioned early on here that she should have just denied it. She looks nothing like she did when she was doing porn. User:RenamedUser5 (talk) 05:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Denying it would make firing her a lot easier. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please try to argue by policy here? If there was a significant risk, I would support deletion of the article because, RenamedUser5, that's the point of the BLP policy. Even if there are international newspapers covering this, we (Wikipedians) have the ethical duty of protecting peoples' privacy to a certain extent. However, as I find the risk minimal here, I'm in favor of keeping per the abundance of continuing coverage. /ƒETCH COMMS / 05:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Yes, but there is a risk of harm to all subjects. Unfortunately, she made a decision in the 1990s and she's received ample coverage from respectable sources for it. There's a risk that our article on Obama's family threatens their safety (because someone could kidnap one relative and use it as leverage against Obama) but we don't delete it because of that. The risk of harm in regards to the article being discussed here is minimal and the article tries to stay neutral and not portray her in a completely bad light (as some news reports have, astonishingly, done). /ƒETCH COMMS / 05:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Instead of debating the legal merits of this case, can we please focus on Wikipedia policy-related discussion on whether to include this subject or not? It makes the closing administrator's job more tedious if they have to read paragraphs of irrelevant text, such as the above. /ƒETCH COMMS / 05:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe that should be moved to the talk page. It is an interesting question, and it does have some potential bearing on the notability of the article, if she decides to take some kind of legal action. Against the school, that is. Not against wikipedia. Since wikipedia demands reliable sourcing, her complaint would not be with wikipedia, it would be with USAToday.com. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article meets the General Notability Guideline as I understand it. It is about two separate events, with multiple sources, is not an essay, or a point of view. It does, however, embody a excellent example of the conflict in American Culture between morality and legality. I don't believe that keeping the article will cause any more damage to the reputation or image of the subject than has already occurred. Wikipedia isn't about censorship merely because the subject of an article involves sexual topics. The clearest measure for keeping it is, would this article be useful or informative ten or twenty years from now. I believe that it will. More young women (and men too) are involved in the sex industry than ever before in our history. When they get to be a little older and less beautiful, but hopefully wiser, they too may find work in sensitive occupations such as teaching.Seercat (talk) 06:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is where we differ. I can't see any possibility that the story of a woman not having a teaching contract renewed because of her past occupation will be significant in six months, much less ten years. :) If there was some evidence that this was of note beyond the tabloids, I'd agree that notnews doesn't apply. But at the moment there's no reason to believe that the story will have any impact. This isn't about censorship - just that we don't need to minor stories, with no evidence that they are more than minor tabloid news, where such coverage would mean that a person could potentially be harmed by the coverage. - Bilby (talk) 00:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:EFFECT, "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." WP:PERSISTENCE says, "However, this may be difficult or impossible to determine shortly after the event occurs, as editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not. That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable." Therefore, I'm not sure your argument should be used here because neither side can predict the future. /ƒETCH COMMS / 03:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps so. Depending on how this goes, it might be worth revisiting the discussion in six months, once we have an idea if there is to be any lasting coverage. - Bilby (talk) 09:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per User:Fetchcomms. WereWolf (talk) 21:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No PornBio pass, obviously. As for the rest, two insignificant events don't always add up to overall notability. This is an otherwise low-profile person, not seeking publicity or fame...hell, she's using different names to keep her past private...who has regrettably been fired from two jobs for her porn past. How about a little bit of editorial discretion and common sense for once? Let this go. Tarc (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The operative words in WP:NOTNEWS would seem to be enduring notability in this case. This person's campaign to "re-integrate into the mainstream" has been going on for years now and is extremely well documented, i.e. in national news outlets on both the first and second occasions of firing and the lawsuit, in the pop media (Dr. Phil), etc. I agree with the point made above that such re-integration is a social phenomenon that is likely to be studied more seriously in the future, so this person's case is important precisely because it is so well documented. Lastly, perhaps the prolix off-topic chatter above should be collapsed. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

there is no off topic 'chatter'.User:RenamedUser5 (talk) 05:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

satanism and druids are not really "on-topic" – this is just a debate about whether Dye is notable and we seem to agree she is. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 15:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. Received significant mainstream media coverage. —Lowellian (reply) 11:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTNEWS, as the news coverage is routine and insignificant, and WP:BLP1E may apply as the two events are closely related. The article may also cause her further harm in the future. Epbr123 (talk) 13:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I interpret "routine" as an unexceptional homicide or rape or whatnot (however sad it may be), not a topic that has received coverage in multiple international media outlets. Could you elaborate on how this coverage is "routine an insignificant"? I don't think that Vietnamese, Korean, Spanish, Ecuadorian, and Peruvian sources would exist for truly routine news. They certainly don't cover each of the one or two shootings that happens every night in my city. /ƒETCH COMMS / 18:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, please explain how further harm can be caused to her in the future. Just making that claim doesn't mean that it is true or likely to happen. As stated above, in earlier arguments, it is not like anyone is going to beat her up over this. And all anyone needs to do is Google her name and they will see that she is a porn star. Plus, she was on the Dr. Phil show and said the same thing in front of MILLIONS of people. So how can she be further harmed by this?User:RenamedUser5 (talk) 03:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets the GNG without any difficulty. Passes ONE EVENT and NOT NEWS. The only possible reason for deletion would be DO NO HARM, and I would consider that very seriously in a case like this--except for that appearance on Dr. Phil. Having done that of her own accord, she has decided that publicity would not harm her, so I don't see that our entry here can do so. I note this AfD as featuring one of the most thoroughly irrelevant discussions at AfD in a long time. DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 17 March 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. T. Canens (talk) 23:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buttrock[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Looks to fail WP:NEO. Although this term shows up in various rock publications, it lacks a solid secondary source to prove its notability as a trend or genre. The Interior (Talk) 20:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The one source cited was created as a humorous attack on certain bands. It is not a reliable source. The one external link to a college newspaper is an opinion piece and not by anyone who is established as notable or a reliable source. This whole thing is clearly meant as a derogatory joke about the bands and the people who like them and there were no reliable sources supplied to even justify notability. SQGibbon (talk) 20:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article seems to be a misrepresentation of a humor piece, for the purpose of, as SQGibbon points out, disparaging certain bands. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 23:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a joke article that probably should have been speedied under some criterion or another. "Butt rock" is a term that has been around for 15 or 20 years, a slag description of so-called "Classic Rock," used mostly by punk rockers and various alternative rock folk... Carrite (talk) 03:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting to Classic rock would actually be the best way to dispose of this. By the way, how was this NOT deleted in two previous tries?!?!? Carrite (talk) 03:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted after number two, this is a recreation. Redirecting to Classic rock might discourage future recreation, as an admin would have to nuke the redirect before a new recreation could be started. The Interior (Talk) 04:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the article and the webpage that the article links to it does not appear that buttrock and classic rock are synonymous. SQGibbon (talk) 15:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, from searches it seems to variously be used to describe hair metal, glam rock, top-40 packaged rock, christian rock, and rock played by people "with hair down to their butts". Its seems like a very amorphous term. I think it keeps getting used because it's so pleasant to say. Butt yeah, the redirect would be difficult. The Interior (Talk) 10:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, there's an article on hair metal?!?! Post-classic rock cheese metal, perfect... That's the best redirect. Carrite (talk) 06:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see the actual article name is glam metal. That's spot-on for a redirect. The phrase doesn't equate to original 1970s glam or Christian rock. Carrite (talk) 06:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for the reasons listed. --Shovan Luessi (talk) 09:22, 13 March 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 no consensus. /ƒETCH COMMS / 18:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't touch my junk[edit]

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

Very questionably established notability. Article is just based on the slang word "junk", meaning "genitals", having been used a few times by people in relation to TSA searches. Nothing notable outside the definition of the word "junk" itself. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - or redirect to Transportation_Security_Administration#Criticisms. It seems to be something that could be adequately covered in that section without needing its own article. Yaksar (let's chat) 19:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Yaksar. CTJF83 20:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be ok with a merge to Transportation Security Administration#Criticisms also CTJF83 01:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A thoroughly notable political catch phrase, as documented by the numerous sources already cited in the article. Google News turns up a dozen uses just in the last month.[3] A couple of New Hampshire state legislators just introduced a proposed law to criminalize genital groping that they're calling the "don't touch my junk bill"[4][5]. (I could not make this up.) --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reliably sourced Internet meme, it has lasted long past the original posting. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Arxiloxos' sources demonstrate, this phrase has taken on a larger life from the initial incident. "John Tyner's mandate about junk-touching has gone national." HuffPo - [6] The Interior (Talk) 02:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's been a little more than three months, so the forgettable nature of the incident and phrase hasn't become obvious yet. Soon, it will go the way of "Don't taze me, bro!" (which is a redirect to something that's almost forgotten now), and "turn on, tune in, drop out" and "T'aint funny McGee" and all the other catch phrases that were briefly popular, but not enduring. One of the main reasons is that there aren't that many situations where you would find yourself telling someone not to touch your genitals. By contrast, "Don't bet on it" and "I don't think so" and other variations have lasted for years, simply because there will always be times where that thought needs to be expressed. Mandsford 03:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Turn on, tune in, drop out has a substantial article. T'aint funny McGee ought to be a blue link too so I'm fixing that now. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a good slogan for inclusionists. :) Notability does not expire and the concept seems to span a variety of topics such as privacy, airport scanners, politics, &c. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable transient meme. Wikipedia is not for funny one-line jokes. MLA (talk) 10:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Slang phrase. Non-notable, however much it's used. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that slang phrases are not ever potentially notable? This seems likely to be incorrect to me; surely with a large enough cultural impact and reliable source coverage a slang phrase can qualify as notable? Kgorman-ucb (talk) 06:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article is sourced and was featured on Did You Know. The claim that it should be deleted because it will go away is WP:CRYSTAL.SPNic (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, any claim that it is historically notable because it will be remembered a few months from now is not WP:CRYSTAL, I suppose? At this point, everyone here is making an educated guess based on their own experiences when it comes to catch phrases. Mandsford 16:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - unquestionably notable due to the sheer number of important and sourceable references in popular culture over an extended period of time, not just over one news cycle. Bearian (talk) 19:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, prefer Merge to Transportation Security Administration#Criticisms. The phrase 'don't touch my junk' has received at least a moderate degree of media coverage and I'm convinced we should cover it somehow; but I'm not convinced it really needs its own article. Like Don't taze me bro, referred to above, we would probably be better off in the long run merging this into another article. At the moment, there just isn't really enough to say here beyond 'this is a catchphrase that exists'. Robofish (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No use. Per above. Highhousefarm1 (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Click the Google news archive search link at the top of the AFD. Over a hundred results. This gets ample coverage. Click any of those results from major newspapers and read through it, or just read the headlines and the summaries that appear from the search. Anyone looking at that believe this isn't notable? Dream Focus 10:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Time will tell whether it'll go down in history, but three months out is still too early. I'd say close it as a no consensus and visit it again in the future. Mandsford 14:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporary. WP:NOTTEMP Its notable now, so its notable forever. News coverage in major newspapers has occurred months apart. Dream Focus 15:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conversely, forgettable now, even more forgettable next week.... all it ever was was just a catchphrase for an incident that wasn't notable under WP:EVENT. None of the articles cited are actually about the phrase itself or it's so-called popularity. No doubt, "Winning! Duh!" might turn up three months, years from now even, in an article about Charlie Sheen. But that won't make it something to write an encyclopedia article about. Mandsford 23:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well-established and notable. Stifle (talk) 12:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge, or Keep along with the following article and also a new general article on this topic: - Pandelver (talk)
Redirect to Transportation_Security_Administration#Criticisms per above. A clear example of wp:recentism -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 03:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Keep along with Aaron Tobey Richmond Airport 4th Amendment Naked Protest and also adding a new general article on this topic? See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Tobey which concerns Aaron Tobey Richmond Airport 4th Amendment Naked Protest and proposal for general article on US civilian aiport security regulation issues and public reactions socialogy, law, cultural phenomenology, international context article - Pandelver (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also relation to 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami and Fukushima I nuclear accidents and US airport detectors noted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Tobey - Pandelver (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not related to that case at all. And this expression isn't just for one event. Totally different AFDs. And where exactly would you merge them to? Dream Focus 20:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Of the references in the article that even mention the catch-phrase, none of them speak to its notability or impact on society. It certainly is widely used as a rhetorical device, and will continue to be so until it becomes stale, as it is eye-catching and titillating. I don't equate that with significant, however. Furthermore, the article as written focuses more on the event than the phrase itself, which I infer means there is little to comment on in that regard. I also question the claim in the first sentence of the article that the phrase is "commonly used in the United States", as it has no context explaining that its use is mainly to generate hype in the media and no reference to back up that claim. — Bility (talk) 05:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not seem all that notable.Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems to me to be a notable meme. The notability of memes is sometimes difficult to gauge, but I think this has gotten quite a bit of attention in the American media and thus qualifies as notable. I wouldn't be opposed to renaming it TSA Junk Touching Controversy or something though. Qrsdogg (talk) 05:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except that many of these sources (at least in the article) aren’t talking about the use of the phrase don’t touch my junk. I’m not really up on the media sources of the USA but it appears to me that only about half are using the phrase unrelated to the one incident. Of those that do one is a trivial mention (and certainly (by its tone) does not indicate that the phrase is particularly widely used or known. Indeed some of the sources do not actually use the term to describe the activity, but use it to describe the one incident. It seems to me that well over half the sources either do not use the phrase or use it in a trivial manner that does not establish notability. Nor am I seeing any evidacen that this is widely used or in popular use. In fact I am not seeing any evidance that this is in fact even a notable meme.Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article could do with some better sourcing, but I think the coverage is out there. The op-ed by Krauthammer cited in the article discusses the phrase as well as the incident. It looks like the slogan itself has gotten some news coverage:[7][8]. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:25, 20 March 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. postdlf (talk) 02:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Al Stefanelli[edit]

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

BLP of what appears to be a non-notable atheist activist -- fails WP:GNG. Currently the entry is sourced with blogs and primary sources. When I tried doing some research I found nothing on Google Books, nothing on Scholar and one story on Google News written by Stefanelli, which I can't even link to here because the site is blacklisted here. Griswaldo (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Griswaldo (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, as Stefanelli doesn't meet the notablitiy requirements. GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a pretty article but seem non-notable. Forgotpassword321 (talk) 08:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Stefanelli is not a "non-notable atheists activist." A simple Google search of his name will reveal this, and several other notable atheists will attest, as well. He is well-known, as is his organization, and works directly with other notable activists. I do offer my apologies on the book. Publishing was delayed one week due to an editing issue. Please hold off cancelation for seven days, at least, and I will link to Amazon, Barnes&Noble and others. The ISBN is valid. Thank you, Frank DeLorenzo, Publicist.

Mr. DeLorenzo, you should review our various guidelines and policies, such as WP:GNG and WP:RS. To be considered notable his notability needs to be established in reliable secondary and tertiary sources. I cannot find any such sources. No amount of personal attestation by other activists can change that fact. You would also do well to read WP:COI as you seem to have a very distinct conflict of interest here if you are Mr. Stefanelli's "publicist".Griswaldo (talk) 16:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Griswaldo. I am not Mr. Stefanelli's Publicist. I am connected with his publishers, which is not a conflict of interest. I do have an interest in Mr. Stefanelli's career, as I am working on a separate project that is relative to him and other notable atheists who are not in the top-tier. I rely heavily on Wikipedia for literary references, and since Mr. Stefanelli is on par with activists such as Hemant Mehta, he falls into the category of notable atheists. As well as for other reasons, too. Mr. Griswaldo, I am doing the best I can trying to keep up with what is required for a Wiki article. I realize I might have jumped the gun a little, but I have been in touch with his publishers who have assured me that his book will be out next week. I have read through the guidelines and apologize if I have missed anything. Just give me a week. Thanks, Frankie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdelorenzo (talk • contribs) 09:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to get it. What book is being published? A book by Stefanelli? That would not make him notable in and of itself anyway. Please read WP:GNG and have a look at some of the subguidelines for various types of people. We need reliable sources that attest to his notability and not just someone's say so. Also, if you work for his publisher you still have a conflict of interest.Griswaldo (talk) 12:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Literally nothing about him found at Google News Archive. His book has apparently not been published yet. Most Google hits are self-referential. --MelanieN (talk) 02:08, 19 March 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. It's snowing. Mkativerata (talk) 08:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Skilling v. United States[edit]

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

Non-notable court decision. Was de-proded on the assertion that it is a "United States Supreme Court decision". There is no consensus that all USSC decisions are presumed notable, so I am bringing this to AfD for the community to decide. Onthegogo (talk) 18:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? [9][10][11][12][13][14][15]. T. Canens (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In case someone want some words in bold, snowball keep. T. Canens (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep – T. Canens provided plenty of sources above. –MuZemike 18:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: All of the sources listed by T. Canens were published on June 24, 2010. Coverage is WP:ONEEVENT, and evidence of on-going coverage is required to meet notability requirements. Onthegogo (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Explain to me how exactly a Supreme Court case is a person? Insert Citizens United joke here Because what you linked to is a section titled "People notable for only one event". NW (Talk) 20:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everything they rule on affects the whole country. Therefore it is continually "on-going coverage" if you will until they reverse their ruling or a new law affects it. CTJF83 20:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would argue any US Supreme Court case is notable. CTJF83 20:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If any US Supreme Court case is notable, then all supreme court cases of all 200 countries are notable. Either that or there is US-bias. I could be convinced to keep this but the above rationale about all cases leads me to be a delete. Forgotpassword321 (talk) 08:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And who might you be?? Your account started editing today, with !votes in several AfDs, indicating that you are not a new user. If, as your username suggests, you have an older account to which you forgot the password, then you are required by WP:SOCK#NOTIFY to provide a link to the prior account(s) at your user page (with the exception of situations like WP:CLEANSTART). Otherwise what you are doing here is basically a form of sockpuppetry. As to your argument, it does not hold water for several reasons. First, regardless of whether or not one thinks that all U.S. Supreme Court cases are notable by default, in this case there is plenty of coverage by independent reliable sources, some listed in the article, some given by other AfD participants, and lots more easily found with a few google searches. Second, while I personally do not think that all Supreme Court cases of all countries are automatically notable, if we are dealing with a country that has 100+ law journals and a massive national media following every move that the Supreme Court of that country makes, it is a safe bet that all cases decided by the Supreme Court of that country is notable. That's is the case for the U.S. Supreme Court but not the case for the Supreme Courts of many small countries. Nsk92 (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why shouldn't all supreme court cases of all countries be considered notable, on the grounds that sources will certainly exist? We have plenty of space for them. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, it is US-centric. Per Nsk92, BlankVerse Forgotpassword321 (talk) 07:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, basically you are a sockpuppet who also can't read. The standard of inclusion for a Wikipedia article is if the subject has significant coverage by independent reliable sources, not whether it is related to a particular country, religion, nationality, sport or whatever. If such coverage is available, we don't delete the article, regardless of how many other articles there are related to the country/religion/sport etc. If you think there are too few articles dealing with non-U.S. topics, you are welcome to create such articles. But if you want to play Savonarola and engage in a little book burning, you should leave Wikipedia and do that somewhere else. Nsk92 (talk) 14:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So if you persist in calling me a sockpuppet, you are a bully. "If such coverage is available..." you write. Wrong. Look at the Amanda Knox article. Hundreds of articles have been written about her over several years in at least 3 countries, US, UK, Italy, yet it is not an article. Amanda Knox has more reasons to be an article than an obscure court case. For this reason strong delete. Do not blame me, blame Nsk92 for taunting me. Forgotpassword321 (talk) 03:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I call you a sockpuppet because even after being told about the requirement of WP:SOCK#NOTIFY to provide a link to your prior account(s) at your new account user page, you have not done so, nor responded in any other way to the prior accounts issue. It is obvious that you are not a new user. As to Amanda Knox, I am not familiar with the details of whatever happened with that article (was there ever one?), but there are thousands of notable topics for which Wikipedia does not have articles yet. That's not a satisfactory reason to start deleting articles about notable subjects that WP does have - that would be totally idiotic. As to you "strong delete", you can blame me all you want, and make it a super strong delete with a diamond collar, there is no way that this article will get deleted. So screaming about it is not going to help you. Nsk92 (talk) 03:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per all above. The nominator's rationale is strongly misleading. I did not deprod it on the assertion that it is a "United States Supreme Court decision", I said "It's a United States Supreme Court decision. It is almost guarenteed [sic] to have third party sources somewhere". And that is entirely true. Besides the numerous newspaper articles T. Canens mentions, the case is the subject of an article in the Vanderbilt Law Review, an article in the Harvard Law Review and likely several other journals as well. NW (Talk) 20:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and I would think it's snowing here.—S Marshall T/C 20:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The supreme court is so closely followed by legions of legal publications, so I would argue that its not unreasonable to assume it's decisions are notable per WP:GNG. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 23:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Lots of coverage by independent published sources, including those already listed in the article. Nsk92 (talk) 15:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per overwhelming consensus and past outcomes. Almost all United States Supreme Court cases are notable, and the past precedent is that they come close to per se notability. English Wikipedia has an entire WikiProject to deliberate such cases. In this particular case, not only due multiple reliable sources go to show it is generally notable, but it is the subject of a notable play. This nomination must be in bad faith or to make some point about Wikipedia's bias. Bearian (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Having seen the random nature of the nominator's other deletion nominations I would put this down to incompetence and/or ignorance rather than bad faith. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. AGF Bearian.--Chaser (talk) 20:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But to keep making crappy deletion nominations even after seeing how many are closed as snow or speedy keep... That rather challenges the presumption of good faith. postdlf (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm of the view that all court cases from all courts, bearing the imprimatur of officiality, are notable. Shoplifter (talk) 19:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep; every modern SCOTUS opinion, at least, is most certainly the subject of significant coverage by multiple reliable sources, from news to academic journals to textbooks. This is particularly true given that SCOTUS has discretion to hear cases, so it only chooses those that pose a novel issue of law or are the subject of split decisions by lower courts. It appears that the nom has a history of starting meritless AFDs based on his talk page and contribution history, and I also find it hard to believe that he followed WP:BEFORE in this particular instance; given who it involved, this case was far from obscure even to mainstream/lay media. postdlf (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- One comment, though it's not at issue here: SCOTUS hands down approximately 80 opinions each term (the current term's list is here). Opinions are fully written explanations of the Court's reasoning, and may be accompanied by individual justices' concurrences or dissents. These are the cases the Court decides to have the parties fully brief and hear oral argument in, so they are selected for their legal impact and importance; they are not just routine cases that happen to come before the Court. Beyond that, SCOTUS hands down mere orders in thousands of cases every term; these are summary disposals of cases, grants or denials of review (certiorari), etc., just one-line orders declaring the result (see example here). The cases in which those orders are issued are not normally notable. But the Court's opinions, such as the one nominated here, always are. postdlf (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The honest services fraud provision of this statute is key to some white collar and public corruption prosecutions. This case is the first and only time the Supreme Court ruled on this provision. It is notable of its own importance, independent of whatever popular press coverage there is of this decision.--Chaser (talk) 20:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep Nominator seems to be unfamiliar with the GNG. Qrsdogg (talk) 05:34, 13 March 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 speedy delete as hoax. Materialscientist (talk) 02:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchum unit[edit]

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

None of the inline external links appear to mention this "new" unit of measurement. I see no indication that this unit meets the general notability guideline, or even exists. VQuakr (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sign of significant coverage in reliable sources from the Google searches above, nor from Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. --Qwfp (talk) 21:31, 11 March 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 redirect to Jehovah's Witnesses#Beliefs. /ƒETCH COMMS / 18:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses

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

This is an improper use of a disambiguation page. The title, if it exists at all, should redirect to one of the two subjects brought together under it. bd2412 T 18:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete. If, for some reason, somebody were to type this in as a search term (unlikely), they would be better served seeing these two relevant pages at the top of the search results. Leading readers through disambiguation pages unnecessarily is an annoyance. Kansan (talk) 18:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~Redirect (see below). This disambiguation page exists because it was the original article name prior to a split into two separate articles. It should be noted that the two target articles are not the top two search results (they are currently in the top 60 but not top 40 results for this specific phrase). However, it seems unlikely that anyone would search for this particular phrase unless they already know about the article, in which case they would probably already know it's been split.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it was a page that was split into two, then it can't be deleted as it holds the edit history and thus attribution for this text. Perhaps some history merge can be done though. Edgepedia (talk) 13:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging or redirecting would be a reasonable solution. It just can't be a disambig page like this. bd2412 T 15:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Rename It's true the article has a long history attached to it. But this is a very unlikely search term. Could it be called Jehovah's Witnesses disambiguation or something like that? --MelanieN (talk) 02:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a main JW article, so Jehovah's Witnesses disambiguation isn't really an obvious name for the sub-articles to the exclusion of the main one. Maybe this page could just redirect to the main JW article? It provides an overview with links to the sub-articles.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem is that the page as it stands doesn't disambiguate anything. The concepts are not ambiguous, they are merely different aspects of a single broader concept. bd2412 T 15:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Redirect to Jehovah's Witnesses#Beliefs, the first of the two sections relating to the topics on the Jehovah's Witnesses article. This page doesn't disambiguate anything and is an unlikely search term. — Bility (talk) 06:08, 19 March 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, despite valid concerns about sourcing. Kubigula (talk) 16:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nauru national soccer team[edit]

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

Article PROD removed as being "iffy". Opening discussion.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources can be found.The article was created by User:Matthewmayer, who is an editor in good standing, but who has not edited for over a year now. He created the article as a translation of the German article de:Nauruische Fußballnationalmannschaft. That was created by de:Benutzer:CdaMVvWgS, who is an admin on the German Wikipedia. He last edited about a month ago. I'll ask him to contribute to this discussion.-gadfium 20:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my delete. I'm swayed by ClubOranje's argument, and while the article needs better sourcing, it does appear to be accurate.-gadfium 21:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would think the national team of a real nation would be automatically notable. The article needs references, but I don't think that warrants its deletion. Also the prod was wrong, even on the [[16]] version that was prodded the info box on the right indicates they have played a game. Monty₈₄₅ (talk) 08:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yes it's a national team, but it's only ever played one match, and that back was in 1994! There's no claim to notability and is massively under referenced. Giant Snowman 12:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Weak Keep - It is a national team of an independent nation, and they have played a match. Doesn't matter they haven't played since 1994, notability is not temporary (East Germany haven't played since 1990). It was a major event for Nauru in '94, additional information is out there waiting to be dug out. Minor claim to fame is their 100% win record, which no other nation can boast!--ClubOranje^T 10:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - agree with previous comment. Pelmeen10 (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - At present we have an article which claims a Nauruan team exists based on one line on a website which accepts user submitted content, rsssf. According to this nauru soccer association is not affiliated to the Nauru Olympic committee and football in Nauru is specifically discussed in this article without any mention of a national team ever having played. Stu.W UK (talk) 00:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. This one is different to the others in that it represents an independent nation. It needs more referencing, however. Argyle 4 Life^talk 04:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that the body selecting this team has any widespread authority, and so the team has no grounds to claim that it is representative. Kevin McE (talk) 19:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - this seems absurd to me. It's a national team of an independent nation. Notability is not temporary. It should be considered on the same level as any other national team. matt91486 (talk) 20:19, 18 March 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. /ƒETCH COMMS / 18:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Găgăuzia national football team[edit]

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

Article PROD was removed due to the PROD seeming "iffy". Opening it up for debate.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:KEEP #1 until an argument for deletion is advance. Monty₈₄₅ (talk) 08:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a national team as Găgăuzia is not a country; instead, this is more like a representative team which has played in a few exhibition matches - no claim to notability and unreferenced. Giant Snowman 12:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a national football team. Not a notable football team. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 16:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - It's an independent football team. Pelmeen10 (talk) 15:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It isn't a national team, merely a representative one. My county of birth has a representative team, but having a separate article for it wouldn't be justified because it just isn't notable enough. There is a section for it here which I think is acceptable. I'd recommend a similar arrangement for this team. Argyle 4 Life^talk 03:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that the body selecting this team has any widespread authority, and so the team has no grounds to claim that it is representative. Kevin McE (talk) 19:59, 16 March 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. /ƒETCH COMMS / 18:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Father Stalin look at this[edit]

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

The subject lacks notablity, since the poem has only been mentioned in one book. The additional references in the article are for explaining terms used in the poem, which is original research. The only available information available about the poem is presented in the single line in the lead. The source does not even provide a title for the poem. TFD (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep And I am getting sick of this user following me around and getting articles I create deleted. It`s a Ukrainian nursery rhyme from the 1930 so finding sourcing is difficult. But not impossible. And I believe Bloodlands: Europe Between Stalin and Hitler is a perfectly fine source to use for this article. Tentontunic (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Without third part references it seems to be an original research. Rirunmot (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is not Bloodlands a decent reference? No original research there after all. Tentontunic (talk) 23:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: 1) No notability claim. You'd expect an social impact claim for a nursery rhyme. 2) Not the object of independent studies: passing references in other texts does not indicate this has been the object of secondary studies. Look for Ukrainian folk tales academic works. Ping me if a notability claim and / or texts which make this the object of their study arise. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. (1) I've asked our friends over at Ukrainian Wikipedia for assistance in searching for the rhyme or any information about it in its native language.. I'd suggest that the creator of this article should monitor that link and respond there to any replies posted. ( You can set your user-interface preferences to English by using the drop-down list here. ) I'll try to monitor the query, as well, but I don't have any particular interest in this article. (2) No mention in multiple proprietary databases searching many millions of mostly behind-paywall articles in English, e.g. ProQuest; Gale; GeneralOnefile; Oxford Premium; & etc. (3) Other than the Bloodlands book, the only other mention I could find of the rhyme in English was by the Boston Globe in the Sunday's paper for 13 March 2011 ( try this link, or this one ), in a review of Bloodlands. – OhioStandard (talk) 03:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recognize this immediately as a single unique poem but rather as a theme. There are multiple variations usually four-liners that are sang in no particular order. You may look at http://ukrlife.org/main/evshan/Golodomor9.htm and search for "Сталін" (Stalin), "Сталін на стіні" (Stalin on the wall), "Батьку Сталін, подивися" (Father Stalin look). Абендфарт (talk) 09:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very helpful explanation, Абендфарт, and giving us the target search terms with their English translations is a very thoughtful touch as well. Thank you, – OhioStandard (talk) 18:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of many Chastushkas created in 1930s. I agree with the comment above that such theme existed and was popular, but this version was just one of many. The link http://ukrlife.org/main/evshan/Golodomor9.htm gives a great number of poems like that — NickK (talk) 09:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a song. Text: "

  Батьку Сталін, подивися,
  Як ми в СОЗі розжилися:
  Хата раком, клуня боком,
  Троє коней з одним оком.

  А на хаті серп і молот,
  А у хаті смерть і голод,
  Ні корови, ні свині,
  Тільки Сталін на стіні.

  Тато в СОЗі й мама в СОЗі,
  Діти плачуть на дороpі.
  Нема хліба, нема сала,
  Все місцева власть забрала.

  Не шукайте домовину,
  Батько з'їв свою дитину.
  З бучком ходить бригадир,
  Виганяє на Сибір."

Source: http://vuzlib.com/content/view/2047/52/. Full pdf of book - http://www.history.org.ua/JournALL/pro/18/27.pdf --

Alex Blokha (talk) 10:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to our Ukrainian friends for their help. This certainly shows notability does it not? Tentontunic (talk) 13:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you know the old proverb, Tenton: Нам необхідно когось, хто розуміє українську, щоб відповісти на це питання! ;-) Best, – OhioStandard (talk) 15:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you for finding that. Tentontunic, it does not show notability of this specific poem, although it does show the notability of Chastushkas. That Snyder chose this poem as an example does not create notability, and he provides scant informatiion about it. You might want to translate it and add it to the Chastushka article. It appears the title is "Father Stalin, look". Snyder changed some of the poem in order to make it read as a poem in English, hence "three horses with one eye" becomes "All the horses broken nags". You cannot by the way provide commentary about what the terms in the poem mean, unless you can find a source discussing the poem and what it means, otherwise it is original research. OS, good comment. --TFD (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not Chastushka. It's song. Chastushka has 4 lines (sorry for my english :)) of text.--Alex Blokha (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your English is good, Alex. It is better than our Ukrainian :-) and we are happy for your help; thanks! – OhioStandard (talk) 18:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is the song notable Alex? How well known is it in Ukraine? Tentontunic (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know any ukrainian song about famine, including this one. So, I cann't say is it notable or not. But the song was present in the book written in 2008(the pdf, i've mentioned) - 75 years after famine and in shnyders book in 2010. --Alex Blokha (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tenton, take a look at these Chastushka examples. If I understand correctly, these four-line mini-songs would be made up to suit an idea or occasion, remembered, then stitched together again later, not necessarily in any particular order. The nearest example that I can think of is what western soldiers call cadence calls.

If you've never heard cadence calls before (there are audio recordings at that article) it'll be hard to understand the comparison. But soldiers would make these up to use while marching or running, to help them stay in step and to keep their spirits up. One "theme" that became popular dealt with a draft-dodger who stayed at home and had it easy, a fictional guy named "Jody". So, for example, one four-line cadence call on the "theme" of "Jody" might be:

Ain't no use in going back / Jody's got your girlfriend on her back / Ain't no use in going home / Yeah, he's got her all alone.

It was a sort of "call and response" kind of "singing" (somewhat monotone, actually) where one soldier would call out the first line, the group would answer with the second line, the same single soldier would call out the third line, and the group would again answer with the fourth. Then the process would begin again with another four-line "song", probably also about "Jody", at least until people got tired of that "theme" and switched to a new one. This could go on for hours, as long as the group was marching or running.

In real field conditions, at least, as opposed to training conditions, this would have had a pretty informal "work song" kind of character to it: just a means to ease the boredom while on the march. Each time a group would start in with these cadence calls they'd probably use some old four-line "songs", some newer ones, some on a different theme, maybe some new ones would get made up, and they'd probably seldom occur in the exact same order, these four-line "mini-songs", on subsequent days...

This isn't an extremely exact analogy to your Lenin song, and I've taken some liberties in explaining it, but it's probably not a really awful analogy, either. Anyway, I think our Ukrainian friends are trying to tell us that the particular Lenin themed example given in Bloodlands might not really be a "song" in the same sense that "Happy Birthday to You" or "Greensleeves" is a "song". Excuse the long-winded explanation, but maybe it makes the whole thing a little more clear? – OhioStandard (talk) 19:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nobody can possibly argue that an article on chastushki in not worthy of inclusion, nor an article or even a series of articles on aspects of the 1933 famine that swept parts of Russia, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan. What we have here, however, is the interpretation of a single poem. Even that might be worthy of inclusion if a poem played a seminal part in cultural history — but this is a single chastushka, after all. With all due respect to the author, this does not seem to rise to the level of inclusion-worthiness. Merge some content to chastushka if necessary. Carrite (talk) 16:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Definitely non-notable as an article subject, and mostly contains OR as the article's content. Can easily be merged to (or mentioned in) one of the articles on wider or more general phenomena of Chastushki, Folk songs, etc. cherkash (talk) 20:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge if appropriate). One example of many songs, jokes, rhymes, etc. I don't see how this one is particularly notable or worthy inclusion in Wikipedia. Renata (talk) 22:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I wish the monks would admit that 'Buddhist colony' does sound a lot like 'nudist colony' and just lift the restraining order!" Is that notable? – OhioStandard (talk) 23:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Huh??? Renata (talk) 01:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Well, you're the one who said jokes could be notable, and I really like that one. – OhioStandard (talk) 03:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC) [reply]

I did not actually say that, but, well, please see category:Jokes. Renata (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My inclination would be to keep and expand, it's a less "provocative" title than expanding the article and calling it "Anti-Stalinist nursery rhymes." Question to TFD, would you nominate such an article for deletion as well? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, also Merge to Holodomor. Lack of mentions in other sources makes notability problematic. Peters idea is good, but somebody would need to write and reference such an article first... Another option would be to search for sources in Ukrainian; they may establish notability for the current article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:47, 15 March 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 Speedy delete as a blatant hoax per WP:G3. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Schoebel[edit]

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

Almost certainly a hoax. Magioladitis (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seeing as the Texans didn't even exist until 2002 I'd agree. Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hoax. None of the five online "references" mention him. JohnCD (talk) 19:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete immediately.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:52, 11 March 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) 03:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tobago official football team[edit]

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

PROD was contested. Claim that it is a national team when Tobago is not actually a nation. Claim that references establish at least a minimum for notability. Comment Thought a discussion should be established as there are obviously conflicting thoughts about its notability. Delusion23 (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a national team, merely representative one which has no formal affiliation and which has only played in five unofficial friendlies in a decade - I'd say this is of similar note to celebrity teams which play for charity i.e. not very! Giant Snowman 16:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I declined the proposed deletion, mostly because I did think that it was worth some public comment. The references do appear to confirm its existence, and while not a "national" team, it does claim to represent a substantial community. It does seem to have been only occasionally active. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - It's an independent football team. Pelmeen10 (talk) 15:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It isn't a national team, merely a representative one. My county of birth has a representative team, but having a separate article for it wouldn't be justified because it just isn't notable enough. There is a section for it here which I think is acceptable. I'd recommend a similar arrangement for this team. Argyle 4 Life^talk 03:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that the body selecting this team has any widespread authority, and so the team has no grounds to claim that it is representative. Kevin McE (talk) 20:00, 16 March 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 speedy delete as a blatant hoax per WP:G3. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Strachan[edit]

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

I think it's a hoax. The links are irrelevant and the same person tried to add hoax in another pages. Magioladitis (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page seems well referenced to me. Some of the web pages are in Japanese, however this is understandable as the player currently plays in Japan. For what it's worth I'v done a Lycos search on him and got plenty of results. Perhaps it would be beneficial to get the references translated into English just to clear things up. Until then no deletion should go ahead.DwightSchrute4 (talk) 16:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and it just happens to have created an account just right now? Hm... -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Well thought out hoax, but a hoax nevertheless. Searching for Jonathan Strachan and Yokohama BayStars in Google only link to the WP article. Also the article this is referring to Brent Schoebel is a clear hoax, making this very suspicious. Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the English online "references" don't mention him, I don't find any confirmation, the author's other "Brent Schoebel" article is an undoubted hoax. JohnCD (talk) 19:11, 11 March 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. postdlf (talk) 15:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Marklin Mash[edit]

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

This autobiography (penned by Lewismash (talk · contribs), currently blocked) is about a subject that does not meet WP:BIO. The primary claim to notability is ADHDtv, which appears to fail WP:N (as argued in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ADHDtv). This AfD is separate from ADHDtv because this subject also claims production credits on other shows and a library of rap albums, listed in the article and the IMDB profile. These accomplishments, however, appear to each lack encyclopedic notability and their combination doesn't rise to the level of overcoming a distinct lack of external coverage from reliable sources. Google searches for "MARQ-E" rap, "Lewis Marklin Mash" and "Lew Marklin" do not reveal secondary coverage in reliable sources. — Scientizzle 15:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —— Scientizzle 15:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable personality with questionable references (Polticially Incorrect never had musical guests, much less a musical segment, and the "Rick Dees" TV show from twenty years ago was not known for being well-viewed or for show guest appeal) and claims of employment with ABC and the Dodgers are unable to be verified (and if they are, likely only as freelance work), along with claim of video presentation in Baseball Hall of Fame. Music career also seems questionable. (Apologies for not being more specific with this vote as article editor has made threats against me for my ADHDtv AfD position, so I'm being more neutral with my wording for a delete vote than usual). Nate • (chatter) 00:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly a vanity page aimed at free self-promotion of a non-notable actor. The sources provided do not convince me otherwise.--Atlan (talk) 11:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per lack of independent reliable sources. I'll grant the fellow is a prolific producer, screenwriter, and actor... but no one else seems to have noticed except himself. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sorry lew.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:27, 17 March 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. Tone 22:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Xenogenesis (film)[edit]

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

Right now, this article is not establishing notability under the WP:NFILM criteria. It needs more reliable sources and outside coverage in order to be considered notable. Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 15:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As James Cameron's first film (as writer, director, and producer), notability shouldn't be too difficult to establish.Shsilver (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sufficient (though not quite a lot of) coverage to establish notability. This shows some passing (but not minor) coverage, but a solid source is the book The Futurist: The Life and Films of James Cameron, which has numerous details about this short film. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I implemented a Wired article to start a "Production" section. I would recommend using The Futurist to provide additional detail about the short. Some of it should be viewable in Google Books Search or on Amazon.com. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as being an improvable article on the first film of someone who then become a notable director. Kudos to Erik for his WP:BEFORE. And a polite note to the nominator: Addressable issues are rarely a sound reason to nominate something for deletion simply in their not yet being done. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First film of a notable director. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. James Cameron is sufficiently notable that his first film is certainly notable. —Lowellian (reply) 11:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Editors here are arguing to keep just because this is a notable director's first film. The argument to keep should be that this topic is independently notable. The short does not meet any specialized notability criteria at WP:NFILM, so we need to consider the criteria at WP:GNG: having "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". This short exists, no one disputes that, but that does not necessarily mean coverage is plentiful. It could very well be mentioned in a couple of sentences at James Cameron's article. Please argue to keep by supporting the presence of coverage about the short and indicating where additional coverage exists. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay Erik, the topic is independently notable in the same way that any notable director's film might be notable: through it meeting the criteria of WP:GNG and that of WP:NF. While yes, as Cameron's first film, it meets the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (films)#Other evidence of notability#2, IE: "The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career) just as others are arguing, it also meets the GNG and NF. With respects, your comment might better be taken as a "keep" so that a merge might be discussed on the article's talk page. And some may feel that an minimal inclusion there of a "mention" would not clutter up the Cameron bio page, but for proper historical context it might require more than a "couple of sentences"... and while a "mention" there is fine, I believe that topic merits an independent article, even if not overlong.

Toward NF and the GNG, I note a decent review at Slashfilm that could be used to expand the article.[17] Were you aware the film was financed by a group of dentists seeking a tax write-off? And it is easy to find that we do have lots of further sources available recognizing the film's emergence and history... available in such as New York Magazine, Digital Journal, Moneyweek, Times Online, Wired News, Daily Nation, Sky Movies, Toronto Star, IESB, Business Wire, Exchange, and in the non-English sources Sueddeutsche, Basler Zeitung, 20minutes, Berliner Morgenpost, Sky Movies, O Globo, Close-Up, Die Weltwoche and a few dozen more besides.[18] And also of note is that the film has made it into the enduring record by its creation being written of in context to Cameron's careerup in quite a few books.[19] It needs expansion, yes... but it's a keeper. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm convinced! :) Erik (talk | contribs) 13:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On some days my google-foo is better than on others. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:28, 17 March 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. Tone 22:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Rogalski (ice hockey)[edit]

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

The subject of this article does not appear to meet the general notability guideline or the WP:NHOCKEY guideline for ice hockey players. Onthegogo (talk) 15:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NHOCKEY. ccwaters (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't qualify for the free pass of WP:NHOCKEY, and isn't notable in his own right. Mandsford 03:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Player currently fails WP:NHOCKEY. Article can be recreated when notability is achieved. -Pparazorback (talk) 01:42, 13 March 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. There was a clear community consensus that this article should be deleted. The majority view was that the page was fundamentally defective and/or misconceived. However the case was not made that the concept of the page, in its latter shortened form, was against policy. Consequently if it were rewritten in a fully sourced form and with both criteria for inclusion and with explanatory text that places the table in context then I would not consider it a recreation. TerriersFan (talk) 23:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UEFA Champions League team performances[edit]

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

Contested PROD; original rational was "Complete violation of WP:OR and WP:NOTSTATS". Giant Snowman 14:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Doesn't the UEFA coefficient article give a better comparison of how teams have performed in past champions league seasons? It's official, whereas this system seems rather arbitrary. Format makes it very difficult to tell what's going on, let alone if it were updated for all the teams that have ever played in the champions league. Delusion23 (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Check the internet before suggesting for deletion Please list me a single internet link from where you can get the team performances in UEFA champions league. I was searching for the same and was found to be necessary. It is not easy to go through each year and get the performances and do the comparison. Also I have added a pointing system to find out the best team of the decade and wanted to extend it to other years which is not given any where. I expect all of you to give suggestions for improvement of the article rather than just commenting on the deletion. If visibility is a problem, we can only include the teams that had at least qualified once for the QF or knockout stage.

-- Fahidka (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The official rating system - the UEFA coefficient - tracks club performance. Giant Snowman 14:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UEFA Coeficient says whether team had qualified or not in UEFA champions league and does not tell anything on how far they have proceeded in the prestigious UEFA champions League. The article is intended only on UEFA champions league not on overall club performances. I believe there is no system presently to indicate the same. For eg. from 2004-08, club coefficient rated Chelsea as a best team which is not indicative of their performance in UEFA champions league. Fahidka (talk) 15:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by the "best" team - that's surely completely subjective, which violates no original research. There's absolutely no need for a list like this, at all. Giant Snowman 15:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am talking about an already listed part on UEFA coefficient - [20] & indicating the same as not related to the team's performances in UEFA champions league. If that is subjective, please remove the contents from the above link also. Presently there is no system to compare team performance in UEFA champions league or a list of performance of single team's list over various years. Please give me a link to show Arsenal's or chelsea's performance in champions league, listing how far they have reached in each year. Fahidka (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why does that information need to be presented in a list? And why only certain teams, and not others? Please read WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:NPOV. Giant Snowman 15:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well here's every match Arsenal have ever played in Europe. Anyway, the fact that information might be useful is not on its own valid reason for inclusion in an encyclopedia. This is a potentially massive list of statistics, statistics which are already reported on Wikipedia in a variety of places. The page in and of itself adds little and may even constitute original research as a new synthesis of material. The ranking system is also unnecessary but even without this on the page, the page should still be deleted. --Pretty Green (talk) 15:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List is a better way of representing performances and comparing the same. I was searching for how Arsenal had performed over last 10 years in UEFA champions league. I was completely struck up. I have to go through 10 pages in wikipedia to get this information. If I want to compare it with performances of Man Utd, Chelsea and liverpool what am I need to do??? I was totally messed up and felt it is very critical which triggered me to make this article..Don't you think it is essential? Reg..And why only certain teams??? I agree we need to include all and I was not finished, that is why I have kept the Expand tag so that others can help me on the same but I was wondered to see the delete tag here. Let us keep the teams who had atleast qualified for QF as a criteria of listing here. Ok..Usefulness is only the criteria. I agree. Then please delete article related to premier league each year which you can get from the premier league page. Fahidka (talk) 15:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. Arsenal's European record is available at List of Arsenal F.C. seasons. Other teams have a page for their European record, such as Arsenal F.C. in Europe which would also do the job. Just because a list is possible, doesn't mean it should exist. Brad78 (talk) 23:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The idea of summarising team performances in a single table is not original research and does not violate WP:NOTSTATS, which simply says tables are preferable to lists of statistics.--Pontificalibus (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So the section which uses a points-based rating system which has been determined by one user and one user only isn't OR? Huh, interesting. Giant Snowman 16:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I deliberately did not say that. If that is OR it can be removed without affecting the principal content of the article.--Pontificalibus (talk) 16:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There we go, I removed it without having to delete the article.--Pontificalibus (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, returning to the table itself (if that is what you mean by the "principal content") - where is the key, of both colours and teams? What is it about these teams that means they deserve mention, and not others? And what is the point of having massive gaps in the table? Giant Snowman 16:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, can I remove the rest of the content, as that is also "unsourced, appears to be original research"...? Giant Snowman 16:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have already commented on the same..."And why only certain teams??? I agree we need to include all and I was not finished, that is why I have kept the Expand tag so that others can help me on the same but I was wondered to see the delete tag here. Let us keep the teams who had atleast qualified for QF as a criteria of listing here. Fahidka (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The table is intended to show how each team performed in each season. Wikipedia is full of such tables which provide information that would only otherwise be available by checking many individual articles (for example at 2010 Formula One season#Results and standings). You might make an argument it should be merged with another article, but it is not WP:OR and it does not violate WP:NOTSTATS, its incompleteness is a reason to improve it, not delete it.--Pontificalibus (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I take your points - but where are the references for each teams performance? And again, what is the actual point of such a comparison table? Giant Snowman 16:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Compare with Tennis. Please check what this article is doing -- 2011 ATP World Tour though there are each individual tournament has separate page. Do anybody suggest to delete this as the contents are available in all the other pages?? Same is applicable to this page. Fahidka (talk) 16:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References??? Please check the links given on the each year which points to wikipedia articles on corresponding to each year UEFA champions league. Fahidka (talk) 16:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep an article; also, Wikipedia articles cannot be used to source other Wikipedia articles. Giant Snowman 16:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The references can be copied to this article. You haven't given a valid reason to delete it either - how about we all shut-up let other editors have a say :-) ?--Pontificalibus (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, yeah, we're going round in circles aren't we? Giant Snowman 16:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered how the football articles seem to be incomplete in wikipedia whereas tennis articles are almost perfect. Now I could understand. Here more thought is put on how to delete an article than how can we make it better. Tried maximum to convince & I quit!! Sorry. Giant, please carry on with your deletion. Fahidka (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and redundancy to UEFA coefficient. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Delusion23 (talk) 19:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm undecided at the moment, but leaning toward delete. On the one hand, I get the idea and it might be useful. But, it's a disaster at this point and it is listcruft. Digirami (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is original interpretation of statistical data. We are not here to host people's lookup charts. The material in question already exists in the form of coefficient rankings on existing pages. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 22:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure and unadulterated Wp:LISTCRUFT. This list is incomplete and would be just too unwieldy once completed. Brad78 (talk) 23:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the UEFA Coefficient is the right list. This is the wrong list. That there is an article that much better covers this content makes this page redundant. A grid of performances for hundreds of teams is utterly unmanageable. Fortunately the people that make websites about the Coefficient do an absolutely excellent job for those who can be bothered to use the internet. MLA (talk) 10:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This list might be useful if there is a better way to present the information. Right now the list has too many problems: it has no lead, it's too wide and unreadable, it needs a key to explains the abbreviation and colors (R16, FIN, MUN, etc), the use of flag at the table header violates WP:MOSFLAG, the colors used need more contrast (please see WP:COLOR), and it's completely unreferenced. Moreover, the Individual Performers section contradict the article title which clearly says .. team performances and should be removed. Also, I don't recall that the group stage being referred as round of 32 in the media. While most of these issues are easy to fix, I still think there is no way to reduce the width of the table without losing the information. Even though we can only include the teams that had at least qualified once for the QF or knockout stage, there will still be too many clubs and the table will be much wider when the list is completed. Therefore, I'm leaning towards delete, unless there is a significant improvement on the readability. — MT (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If you expanded to include the European Cup (which is the same competition) you have 14 teams from England alone (Arsenal, Aston Villa, Blackburn Rovers, Burnley, Chelsea, Derby County, Everton, Leeds Utd, Liverpool, Manchester Utd, Newcastle Utd, Nottingham Forest, Tottenham, and Wolves). Once you include every UEFA nation it becomes total cruft. The usage of the made-up points system violates WP:OR. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 20:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it has been published by reliable sources and widely used then fair enough, but this certainly hasn't. There is no lead, the table is stretched, the colours are hideous, there is no key, flags are being misused and there are no references. It violates WP:CITE, WP:NPOV, WP:COLOR, WP:MOSFLAG, to name just a few. Argyle 4 Life^talk 03:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, misused flags and colours, there's a good reason to delete. Imagine if this article was improved to its best possible state - what would be the reasons to delete it then? --Pontificalibus (talk) 10:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is still completely unreferenced, it favours certain clubs for no reason and it's WP:LISTCRUFT. If I created List of Plymouth Argyle F.C. players who have scored an own goal then it would be deleted without hesitation because it's trivial and isn't published in reliable sources. This is no different. If it becomes widely used like UEFA coefficient then I would concede, but it won't. Argyle 4 Life^talk 19:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep If the article is improved visually and has citations added it may be a useful collation of data that are otherwise only available after trawling through lots of individual articles. Delusion23 (talk) 11:07, 16 March 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. There are also suggestions to merge the content with various other articles, but no consensus on how or whether to do that. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Science of morality[edit]

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

Although thinly disguised, the article is essentially about one person's theory, which is to say Sam Harris (author). William M. Connolley (talk) 13:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or Merge with The Moral Landscape. I somewhat agree with William Connolley that there is a tilt in the article skewed towards Harris's point of view. But I don't think that is a reason to wipe out the article; rather, balance should be restored. This is a tough philosophical subject and I think Tesseract deserves credit for working hard on this article. It needs more references and a good copyedit. It's an important topic in the media, essentially a debate between two prominent thinkers -- and that's what I think this article should focus on: their debate. Focus on this; and we'll achieve neutrality. The first paragraph captures this; but later sections tilt in favor of Harris. But these issues (imo) are best solved by working on it, adding references, copyediting, and seeking out the help of knowledgeable people like Pfhorrest (sp?) and others here -- they've done an excellent job on the Rights article and many others.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC) Additional note: the idea of Merge-ing The Moral Landscape with Science of Morality seems reasonable; didn't know about the TML article until now.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I mostly agree with Tomwsulcer. There is a too much of a concentration on Sam Harris, but the subject of the article is a valid and important one. One that is discussed by far more people than Sam Harris, and far pre-dates him. I find the claim that it is one person's theory, to be rather strange and blatantly, and factually, incorrect.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 15:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. This article seems to be an attempt to extend The Moral Landscape into multiple articles. It should probably be merged there. --BozMo talk 20:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fix - Attribute the subject to Sam Harris, and avoid wasting folks time here on a near frivolous AfD, for someone's entertainment value. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 00:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So are *any* of the people "near frivolously" voting keep-but-fix actually going to do any fixing? No sign of it so far William M. Connolley (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

okay, I'll work on fixing it, but not right away; I'm working on several other projects; and before I do anything, I'll consult with the others first. I'm not that keen to write about philosophy ever since my article which I created, Philosophy of Spinoza, was totally overwritten, and overwritten by an uncooperative and disagreeable and insulting type at that; but luckily I kept my article alive as a knol here although it gets the least amount of readers of my knols; kind of a snooze. My general approach is to avoid POV-battling by moving possibly controversial stuff (like philosophy) to knols, and working at stuff here at Wikipedia which is less controversial.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am optimistic. I have heard some passionate, but ultimately constructive criticism and discussion. I like writing, and I don't at all mind discussing what to write.-Tesseract²(talk) 01:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's been a lot of recent IP changes throughout the spinozaverse, none of which raised a peep. Maybe participating in philosophy articles is easier these days? IMO, Science of Morality wasn't a philosophy article however, and I doubt it's a good idea to turn it into one.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 09:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's essentially about what can be examined by looking at evidence, logic and reason. How is that not a matter of philosophy?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 09:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is unavoidably philosophical to some extent, because so is science. That having been said, I still think we should try to keep it from getting way too abstract. I was thinking the theory section is pretty loaded at this point- maybe more sources for the research section would be a good focus.-Tesseract²(talk) 15:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Why not merge the Science of morality page with Ethical naturalism? Some reasoning...

(1)WP:NTEMP The philosophy of ethical naturalism is old, and the idea that scientists (not just philosophers) could reasonably discuss "what is moral" was a relatively new concept. Even if more sources were not consistently becoming available (which they are) this has caused a great deal of discussion and received a great deal of coverage.

(2)WP:NRVE That coverage has not only been reliable, but from various notable people.

(3)Just as the multi-disciplinary positive psychology (the science of individual flourishing) needs a page for that particular scientific inquiry, so too does the even more controversial science of right and wrong.

(4)The main issue seems to be that Sam Harris is cited plenty of times. This has been because he has written one of few books dedicated to this new idea. As time has gone on, we have seen that he continues to be cited less and less (as he should be).

-Tesseract²(talk) 01:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jeremy Bentham wrote a book about the Science of Morality in 1834. He coined the term Deontology for it and so there may be some scope for merger but this title seems clearer than that neologism. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which book is so notable that his article doesn't even mention it. Meanwhile, all Deontology has to say about Bentham is Jeremy Bentham, an early utilitarian philosopher, criticized deontology on the grounds that it was essentially a dressed-up version of popular morality, and that the unchanging principles that deontologists attribute to natural law or universal reason are really a matter of subjective opinion. Nor is it at all clear that D is the same as SoM: what makes you think they are the same? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find I must agree with that. I don't know about the notability of the book, or if it's relevant, but Bentham does not seem to have liked Deontology, and Deontology does not seem to be in any way similar to Sam Harris' or Bentham's ideas of morality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZarlanTheGreen (talk • contribs) 19:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hazlitt writes, "Nowhere is a more logical, better-organized, or more stimulating discussion of private ethics to be found than in the two volumes of Jeremy Bentham's Deontology: or The Science of Morality.". Colonel Warden (talk) 19:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spiffy. But is that what this article is about? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about scientific approaches to morality. Bentham's utilitarianism has this character with its hedonistic calculus - a rational theory rather than one based upon tradition, rights or religion. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... seems a bit weird, but as Bentham argued the same type of stuff as Sam Harris has, and which is discussed in the article, the issue about Deontology isn't really important.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 20:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me they are both discussing various, sometimes different methodological issues of a science of morality. They are quite explicit. Dewey is I think too.

About Deontology, the book is basically highlighting what to keep and what to reject. Then Bentham says that, at best, Deontology reduces to another brand of scientific, consequentialist morality (like utilitarianism).-Tesseract²(talk) 01:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to ethical naturalism. The idea discussed in this article, as far as I can tell, is that facts about what is good or bad, right or wrong, etc, are empirical facts, and thus can be subjected to the methods of natural science; once we (at least operationally) define what natural properties we mean by "good" etc, we then just investigate what situations, actions, etc, have those properties. That is precisely the thesis of ethical naturalism, as it was first rigorously formulated (in opposition) by G.E. Moore; and it was an operating assumption of most modern-period utilitarians such as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill that ethical naturalism was the only alternative to subjectivist ethical theories such as cultural relativism and divine command theory. (After Moore opened up the meta-ethical debate, other alternatives were noted, such as Moore's own realist Ethical non-naturalism, the rationalist-universalist subjectivism of Ideal observer theory, and aside from all the relativist forms of non-cognitivism, R.M. Hare's universalist form of non-cognitivism called Universal prescriptivism). This article seems to be about a more recent and popular debate about the same subject (although it seems to ignore everything that's happened in metaethics in the past century or so, and is still just arguing as though universalism = naturalism). I can thus see it deserving (appropriately weighted) inclusion in the article on Ethical naturalism, but I don't think it deserves its own article, and trying to flesh this article out to be more than a piece on Harris's discussion of the subject will end up duplicating effort best spent improving Ethical naturalism instead.

(Aside, on the subject of deontology: I think there is some etymological confusion in the discussions surrounding this here. The term literally means something like "the rational study of ethical duties" and so could be loosely translated "the science of morality", but in late-modern and contemporary ethical discourse it means something much more specific, a type of normative ethical theory that utilitarians like Bentham are directly opposed to, and so should not be confused with the broader sense that people in Bentham's day often used). --Pfhorrest (talk) 09:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on idea of merging Science of morality with ethical naturalism. I'm somewhat opposed to this idea of merging because what I'm thinking is that if a reader of Wikipedia wants to know about science of morality, they're mostly interested in this term and the current debate in the media between Harris and Carroll, and I'm not sure they're ready to take the plunge into heavy-duty ethical naturalism. A reader might want to know what the debate is about; who's debating; when this has happened; the outlines of the debate in terms of major points; examples; and sources for further exploration; at this point, then, they may want to go further into ethical naturalism, meta-ethics, deontology. I bet many readers, if they typed in science of morality in the search bar, and then were plunked down into ethical naturalism, might wonder -- what am I doing here? It's like they had hoped to find an introductory class in philosophy, but found themselves in a graduate seminar.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To add to what Tomwsulcer says: I don't (yet) have a good grasp of the formal terminology and definitions, but... Would Science of morality not also count as broader category than ethical naturalism? (thus meaning that it would deserve a separate page, much like how Atheism has it's own page, despite the existence of pages like Agnostic atheism and Apatheism)--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 12:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking of it as a new field of science, I'm not sure whether it is subordinate, superior, or somehow to the left of the philosophical issues it touches. Is there any widely agreed upon literature on this topic? Is natural philosophy superior or even wholly necessary for physics? To some extent I think it is possible that the scientific method is a particular philosophy- complete with specific times when it says "I don't know yet". Calling something a science seems to be saying that we are applying a certain bunch of practices (accepted premises) that span epistemology, metaphysics, and now presumably ethics and metaethics. In my mind, rejecting the premises of science amounts to rejecting it's particular philosophy.

Hopefully that made some sense. To some extent I'm also wary of Tom's point; there may be good reason to describe how science could prescribe social ethics without delving too deep into other uses of 'morality' in analytic philosophy. That is, we should mention the related philosophy of ethical naturalism, and definitely make that page better (it's surprisingly short).-Tesseract²(talk) 15:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There's the thing, “it seems to ignore everything that's happened in metaethics in the past century or so”. Harris characterizes “philosophizing” as mere solipsism and he explicitly tried to make an end-run around it. I think we would need to cite philosophical WP:RS claiming him for philosophy, claiming he has a rigorous philosophical thesis, (I'm not saying it's the wrong assignment but “precisely the thesis of ethical naturalism” is fairly broad... it may have accumulated some unclaimed baggage in the last hundred years). I think it's prudent, given that Harris makes no pretense whatsoever of engaging in professional philosophical discourse. To Harris, it's about science, and his advice to the scientist, as quoted in the ethical naturalism article:

“why would we listen to a [ solipsist ] in the first place?”.

I agree, the article has been “about a more recent and popular debate” and as I said yesterday, on the article's talk page, I don't think Harris' part should be played down in order to “flesh this article out to be more than a piece on Harris's discussion...” I think both articles will be stronger if they maintain their separate focus. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that Harris' popular discussion is notable enough to support it's own article apart from the book, (a merge target where WP:UNDUE wouldn't be an issue).

I'm concerned about the weigh that's already been given in the ethical naturalism article. I don't see it supporting much more... On Feb 14, I moved down the "Morality as a science" section {Main|Science of morality}, from it's place at the top of the article. That may be more indicative of the need to expand ethical naturalism... but I think one way to cope with the enthusiastic support Harris and other pundits enjoy, is to allow that notoriety room to flourish where it won't eclipse the dull humdrum of mainstream professionals.

With apologies to Pfhorrest for so many quotes but a different conclusion... I do agree, mostly, and I couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 17:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if it's broke then fix it, don't delete it. Nergaal (talk) 23:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This article merely attempts to extend The Moral Landscape into multiple articles. It should probably be merged there. Within the large field of neuroscience, there are less than a handful of moralists/essentialists trying to turn science into morality. As it stands, it's their personal opinions in a sea of NO scientific consensus.--Tallard (talk) 07:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Interesting point; I didn't know about The Moral Landscape before casting my vote; I'm in favor of merging the article The Science of Morality with The Moral Landscape.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be implying that "mere hypotheses", don't deserve their own page. That's hardly a valid point, is it? There are many pages on hypotheses: String theory, Atkins diet, Detoxification (alternative medicine), Creationism, Aquatic ape hypothesis... Please note, that aside from string theory, none of my examples are particularly respected by scientists. Indeed, most of my examples are pseudo-science, if that. They are still subjects that require their own pages. Also, while Sam Harris does emphasise neuroscience (many have stated he greatly overemphasises it. Both amongst critics and proponents), that branch of science is by no means the branch that most proponents of a Science or Morality focus on, nor is it the only way that Sam Harris claims that science can investigate morals.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 14:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I must also disagree that the Science of Morality page "merely attempts to extend The Moral Landscape". The fact is that Sam Harris is not the first (or the last) to support- more than just any ethical naturalism- the idea that scientists as well as philosophers can discuss normative ethics. The Moral Landscape attempts to focus on Harris' points, complete with his slight aversion to engaging philosophical issues more satisfactorily. In contrast, the philosophy of the scientist (and of science) takes some important stances on various philosophical issues, and ultimately there have been various thinkers who think the resulting scientific methods of the day is integral to answering questions like "What ought we, morally, to do as a rule in situations like this? What about this situation in particular?". Hence the Science of morality page.-Tesseract²(talk) 15:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Strong" keep. No valid grounds for deletion were given. Theory of relativity was also "one person's theory". Should we delete it or merge that page as well? "The article is essentially about one person's theory" is no argument at all. The article may have some minor WP:UNDUE issues (I'm not claiming it does), but the subject is clearly notable[21], sufficiently neutral, and perfectly valid. The page can obviously be improved, but that should be solved through regular editing. As for the idea of merging, the Moral Landscape is only one of hundreds of works that deal with the subject, and even though the pages may have a bit of overlap, the scope of the article clearly goes way beyond the subject of Sam Harris' latest book. — Rankiri (talk) 17:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to state, though it may be unnecessary, that I wholeheartedly agree on all points.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Ethical naturalism. This seems to be a new name for an old idea, and the use of the word "science" is not any more illuminating than its use in Christian science" or "scientology". There should not be two separate articles that deal with what is apparently the same concept, neither of which distinguishes itself from the other --JimWae (talk) 21:51, 18 March 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. /ƒETCH COMMS / 18:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Baron[edit]

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

I'm not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources to verify any claims in the article. WP:GNG Tavix | Talk 02:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 16:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent sources in the article, and after searching Google Web, News archive, Books & Scholar although I found evidence that there's one of his sculptures in a public place in Tel Aviv [22], I found no sign of significant coverage in independent reliable sources that would meet WP:BIO. --Qwfp (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Considering he is in his late 60s the press coverage etc on his website is not massive, or in much depth. Mind you, not everyone has had their photo taken by Willem de Kooning. Johnbod (talk) 02:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 11:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The article should be correctly referenced, shall someone look up for sources and improve the reliability of this article, then it must be kept (because if he really has attained many awards he is a notable Israeli sculptor). Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 16:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No third-party sources are listed here, nor could I find any in Google books or Google news archive. Fails verifiability. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:26, 19 March 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. /ƒETCH COMMS / 18:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice[edit]

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

Article dePRODed by creator with reason "Give it time, thanks". PROD reason stated was "Relatively new journal, apparently not indexed anywhere. Apart from a very minor controversy (see references 1 and 2), no indication of notability. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals." This concern still stands, hence: delete. Crusio (talk) 08:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 08:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 08:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there is no third party coverage of this journal then we cannot have an article. I notice that the article was created during a dispute at a noticeboard over whether the journal was peer-reviewed.[23] TFD (talk) 11:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete And it really ought to be noted that giving 18 minutes from the prod being remove and AFD`ing the article is poor form. It certainly meets notability guidelines, The Times Macleans Magazine Canadian Medical Association CTV News Canada.com The Scotsman There are no shortage of sources to create this article on what is a peer reviewed journal. Tentontunic (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you have sources showing notability, then I rather consider it bad form to create a barely sourced stub and then remove a PROD with no better reason than "give it time" (a PROD gives you time, 7 days, no less). As for the sources you give above: "The Scotsman" - just a comment posted by a reader; Canada.com - just a letter to the editor; CTV - just an in-passing mention; CMAJ - just one reference to this journal; "The Times" - only an in-passing mention; "Macleans Nagazine" mentions a study from this journal and is the most substantial of the references you give. None of them, however, is about the journal, most are trivial. There is a shortage of sources showing notability. That you need to trawl the web for reader-posted comments and letters to the editor just illustrates the lack of anything substantial here. And whether or not the journal is peer-reviewed or not has nothing to do with its notability (there are plenty of notable non-reviewed magazines or non-notable reviewed journals). --Crusio (talk) 17:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ into the article of its parent organization, Drug Free America Foundation. [24] Steinberger (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong delete~~. I've changed my mind. See below. I didn't intend to, but I've spent over three utterly fascinating hours researching this. I've posted some of my results and conclusions at the article's talk page. (permalink). A high-altitude summary, you ask? Sure: Unless someone wants to rewrite it to document a charmingly effective example of a governmental propaganda project, our article should be deleted. It's certainly not a "journal" in any sense we're used to using the word. With all respect to this article's creator, I could wish he had taken the trouble to discover that on his own. – OhioStandard (talk) 08:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, I ought to have looked a little deeper. I shall change my vote to delete. Tentontunic (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The candor and humility of your response increases you in my view extremely. So many people feel it somehow diminishes them to make an honest error or to acknowledge it when they do, a very foolish attitude, in my opinion. But I honor you sir, for your integrity in making this reply. Very best regards, – OhioStandard (talk) 14:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite with the citations found by Ohiostandard. As there are RSs discussing specifically this journal, it's notable. The conclusion that it is not what it appeared to be does not mean that an article should not be written about what it is actually is. DGG ( talk ) 02:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I thought seriously along these lines, too, DGG, and considered changing my !vote to "keep" for exactly the reason you articulate. The main reason I didn't was that I was concerned that leaving the article "up" until someone gets around to really writing it properly was that doing so would give it an appearance of legitimacy in the meantime. Thoughts? – OhioStandard (talk) 03:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow I didn't see (or failed to realize the import of it) the sources that Ohiostandard posted on the article talk page. DGG is right. There are sources discussing this "journal". And even though they establish the fact that this obviously is not a reliable source, I think that establishes notability and provides enough material to write an informative article about this publication. As there are "delete" votes I cannot withdraw the nom, but I am now !voting keep. I don't like POV sites masquerading as peer-reviewed academic journals, but that is irrelevant to questions of notability. --Crusio (talk) 08:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I love it when AfD's actually make constructive, collaborative progress like this: Where else on Wikipedia does that happen? ;-) Seriously, I couldn't agree more with Crusio on one point, at least: I also strongly dislike "POV sites masquerading as peer-reviewed academic journals", and agree that we'd be doing a service to the encyclopedia and to the world if we were to use WP:RS to document this one as such.

So what we seem to be saying here, if I understand correctly, is that we want to base a "keep" on finding and documenting reliable sources that expose this ostensible "journal" as bogus? I'd be in favor of that, and would be willing to also change my !vote if ( and this is a big "if" ) everyone here !voting to keep will agree to collaborate to do so, rather than just letting the article languish as bait for its supporters to try add content to our article to give it a false air of legitimacy.

In other words, if all y'all will help keep Wikipedia from allowing the article to become advertising for a fake journal, by its mere presence here, and will agree to help source and develop the article, then I'd say we can keep it, and I imagine Tentontunic and TFD might be willing to change their !votes to "keep" as well, under such circumstances. Will everyone here put in a little time to help achieve these goals, so we don't just keep an article that will be an attractive nuisance, i.e. an article by which the ostensible "journal's" publishers or their socks can use Wikipedia to further hoodwink the public?

I'll try to add some more about sources and related matters that touch on whether to "keep" or "delete" this article later today, on its talk page, and would ask my fellow editors to check in there before we decide how to dispose of this question. I'm not sure, for example, whether there's enough substance in WP:RS about this particular "journal" to support a standalone article, for example, although a high Canadian official citing it probably lends weight to the argument that it does. Maybe we need an article like Bogus medical journals or Astroturfing in medical policy or somesuch, that this example could live in as a section? More on the article's talk page later today, though, if I can find the time. – OhioStandard (talk) 14:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment to closing admin or editor~~. I've changed my !vote to "keep", as have other editors, and I'll be contacting the two remaining "delete" !voters to ask that they review the newly added sources, as well. We seem to be making good progress here, so I'd respectfully suggest that this should be relisted when it comes up to its fast-approaching seven-day decision point. My guess is, that with the progress we appear to be making, we might be able to come to a unanimous conclusion, or nearly so, although I'm not sure we have the reliable sources to support that at this point. In any case, I'd suggest that a "relist" would be more productive at this point than a "close" one way or the other or a "close with no consensus". If we make the progress I suspect we will, then one of us, whether admin or no, can close it after a relist, so no additional work will be required by AfD admin "close patrollers" or whatever the right description for that commendable role might be. Thanks, – OhioStandard (talk) 14:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any extensive literature on this journal? I do not mind delaying the AfD so that we can look at anything that might justify an article. TFD (talk) 16:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, TFD. I need to go back and look at my notes, but that might be a problem, which is the reason I haven't (yet?) changed my !vote to "keep". I don't have time just this moment to comment (or research) further, but of the posts I made to the talk page, only the first two are unarguably WP:RS. The third probably is, in that it's made by a person who is a recognized expert in the field, Evan Wood, ( M.D.? Ph.D.? Published in the New England Journal of Medicine, anyway ) but it's nevertheless still a comment page.

Pontificalibus ( see below ) has added some cites to the article just recently, too, though, and Crusio has done some work on it too ( good on them! ) but I haven't had time to look at that carefully yet, re notability, although I'm now leaning toward "keep". I should also just add quickly that although I dug up the sources I posted to the article's talk page independently, it's actually user Steinberger who deserves most of that credit. As I've just seen from the NPOV/N thread on this that was linked to, above, he actually found and cited the first two of the three sources I posted to the article's talk page before I was even aware of this issue. So good on him, too. In haste, – OhioStandard (talk) 17:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've had time to review the current state of the article, now. See my revised !vote, below. – OhioStandard (talk) 21:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article currently demonstrates significant coverage in reliable sources.--Pontificalibus (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This reverses my earlier !vote above, which I've stuck out. The current state of the article has sufficient sources to establish notability. I'd like to reiterate my earlier request, though, that editors who want to keep the article should help expand it with additional content and sources. I'd also ask that keep !voters maintain it on their respective watchlists since, like the article for the Insite (revision history) needle-exchange program that the founders of this "journal" oppose, this article may become something of a battleground with groups opposed to harm reduction attempting to whitewash it into an appearance of legitimacy. Thanks, – OhioStandard (talk) 21:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Insite is, btw, the first legal supervised injection site in North America. I'd need to read further to confirm, but it's my current understanding that this "journal" was created primarily to oppose the Insite project. It does appear to have branched out some since then, though, to promote its overall doctrine that "the war on drugs" can be won by prosecuting anyone involved in drug use. – OhioStandard (talk) 22:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck my merge vote, and !vote Keep. Although, I am, too, afraid that it will turn into a battleground. Steinberger (talk) 10:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're wrong, but admit that that is only a slim hope... But we're a bunch of experienced, reasonable editors here, so if we all keep this watchlisted, we should be able to keep things in hand. --Crusio (talk) 10:36, 20 March 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. I'm not very familiar with the circumstances of this bill, but it seems a merge could be possible and this can be discussed on the article's talk page. /ƒETCH COMMS / 18:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary and Agency Workers (Equal Treatment) Bill[edit]

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

Never implemented, never came into force, with little coverage. Ironholds (talk) 20:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Arguably, all of British law is notable and has a place in Wikipedia. Whether or not you subscribe to that view, this case appears to have no trouble establishing notability: searching for the exact title of the bill shows lots of coverage (72,000 hits) and widening the search shows extensive coverage, including the BBC. RichardOSmith (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- see WP:GHITS; and no, not all British law is notable. Ironholds (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am aware of WP:GHITS. However, in this case the point was to directly address the assertion that there is "little coverage", which was the only valid deletion rationale put forward. RichardOSmith (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah; you might want to click on the link there. Ironholds (talk) 16:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, I'm familiar with th GNG too. I linked to the BBC but there's plenty more news organisations, eg: The Guardian [25] and The Times [26]; many personnel sites (as you'd expect) such as [27]; a joint letter to the Prime Minister from The British Chambers of Commerce, The Institute of Directors and others about it [28]; a press release from the Trades Union Congress [29], etc. Shall I go on? RichardOSmith (talk) 18:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Google test doesn't establish notability independantly but its a useful yardstick to judge whether something has generated interest or not - if the exact title of an old bill is attracting a 5 figure hit rate then we should probably pay attention to that and not just quote policy. Bob House 884 (talk) 00:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 21:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this, and actually I don't mind that much: but it was implemented, amended, in the shape of the Agency Worker Regulations 2010 a little later. Really it should be merged and a redirect should be set up, and I'm happy to do that. Wik idea 21:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a general rule parliamentary bills are not notable, especially private members bills which are ten a penny and mostly disappear into the sand even though there may be a good deal of news coverage at the time. It is different if they become law (ie Acts of Parliament), though they do not always merit an article and in general it is more useful to users if amending legislation is included within the main article to provide a coherent story rather than in an article of their own. I'm not convinced that statutory instruments are automatically notable either (though clearly independent coverage is an uncertain guide here) but I accept that the agency worker regulations probably are. In such an article I don't think a blow by blow history is necessary so I would not support a simple merge, but I assume that Wikidea has something else in mind. AJHingston (talk) 00:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- O-T Comment SIs as automatically notable? I really hope thats not policy since there were around 3,000 published last year and that number seems to be growing and they dont even qualify for automatic inclusion in legal yearbooks etc. Is there a discussion on this somewhere? Bob House 884 (talk) 00:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most won't be - especially if a law follows. It's better to refer to it as background. But (and it's not relevant to this as such) if it's a bill that's narrowly defeated, and is likely to be the subject of an ongoing policy debate, then it's relevant enough for a Wikipedia page, I'd think. Thoughts? On statutory instruments generally, yes, there are thousands, and often irrelevant. But many SI's function as independent legislation, especially when the source is a Directive, or as a major set of amendments to an existing Act, or as an important set of rules accompanying an Act. Wik idea 01:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The bill attracted some coverage at the time. The worst case is that we'd merge with some higher level article about the history of employment protection law such as United Kingdom agency worker law. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Merge I do think that its notable in its own right due to news coverage but I'd argue that since it was never passed and the EU directive is substantively the same, it makes a lot more sense to put it as a footnote in the directive article. Bob House 884 (talk) 00:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 08:37, 11 March 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. Though the comments below about NOR/forking issues should really be taken onboard in the course of normal editing. I'm also worried that the title and tone of the article lead to some POV issues, but this can also be solved via normal editing. Protonk (talk) 21:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bullying in academia[edit]

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

Delete. (edited to support merging to Workplace bullying) POV fork. (copied from below [within this paragraph] and restructured to provide clarification.) This is a two sentence article, supported by one reference and a whole slew of "further reading" links, external links, and templates on "aspects of workplaces", "employment", "bullying", and "abuse". (edited to clarify that the overview of the article is provided for comprehension, not as a rationale for deletion.) Based on originating editor's statements, it appears to be a POV fork of both School bullying and Workplace bullying. Cind.amuse 20:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is a stub supported by many reliable academic sources. Six or seven of the sources provide the full text, usually in PDF format, so the reader of the article can easily view the complexity and voracity of the subject. There is s lot of scope for dramatically expanding the article based on summaries of the cited sources but that remains to be done.

I think the nominator's argument that it is a double fork is self-undermining. Within the context of bullying in academia, there can be all kinds of bullying: some elements unique to that institution (such as faculty bullying), some elements similar to workplace bullying (as it is a workplace) and some elements similar to school bullying (as it involves education). The article is about bullying in the context of adult education and not child education. Adult bullying and child bullying is very different.

All citations used specifically relate to bullying in academia (aka further education, university etc). None of them deal with school bullying in general or workplace bullying in general. None of the material used or similar appears in school bullying or workplace bullying so there is no question of any forking or overlap. All citations treat the subject as as a discrete subject so there is hardly any POV forking here when none of the citations support this view.

I cant see any relevance in mentioning the templates listed. Each template lists about 50 or so articles and it is no big deal that those templates are included here.

--Penbat (talk) 21:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being a stub is not a reason to delete. See An Academic Life for an example of a source. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The proposal for deletion has nothing to do with being a stub. This article is a fork of other articles that we already have. Cind.amuse 20:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. The first sentence of your nomination statement is a red herring then and serves no purpose. IMHO it ought to be deleted. As for your second sentence, presumably you are referring to your interpretation of my comments at Talk:Bullying_in_academia but you dont seem to have done your own analysis. If you did so you will see there is no question of forking. For example, the 4 references that refer to "workplace bullying" do so specifically in an academic context and not workplace bullying in general. The article only partly relates to workplace bullying anyway.--Penbat (talk) 20:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, no. The article was nominated and indicated as a POV and content fork, based on the assessment by another administrator that took ill. We both agreed that a deletion discussion was warranted. At this point, the article indicates that "bullying in academia has its own unique features", but then the article fails to indicate those features. A statement is made that bullying in academia is "believed to be common," but doesn't indicate who believes this or why they believe this. The article presents a summation that the subject "has not received as much attention from researchers as bullying in some other contexts", then simply provides a page of external links. Essentially, this article indicates a point of view that would be normally found on the talk pages of the Workplace bullying or School bullying articles to assert a view that those articles should focus more on the bullying of adults in an academic environment. In my opinion, this is clearly a point of view and content fork masquerading as an article. Cind.amuse 23:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It was you who made a snap judgement as part of new article patrolling suggesting it was a fork of school bullying only. User:Bearian deleted your speedy delete proposal and suggested to you that it was discussed at AFD as an alternative. He did not express his own opinion (see User_talk:Cindamuse#Bullying_in_academia). Looking at your comments at User_talk:Cindamuse#Bullying_in_academia you say nothing more than you said here, that your view is "based on the author's statements". You dont seem to have read my other comments here, for example, mobbing and workplace incivility are as relevant to this article as school bullying and workplace bullying. Although you denied it, you seem to have undermined your own case again by banging on about the inadequacy and shortage of text when the article has only just been created as a stub. There is a lot of scope for dramatically amplifying, clarifying and expanding the text from the many sources listed.--Penbat (talk) 09:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I placed the CSD tag and after reading the comment on the talk page, felt that the article deserved to be presented to the community for discussion. When I went to nominate the article, User:Bearian beat me to it for the same reasons and came to the same conclusions that I had, that it is a POV content fork of school bullying and workplace bullying. I spent 20 years working in corporate human resources and have served as the Mental Health Commissioner for the state that I live in. I am completely aware of the issues involved and recognize the point of view that you clearly are attempting to present in this article. BTW, there could also be an argument for this article to be considered a fork of mobbing and workplace incivility. It is a POV content fork, plain and simple. Nothing more. I like your statement, "The article only partly relates to workplace bullying anyway." I agree. The other part relates to school bullying. Rest assured that I have read all your assertions in this discussion. Best regards, Cind.amuse 10:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as a clear content fork of other bullying articles, and one that adds absolutely no other information, at that. Yaksar (let's chat) 21:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think you are completely missing the point. It is bullying in a specific context with its own unique ingredients. Not sure what "that adds absolutely no other information" relates to, are you referring to it being a stub ? Also school bullying is specifically about child bullying and this is adult bullying which is entirely different. Your reasoning doesn't stack up.--Penbat (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim of notability. No unique ingredients to make this distinct from both/either school based and/or work based bullying. MLA (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How can you say that when all the further reading/external link articles and books are academia specific. For 13 of them you can find out for yourself by clicking on them. Just to give one example the book Westhues K The Envy of Excellence: Administrative Mobbing of High-Achieving Professors. Lewiston, New York: Edwin Mellen Press. (2004) is both notable and distinct. Also this book "Twale DJ Faculty Incivility: The Rise of the Academic Bully Culture and What to Do About It (2008)" and this "Baldridge JV Civility, Incivility, Bullying, and Mobbing in Academe" Note that also included in the mix is mobbing and workplace incivility so, by your arguments, that makes it at least a 4 way fork which is ludicrous.--Penbat (talk) 22:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can say that quite easily and I don't need 11 comments and counting on this AfD to do so. Academia is one type of workplace. That academics comment on academia more than they do on other workplaces does not imply that this is a more notable workplace than others. There are no real specific distinctions between this workplae and other workplaces. The research suggests that bullying happens in the workplace of academia, not that it is a notable and distinct form of bullying. MLA (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: i have better things to do with my life than waste my time here but unfortunately some contributors seem to be blind to the obvious and dont seem to have examined the associated reading list. For example, One of the leading researchers on the subject Kenneth Westhues refers to mobbing and not at all to workplace bullying as do some other researchers. Some also refer to workplace incivility. You still havent answered my points raised for example this article only uses academia-specific sources not workplace bullying in general so there is no question of a lack of distinction. While you are at it, perhaps you might to merge bullying in nursing. Workplace bullying is already a big article and intrinsically it could be twice the length without any futile merging. Also scholars and staff is obviously not the same dynamic as employee and employer.--Penbat (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment you are right, the bulling in nursing page should also go. The size is not a problem given that most articles are mainly external links/references so the main article bodies would have more appropriate weight after being merged back. You have not demonstrated that there is a distinction between activities carried out in academia and in other areas of work, merely restated over and over again that there are different types of activites related to bullying. It doesn't matter at all if workplace incivility happens in academia, it matters whether academia is a special case of workplace incivility for instance and the evidence does not in any way suggest such a Fork is needed. If you are arguing that academia is not a workplace but is a part of learning then the subject matter here is merely a part of the same phenomenon as school bullying. Neither demonstrates any case for a separate article. MLA (talk) 17:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The original thinking of the nominator and another editor was that this was a fork of school bullying but now we seem to have lurched to the idea that it is a fork of workplace bullying. There are thousands of stubs in Wikipedia, many without a single reference. This article was only created 2 days ago as a stub but for some very odd reason some here think that a list of further reading added to the stub to be used as material for future expansion as inline references and to demonstrate the notability of the subject, is a negative and it would have been better if this stub had just been a few bare sentences and nothing else. There are plenty of such bare stubs in Wikipedia that have been around for years. You still havent commented on my point about mobbing and workplace incivility.--Penbat (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the strawman about this being a stub doesn't make your argument any more compelling and nor does simply repeating comments about types of bullying - the question which is being ignored is what is about academia that makes it a distinct case of these types of bullying. There appears to be no answer forthcoming to this question. I hope the closing admin takes into account the comments and not the weight of text being repeated. MLA (talk) 11:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added links for most further reading sources now so most now either provide the abstract text or the full text. --Penbat (talk) 22:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - plenty of sources to demonstrate that this is a notable subject, but at the moment we don't have much to say about it. Might it be a better idea to merge this stub into Workplace bullying or School bullying until there is some more content to put here? Robofish (talk) 01:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bullying in colleges and whatnot, is totally different than elementary to high schools. The minds of children and teenagers are different than adults, and so is how they bully, and how they respond to bullying. Clicking on the Google news archive search at the top of the AFD you find three results from Times Higher Education. One mentions the problem and does a survey, another covers the problem [30] and mentions a previous article Bullying rife across campus which covers the problem in detail. Dream Focus 04:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to nominator, if you are going to patrol new articles, please don't try to delete one that is only 18 minutes old. [31] Give it time to grow. Most articles start out like this. Dream Focus 09:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. You may want to review the guidelines. WP:NPP. The time to grow articles to a point that it is appropriate for inclusion is generally in a subpage of your userspace. The good "rule of thumb" is about 15 minutes before placing a CSD tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cindamuse (talk • contribs)
  - It was fine for a stub article. And there is no rule of thumb for that. Something 18 minutes old shouldn't be nominated for deletion, by rule of common sense and common decency. Dream Focus 10:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - It wasn't nominated as a stub. It was flagged with an A10 ((db-same)) at 18 minutes (rule of thumb 15 minutes) and an hour and 14 minutes later nominated under the same criteria. Cind.amuse 11:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:NPP states, "Be hesitant to list articles on Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion if there's a chance they could be improved and made into a meaningful article. Tag them for cleanup instead. Try not to step on people's toes. Users will often start an article as the briefest of stubs, and then expand it over the following hours or days.". Colonel Warden (talk) 10:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:NPP states, "Especially if the new article has a ((newpage)), ((inuse)), or ((underconstruction)) template showing, care should be taken to ensure that the author has finished the initial version before you evaluate the page. A good rule of thumb is to wait until at least 15 minutes after the last edit before tagging the article (or up to an hour for the ((newpage)) tag). Additionally, it may be helpful to check the editor history to be sure that you don't offend an experienced editor who has a set plan to create a valid article." The article was listed at AfD an hour and 14 minutes after creation. Cind.amuse 10:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - When one checks the editor history, as suggested, one finds that the creator is an experienced editor who has been working here on related topics for 5 years. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I noticed that too. Before I nominated it for deletion. Now, look at the earliest edits and the consistent discussions that he has been involved in regarding POV edits in relationship to bullying. The POV editing has gone on for five years. This is nothing new for him. Rather than bring offense, he probably expected it. Cind.amuse 15:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I am finding your tone to be highly offensive to make such a personal attack, attacking 5 years of my work as POV. I insist you withdraw that accusation immediately. What on earth does "The POV editing has gone on for five years. This is nothing new for him. Rather than bring offense, he probably expected it." mean ? It is you who obviously have POV issues. There are thousands of stubs on Wikipedia but this article is one of the very few that includes a sizable list of reliable sources which can readily be used to expand the article and vouch for its credibility. Why pick on this one ?--Penbat (talk) 15:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm thinking it would have been appropriate to contact me first, per WP:Discussion. I certainly apologize if the comment offended you, it was certainly not my attention. We are a wide group of personalities from varied backgrounds. I'm a chick and find it amazing that you would refer to me as a him. No offense, really, but I digress. AfD discussions can sometimes get a bit heated, unfortunate, but true. I learned a long time ago to let things just roll off my back. I'm not personally invested in this article. Just honestly, following the process of editing by consensus. This is what Wikipedia is all about. I'm not easily riled, really. It's all just a testament to diversity. Sometimes it helps to simply walk away or take a break. That said, I was responding to another editor that commented and questioned about your length of time as an editor, along with the subject matter in which you tend to edit on Wikipedia. We were discussing the NPP guidelines in regards to "Additionally, it may be helpful to check the editor history to be sure that you don't offend an experienced editor who has a set plan to create a valid article." I simply stated that I followed the guidelines accordingly, to ascertain the history of the editor. Based on the editor's history, and involvement with POV discussions based on his edits in similar articles, it was clear that the other editor was more likely than not, used to having his edits questioned. Really, it's nothing personal, it's just my observations and interpretations of the facts. Please note, once again. The nomination has nothing to do with being a stub article. The article was nominated due to POV/content forking. In the future, please feel free to contact me if you have questions or concerns or feel offended in any manner with anything I have said. Bringing offense is honestly the furthest thing from my mind. Best regards, Cind.amuse 17:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The issue of the nominator User:Cindamuse's offensive behaviour is now being addressed at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Offensive_behaviour_by_User:Cindamuse --Penbat (talk) 16:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to School bullying. TomCat4680 (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is a completely impractical idea as the article almost entirely relates to academia, workplace bullying, workplace incivility and mobbing. Your idea makes zero sense. --Penbat (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying, that's a pretty lofty claim for an article that's one sentence. And any information related to bullying in academia certainly seems that it could also fit in an article on bullying in schools.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes but look at the titles and click on the links in the further reading/external links sections. They are sources which will be used to expand the article. Those sources are full of references to mobbing, workplace bullying, workplace incivility and academia.--Penbat (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Colonel Warden has kindly improved and developed the text from 2 to 4 sentences with a better focus. There is much more potential for expansion though using the long list of sources listed in the article as Further Reading and external links. It was only created as a stub article yesterday. --Penbat (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to workplace bullying per WP:CONTENTFORK. TomCat4680 (talk) 04:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A merge to workplace bullying is completely unviable. As previously explained, all the references and sources used in this article are specific to bullying in academia and not workplace bullying in general. Bullying in academia may also end up being a big article, compatible with the already long workplace bullying. Also there is already a long further reading list in workplace bullying and to add a second further reading list for bullying in academia would be unviable and lead to confusion. Anyway it would be confusing to have two separate further reading lists on two discrete subjects in the same article. There would also be a merged See Also list and External Links section which would be confusing. You also seem to have not noticed my previous comment that it is as much to do with academia, mobbing and workplace incivility as workplace bullying. Also "bulling in academia" is about bullying in a specific context, what about any other future Wikipedia articles about bullying in a specific context, by your logic do they also have to be merged in one great big mega-article ? --Penbat (talk) 08:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well what are you waiting for? Expand it already. Have you even read the dozen and a half links you added? Are you ever going to and integrate information from them into the article? Right now this looks like barely effort was put into it. You made a thesis but there's no specific examples. Also I still don't see why this is any different than workplace bullying. Also stop sending me AFD related messages on my talk page, leave all comments here. 19:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The references out-weigh the body copy. If there's enough material for that many academic articles there should be enough for at least two sentences for each referenced paper. Something just doesn't seem right about the article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:That's in no way, shape, or form an argument against inclusion. "Too many references"? Please.Throwaway85 (talk) 08:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

:) Agree. Anarchangel (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Your logic is completely back to front. It was only created as a stub 2 days ago. Unlike, most of the other thousands of stubs on Wikipedia there is a list of further reading sources for use in future expansion of the article and to demonstrate its notability. So in that respect it is better than most other stubs not worse.--Penbat (talk) 08:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As against WP:LINKFARM. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge - I see the value of this article. The article requires major expansion to incorporate the large amount of material found in the further reading sources. If it is merged, it should go into Workplace bullying and a section created for Academic workplace bullying. --Takamaxa (Talk) 05:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ref above comment to TomCat4680 a merge is completely unviable.

Keep and expand. Plethora of quality sources demonstrates notability. Current state of article is not an argument against inclusion. Throwaway85 (talk) 08:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not a Fork. It could conceivably be incorporated into one of the other articles, but not only does it does not have to be as its topic is sufficiently distinct, but it is less than suitable to be as its topic straddles the two articles. Nominator's own comment shows that it is no more suitable to add to one article than the other: "I like your statement, "The article only partly relates to workplace bullying anyway." I agree. The other part relates to school bullying."

Never seen a Cindamuse nomination that was not flawed in some small respect, but this one repeats a grand error usually restricted to Delete votes; conflating PoV Fork and Fork. Which is really annoying, because it is so obvious; a fork has to be PoV to be a PoV fork. Duh. A true Fork is reason to delete on its own, and stacking the deck is wrong no matter the reason.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, characterizing a dedication to a particular topic as necessarily PoV ("...consistent discussions that he has been involved in regarding POV edits in relationship to bullying. The POV editing has gone on for five years. This is nothing new for him.") is Ad hominem and against WP:AGF; "Rather than bring offense, he probably expected it." is over the AGF line.

The goalposts are moved as needed; addressing a reminder that stubs are permissible: "The proposal for deletion has nothing to do with being a stub.", whereupon, rather than striking the "two sentence article" phrase, "POV fork." was added, repetitiously, to the beginning of the nomination.

Nom follows the Keep comments closely, making points, but does not address any concerns of Keepers that are not in the interest of arguments to delete the article, against WP:EQ#Principles of Wikipedia etiquette Point #8: "Do not ignore questions." Nom replies, when this omission is brought up "Rest assured that I have read all your assertions in this discussion. Best regards". Reading is to be expected, but it does not further the discussion; addressing or conceding points is required for that.

I note the Nom makes a Delete vote; a choice which is allowed but uncommon. As with the other behavior, it is congruent with what is to be expected from a lack of detachment from the outcome.

Anarchangel (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to workplace bullying. There seem to be enough sources listed here about bullying in this specific field to pass WP:N. But the little text that is present in the article is not very compelling that a separate article is needed. WP:N doesn't require that we have a mini-stub for everything conceivable if a slightly more encompassing topic can be found; WP:SECTION has been invented, and the Google can even search for those nowadays. We have a similarly questionable article bullying in nursing which has a near identical copy present as a section in workplace bullying. If you want to justify separate articles for stuff like this, you need to do better than copypasta. You can spin it as a separate article when you have enough contents, per Wikipedia:SUMMARY.Tijfo098 (talk) 10:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - original research. Currently lacks any real content or sufficient context to understand the topic and unlikely it could be improved with out adding more OR. Kuguar03 (talk) 19:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Are you on the same planet? Just about every word in the text written so far in the few days the article has existed is backed by 5 good reliable sources. This must be one of the best most rock solid sourced articles in the whole of Wikipedia. There are plenty more sources available, such as the ones listed in further reading, to expand the text. Give me an example of your "real content" ? There are thousands of stubs on Wikipedia without even a single reference and in comparison this is a million times better than any of those.--Penbat (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Apparently not, as I've read this article several times and can't make heads or tails of it. It just doesn't say anything. The fact that you're the only one defending it might give you reason to reconsider your position. Kuguar03 (talk) 19:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)Bold text[reply]
    - Comment: Its obviously futile having a rational discussion with you. You havent provided any analysis to support your view. There has been a fair number of Keepers in this AFD and an interesting comment above from User:Anarchangel. Additionally editors Colonel Warden and User:Novickas have been happy to spend their time improving it. The article is now getting so good after just a few days in existence it is almost a Wikipedia:Good articles contender. --Penbat (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Then you might consider at some point adding content that explains the topic, with maybe some examples so that readers might have some clue what is being discussed? Right now it's just a bunch of out-of-context statistics and random statements. Kuguar03 (talk) 20:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment Having a quick scan of your edit history this doesnt seem like your area of expertise. It is a very well written and well structured article which has only been in existence for about 4 days and can only get better. User:Novickas's edits just a short time ago have improved it a lot. I understand it although i can assure you there are plenty of psychology articles which are far far more heavyweight and difficult to understand than this one and are beyond my comprehension. Not understanding an article is not an argument for deleting it.--Penbat (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I am an academic, so arguably do have some expertise, but that's irrelevant. Wikipedia articles should be understandable by the general populous. A good first step in improving this article is giving some sort of clear, concise statement of what is actually being discussed so people reading it can have some clue. Also statements like "It is believed to be common" should probably be avoided if your really trying to build a case for notability. Kuguar03 (talk) 06:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: User:Novickas has kindly just made a sizable expansion of the text so that it now has 7 references and is split up into 3 separate text sections.--Penbat (talk) 19:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Make that 8 references.--Penbat (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It now has more referenced sentences than can easily be counted. Could the past and future commentaters check the article. The 'See also' and 'Further reading' sections were useful, they pointed to reliable sources that offer avenues for expansion. If we must cite Wikipedia guidelines or whatever here, how about Wikipedia:Merging - 'Merging should be avoided if the resulting article is too long or "clunky", The separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross linked) articles, The topics are discrete subjects and deserve their own articles even though they may be short'. This topic is a discrete aspect of workplace bullying and the article is no longer short. Novickas (talk) 03:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The size of the article was never the issue. A merge into the Workplace bullying is completely plausible. The Workplace bullying article is only 18 kb (2849 words) and clearly within the guidelines for readable prose size. We generally don't merge articles above 40 kb. We could double the size of the article and still be within readable prose. Cind.amuse 22:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are other arguments against merging as well, for example, the 3rd para of Bullying_in_academia#Bullying_and_academic_culture relates to mobbing not workplace bullying. --Penbat (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just more content forking. The lede of mobbing: "Mobbing in the context of human beings either means bullying of an individual by a group in any context, or specifically any workplace bullying." Cind.amuse 22:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I actually wrote that lead sentence and it is rather simplistic and not based directly on any particular cited source - I really ought to improve it, i wrote it when i first started the mobbing article. Mobbing has conceptually different roots to workplace bullying although there is some overlap. Mobbing isnt necessarily workplace specific anyway. A similar point also applies to incivility (or workplace incivility) which is also included in the bullying in academia article. Again it is conceptually different to workplace bullying although there is some overlap. Another point is that in some respects the scholar v staff relationship of academia has more to do with school bullying or bullying in general than workplace bullying. --Penbat (talk) 22:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge per nom. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: Thanks to User:Novickas we now have 4 text sections and 9 dfferent inline references.--Penbat (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nine inline citations and lots more information show that this is a notable and expandable article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. When I remove a speedy or ProD tag, it is often only for procedural reasons, as was here. However, I think this has been extensively rescued. When I removed said tag it was a bare-bones stub, but is now a really well-cited article. Bearian (talk) 18:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 08:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: The recent expansion caused a large portion of the pre-expansion comments to be no longer applicable; relisted to obtain more comments on the expanded version. T. Canens (talk) 08:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think an extra week is a waste of time. Deletion is now unviable as notability and inclusivity criteria are clearly met in the expanded version of the article. So the remaining options are Keep or Merge. The original nominator now supports a merge. The possibility of merging could easily be discussed on the talk page which is the usual place for such discussion. The arguments for and against merging have already been repeated here several times already.--Penbat (talk) 09:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't see this as a pure content fork because the article states, based on reliable sources, what differentiates bullying in academia from your average workplace bullying situation. Instead, I see a reliably sourced article that is maybe a little short, but not to the point that it doesn't say anything substantial. Kansan (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly a distinct subject. Not a POV fork. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 02:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A distinct well-sourced subject. Also merging information about distinct workplaces into Workplace bullying would make that article messy and unexpandable - the Workplace_bullying#Bullying_in_nursing section already looks out of place in that article. Diego Moya (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The current state of the article seems to make an adequate case for its existence in its own right, the additional reading section and number of sources in use that are specific to academia gives the impression that a good deal more could be added to the article. u n☯mi 15:08, 14 March 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 NO CONSENSUS. postdlf (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Simokaitis[edit]

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

Non-notable, free-agent, 28-year-old minor league baseball player who hasn't played since 2009 and who is a .234 career hitter. Doesn't merit an article. Alex (talk) 04:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neither his age nor playing status is a sign of notability. Minor league players can and are notable if they pass GNG, which I may add, you did not consider with your mass redirecting of articles. I have not yet searched for article on Simokaitis, but I will.--TM 15:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, but age and playing status do indicate the chances of the individual making a MLB debut, which would establish notability. A free agent almost as old as I am has virtually no chance. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets general notability requirements. Added a few references to the article to back it up. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 15:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see anything that suggests meeting GNG; all coverage is routine for a non-professional and non-MLB player. Also, this article is an orphan with little chance of being "adopted", or whatever the nomenclature for de-orphaning an article is. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~I am not ready to !vote, but~~ it is not an orphan nor would it matter to this discussion if it were.--TM 14:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An orphan is two or less incoming links. It had two incoming links when I wrote that. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per two stories which cover the story in-depth.--TM 14:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Having just two stories doesn't seem very notable. There are local rotarians who have two stories in my town's newspaper too. I guess they deserve articles. Alex (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One is from a widely read sports page and the other one of the largest newspapers in a state. Not exactly your "town's newspaper".--TM 18:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 08:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not an auto-keep under the specific guidelines for baseball players, but seems to meet general notability guidelines. I wish every pro baseball player had a bio as well done as this one. Carrite (talk) 15:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep played at the major league level. thus making him a notable player. 162.83.194.253 (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- He didn't play at the major league level. Alex (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article subject does not meet the notability requirements per WP:BIO, particularly those listed under WP:BASE/N. Most of the links and references do not constitute significant, independent coverage. There is one article listed (and more found through searching the web) that contains significant coverage but it is local coverage that falls within WP:ROUTINE. Barkeep^{Chat | $} 22:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet the criteria of WP:BIO, even if one could argue that a story in the Lincoln, Nebraska newspaper about an athlete at the University of Nebraska, located in Lincoln, Nebraska, meets WP:GNG. My view is that it wouldn't. As far the websites, huskers.com is hardly "independent of the subject", and the stat sites have an entry for many many many minor league players. There had been a comment above to the effect that every pro player should have a bio "as well done as this one". That should have no bearing at all on the decision. Some Wikipedians are better writers than others, but just as poor writing won't make a notable subject less notable, neither does good writing make a subject notable. The issue is whether the writer has been able to make a case for notability, based on what he or she has to work with. I don't see anything "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." Mandsford 22:34, 19 March 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Reviews in Physical Rehabilitation Medicine[edit]

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

publication of questionable notability, article created by blatantly COI account. WuhWuzDat 18:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment COI is not a reason for deletion. Any other arguments/evidence? --Crusio (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The editor's conflict of interest is certainly not an issue, but notability is not asserted or demonstrated. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:Scholarly journal. Fotaun (talk) 17:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The other Critical Reviews meet WP:NJOURNALS and I don't see what's different with this one. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 08:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep & rename. This journal doesn't appear to be indexed in MEDLINE, but the Critical Reviews series is pretty well represented on MEDLINE and generally respected. Please note that the publication is actually named Critical Reviews in Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine. — Scientizzle 15:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 12 precise hits in Google Books, 32 in Scholar. Anarchangel (talk) 05:51, 16 March 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Reviews in Oncogenesis[edit]

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

publication of questionable notability, article created by blatantly COI account. WuhWuzDat 18:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment COI is not a reason for deletion. Any other arguments/evidence? --Crusio (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 18:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability of this publication is neither asserted nor demonstrated. Wikipedia is not a catalogue of publications.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:Scholarly journal. Fotaun (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The other Critical Reviews meet WP:NJOURNALS and I don't see what's different with this one. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 08:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's a stub of a journal that is indexed in MEDLINE,[32] enough to qualify as inherently notable in my mind. — Scientizzle 15:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 322 hits in Google Books, 931 in Scholar Anarchangel (talk) 05:52, 16 March 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. /ƒETCH COMMS / 18:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steam World[edit]

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

Clearly Fails Wikipedia:Notability (media). Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 07:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I'm not too sure about how to judge the notability of magazines, but on the face of it this one doesn't seem to meet WP:Notability (media). Robofish (talk) 01:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Deletion - If the article was actually properly written I'd say it would meet the criteria.. but due to the fact there's simply a one liner, with nothing to support any of the criteria I'd agree in it's current form it's failing to meet it and should be deleted.Sgreen93 (talk) 16:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Steam World has been around for a long time, thus meeting part 2 of the notability essay for magazines - "have served some sort of historic purpose or have a significant history" - August 2007 being issue #242 would indicate that issue #1 was published in June 1987, assuming 1 issue per month. That the article is a stub in need of improvement is not a reason to delete it. Mjroots (talk) 06:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How long a magazine has nothing to do with "have served some sort of historic purpose or have a significant history" . What that means is that the magazine/newspaper has made a significant impact on society in the past. --Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 05:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - From britishrailwaybooks.co.uk it appears that the magazine was first published in 1981, stopped at issue 32 in 1983, was revived at issue 33 in March 1990, and Aug and Sep issues of 1992 were both numbered 62. One secondary source for the magazine's history is www.steamindex.com, which suggests that the magazine may be notable. Ning-ning (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember it says the magazine is "frequently cited by other reliable sources". 2 isn't frequent.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 05:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frequent citation is a tough test of a magazine. The only railway magazine I've seen cited is Railway Magazine. I suspect Steam World probably fulfills the same need for trainspotters as Parade (British magazine) used to do for schoolboys, and is therefore unlikely to get cited. Amateur Photographer, despite its long history, doesn't get cited but the British Journal of Photography does. I'm not putting this forward as an argument for keep-ing this article, just that it seems that magazines in general are unlikely to be cited unless they have a long publication history, and regularly publish reliable primary research. Ning-ning (talk) 08:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just as a passerby, I'd apply the "W H Smith" test for notability of British magazines, which it appears SW passes. Being more formal about it, I'd suggest that being carried on Smith's shelves makes it a "significant publication in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets" per #5 of WP:Notability (media)#Newspapers, magazines and journals. It's a bit weak I grant you, but throw in the multi-decade history and as an outsider it feels like it just about falls on the notable side of a grey area. Le Deluge (talk) 11:00, 15 March 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. Tone 22:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Casandra Ashe[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet any of the relevant criteria. Only credited role in a recognizable production that I can find is as "Girl in Hallway". Other films appear to be vanity projects of one kind or another. I'm not sure exactly what "Krankenhaus:War of Souls" was, but the IMDB page isn't very promising. It seems to be available to watch for free, but no DVD release that I can find and the production company doesn't have a very impressive list of accomplishments. Her Facebook page would seem to indicate that she's found work as an extra in some Disney Channel productions, and she seems to dabble as a Myspace musician. —Kww(talk) 07:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice per WP:TOOSOON#Actors. Lack of coverage in reliable sources makes a decent BLP all but impossible. Oh, she may have coverage down the road... but for now she is simply a working 13-year-old whose agent gets her work. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:48, 15 March 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. It seems as though there is enough consensus to keep this article and close this early. (non-admin closure) Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Libyan no-fly zone[edit]

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

Article is a summary of recent news coverage. Specifically, WP:NTEMP and WP:NOTNEWS provide guidelines against articles with such content. (Since this page was created less than 24 hrs ago and essentially edited and maintained by one editor, I've also warned the author on his/her talk page, instead of the article's talk page.) cherkash (talk) 07:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the nom is of course correct, there are situations where significant world events are in play, and commonsense tells us that given that an article has been created, we should wait a while (two weeks?) before deciding its fate. In a couple of weeks, if this topic has not developed (which seems likely given the current lack of enthusiasm from those who would have to do the no-fly enforcement), the content could be replaced with a redirect to 2011 Libyan uprising#No-fly zone. Normally I would use WP:CRYSTAL to argue for the deletion of a "may be notable in the future" article like this, but I am relying on WP:IAR here since the topic is more than news or general interest—this is part of a chain of events that may be highly significant for the world. Johnuniq (talk) 07:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It could be argued that at any given moment in time there quite a few events developing that many people may find significant or very interesting at that particular moment. This is the very definition of the news. And this is specifically the reason why I proposed deletion of the article. It's hard to argue that speculation (as that's what it is currently!) over a fairly particular and narrow topic of no-fly zone establishment is the subject that deserves IAR invocation. Following this logic, a lot of other news should be equally exempt under IAR, and that would be too much to ask for. So as a way of practical suggestion: it seems to me that this topic may indeed have its rightful place – but on Wikinews instead of Wikipedia. And that was my exact suggestion to the article's author. So I'd say it's still a Delete from Wikipedia's perspective. cherkash (talk) 08:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Apart from any guidelines that might advise against it, it is a valuable article for information on so-far the main international action to be taken against the current Libyan regime. It is not so much news as it is a summary of talks and reports that have taken place, and such information will be poignant even after the Libyan uprising is over. It is likely to have to be summarized and/or moved by that time, but that should be a matter of discussion then. --Ifrit 10:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep Press reports indicate that some military planning has already taken place for this proposed no-fly zone. So, irrespective of whether it is ever put into effect or not, there are some historical events to report on and so this does not come under WP:CRYSTAL. Greenshed (talk) 13:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTNEWS. At best, worth a mention or small section at 2011 Libyan uprising. Tarc (talk) 17:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- While it is impossible to be sure, I would speculate that whether a Libyan no-fly zone is enacted or not, it will be notable over the long term. I doubt that it will be covered in the popular press in 10 years time but I suspect that academic air power publications (and possibly international relations journals) will infrequently make reference to it. After all there have been relatively few large-scale no-fly zones in air power history. Greenshed (talk) 19:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This has received a sufficient volume of media coverage and expert opinion to meet WP:N and pass WP:NOT#NEWS. Based on similar proposed no-fly zones, it's certain to be the subject of further expert coverage in the longer run. Nick-D (talk) 23:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the deletion police are attacking this one for some legalistic reason, then there must be something seriously wrong with our admin policies. Mike Young (talk) 00:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only notable if it comes into existence. The absence of a no fly zone would not be notable. If a no fly zone comes into effect then definitely it would be notable. However, that requires looking through the crystal ball. MLA (talk) 10:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2011 Libyan uprising#No-fly zone. Unless (and until) such a zone comes into factual existance, there is no need for a fork from the main topic. It's also subject to WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTAL in regards to the volume of news chatter about it, but that only covers part of the notability requirement. Military planning is irrelevant; there are military plans for the US to invade virtually every country on the planet, but that doesn't make them significant or notable. Should this zone ever move from theories floated by the talking heads into something more akin to reality, we can re-create; but being just a proposal means it would be better covered at the parent article. bahamut0013^words _deeds 16:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are there multiple reliable sources which discuss these supposed US plans? If yes, then they are (probably) notable. If not then they are not notable and possibly don't exisit. In this case the "talking heads" (a prejudicial term for notable commentators and politicians ordering military planning) have done enough talking which has been reproduced in reliable sources to easily justify an article. Finally, I would expect that even if the no-fly zone is not implemented, it still receives commentary in academic air power publications in the future. Greenshed (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being "reproduced" is only part of the notability criteria, of which GNG only presumes to meet. Simple because people are yakking about it doesn't mean it's notable, and (for sake of argument) just because it has some notability doesn't mean it has enough for a whole article. Nor do your expectations of this possible event becoming some kind of military aviation thought exercise add any sort of notability whatsoever. It's much better served as part of the international reaction to the uprisings on the parent article unless it actually comes into existance. bahamut0013^words _deeds 12:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, plenty of sources, and I don't see this as being a ONEEVENT or NOTNEWS case because it's a major part of a larger occurrance, the actual conflict. It's been an ongoing event, and has had repercussions beyond simply existing or not. Many countries have supported it, others oppose, the rebels have specifically asked for it to be put in place, etc. It's far beyond a simple military plan, and it's an important part of the revolution, and will remain so in the future, regardless of whether it's actually implemented. C628 (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep. 1. The Arab League has called for the United Nations Security Council to impose the would-be no-fly zone. For the Arab League to call for a no-fly zone to be imposed on an Arab League member state (even if suspended) is obviously notable. The fact that the no-fly zone would most likely be implemented as very much a Western (NATO) operation adds to the notability. 2. If the no-fly zone is not implemented, then there's almost certainly going to be a lot of claims that by not implementing the no-fly zone, the West failed to prevent crimes against humanity from continuing even though it had the capability. Either way, i don't see the notability problem. 3. newsy style of the article: this was the main reason proposed for deletion. There is clearly a problem in the presentation style of the article, but that requires editing, not deletion. ~~i'll see if i can have~~ i had a go at improving it... Boud (talk) 19:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Due to the military planning, ongoing high-level discussions and international diplomacy involved in this fraught, highly visible topic, this is notable whether or not this gets enacted. This has been a long and escalating discussion among the EU, NATO, UN, African Union and Arab League nations so is not a just one-off news or one event. There's enough complexity from military, legal and political components to merit its own article. Gotyear (talk) 22:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep theres plenty of soruces and its an important part of the revolution in Libya. and its at least important as articles about individual nations participation in the American civil war, which theres sevral of. Joesolo13 (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep according to WP:NEWSEVENT it is at the very least "very likely to be notable" and the plethora of coverage and analysis to follow make it obviously notable. Mike Linksvayer (talk) 05:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is notable enough to meet WP:N. This could be a very important thing that would affect the uprising.OpenInfoForAll (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete / Comment.

First of all, a comment about most of the "Keep"s. It seems that the recency of events in Lybia (and therefore sheer amount of news coverage it receives) is being confused with notability (in encyclopedic sense) of the specific military proposals we discuss here. Recency and notability are not the same! If you look at old newspapers – and the topics that received major coverage during any given time in history – you'll notice that contemporary notability (and amount of news coverage received) has nothing to do with long-lasting implications or long-lasting notability. Claiming otherwise about current events requires a crystal ball and/or simple guesswork.

To give an example: Normandy landings. The operation (basically opening the new front-line against Germany in Europe) required an immense amount of preparation, as well as many proposed and rejected plans with respect to the participation itself (whether it would happen or not), timeline (when it would happen), scale (how many people and military equipment), etc. Would such proposals and alternative scenarios be notable historically? Absolutely, they are. Should they deserve a separate article in an encyclopedia? Likely not. They are correctly folded into a more encompassing topic of the military operations themselves (e.g., Operation Overlord).

To give another example: would proposals, deliberations, or plans for any given country to join World War I or World War II deserve individual encyclopedia article for every such country? Those plans and decisions did happen to have serious consequences for every country involved – much more serious than establishment (or not) of the Libya no-fly zone may have – but would you create a separate article for each such proposal? I'm sure the answer of any reasonable editor is "No". So why difference with current events?

Any notable coverage deserves its place in the annals of the history, but let's not confuse encyclopedic topics of lasting importance and notability with recent topics which may or may not become such with time. Only time can tell if something will remain a news event, or will have lasting consequences – and therefore whether it will deserve more than (in this case) a section in the article on Libyan uprising.

Ask yourself: if this military proposals (which did not even result in any specific action yet!) happened a hundred years ago, would you still think they deserved as much encyclopedia coverage? If not, your "keep" opinions may be subject to a strong recency bias. Again, the distinction is not whether coverage is justified at all (i.e. notability of the event), but whether coverage in encyclopedia is justified (i.e. encyclopedic notability).

Let's not turn Wikipedia into media source or a news aggregator. cherkash (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Be Patient This may end up being WP:NOTNEWS but let's be patient and see what happens next. For the moment this article should be drasticly shortened to make it less 'newsy'. @ cherkash Though I completely agree with you that we shouldn't be to inclusionistic here, after tomorrow we will know if this will be implemented any time soon (UN Security Council debates the issue). If it is not, please go ahead and delete this but on the other hand it would be a shame to have it implemented (or sanctioned for that matter) and then having to rewrite the whole article from scraps. - AlwaysUnite (talk) 20:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait since this is still a current event. Once the outcome has been decided, then we should choose if we want deleted the article and simply resume its content somewhere else, or keep it and rename it with something that doesn't start with "Proposed". I agree with AlwaysUnite that it would be a shame to have to restart the article if this no-fly zone was adopted --— Luccas 03:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep (for now, at least) There are a number of unique features of this proposal, such as the involvement of the Arab League, tacit support from Russia, and the US reluctance to get involved, which it make it significant from a political aspect, even if it doesn't happen. Lynbarn (talk) 09:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at least for now. If it needs to be merged later, we will do it then; right now, it's notable. —Nightstallion 10:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, too early to decide. Flatterworld (talk) 17:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Force Redirect. The section in the main 2011 Libyan uprising sufficiently covers this non-event, and could be expanded a bit if need be. Keeping this bloated page full of speculation does not improve the encyclopedia. I also draw people's attention to the even more newsy page Casualties of the 2011 Libyan uprising. Abductive (reasoning) 04:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to 2011 Libyan no-fly zone proposal if no fly zone is not imposed, which is likely going to happen. --Reference Desker (talk) 18:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Reference Desker. No need to wait. Anarchangel (talk) 06:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep. The title might need to be changed, and the issue might need to be reconsidered in the near future depending on the events (is there going to be any no-fly zone or not? And, if yes, who's going to impose it?), but for the time being I see no reason for deletion. The topic is clearly notable.Yannismarou (talk) 14:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's the subject of substantial discussion by reliable sources, so it's already notable - I doubt the WP:CRYSTAL card should be played. WP:NOTNEWS does not exclude all current events from wikipedia (I'd be pretty unhappy with any policy which strove to keep wikipedia out-of-date by a certain length of time). Of course, the situation in reality may develop over time - the article might need a move/rename at some point in future - but that's a matter for normal editing rather than deletion. Who knows, maybe in the longer term reliable sources might subsume this into another issue; we could merge/redirect then, but preempting that by merging/redirecting now would be a crystal problem, I feel. bobrayner (talk) 14:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is no longer being written and maintained by one author. I've joined in and added a Guardian Article about Lebanon's proposal and tabling of a UN resolution for a no-fly zone, now with the backing of Britain and France and lots more media emerging about this formal proposal yesterday. Perhaps it should now be renamed the UN Resolution for a Libyan no-fly zone. The sooner it passes the better though. Anyone voting to delete from now on should be thrown in front of Gadafi's planes to eat a bomb. Paul Bedson (talk) 17:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia can scale, it isn't an ancient paper encyclopedia. It is just hurting wikipedia's image by trying to cull things while they are still developing. There are still currently a large number of people around the world debating the subject of the article which makes it a concrete topic in history, even if material action hasn't been taken yet. The only other argument is to appeal to paper encyclopedia arguments about space in the finished product, which is just deletionist propaganda. The article is a perfectly fine referenced piece. Wikipedia will also never be completed and will never be perfect or balanced across different topics, so saying that there is currently only one article for any other previous situation doesn't hold water. In the future, those articles could be forked also without causing the detriment to the encyclopedia and users that the OP seems to portray. Ansell 21:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Keep - I agree with everyone saying Keep, there is nothing justifying to delete or merge this article.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The international responses to setting up a no fly zone to protect citizens of a despot is of historical importance and will likely have remifications for future international policy. Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 12:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the above statements. Besides the UN is voting on a no fly zone. If they vote against it and after awhile it seems that no one will participate in such an act than it should be deleted, but until than it should be left alone as it could still go into effect.sol-nemisis —Preceding undated comment added 14:20, 17 March 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 no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Total Club Hits[edit]

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

Non notable compilation album, prod removed Jac16888 ^Talk 05:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 06:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can someone please just agree to delete this and the other one, or else just delete them as an expired proposed deletion, they were only deprodded in the first place on a technicality--Jac16888 ^Talk 07:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Gallo, Phil (18 June 2008), "Lil Wayne tops 1 million in sales; 'Tha Carter III' outsells West's 'Graduation'", Daily Variety says "Other debuts included "..."DJ Skribble’s “Total Club Hits” (Thrive), 20,000 (No. 30)." duffbeerforme (talk) 10:00, 13 March 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 no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Total Club Hits 2[edit]

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

Non notable compilation album, prod removed Jac16888 ^Talk 05:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 06:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Mason, Kerri (10 December 2009), "Year-End Chart Analysis: Lady Gaga, DJ Guetta Lead Dance Recaps", Billboard.biz says "The top dance albums of 2009 were the usual collision of pop (Lady Gaga at No. 1), compilations (DJ Skribble’s “Total Club Hits 2” at No. 6)," and Hasty, Katie (14 January 2009), "Taylor Swift tops chart for sixth week", Hollywood Reporter says "Only two new titles bow inside the top 50 this week. DJ Skribble's "Total Club Hits 2" (Thrive Records) debuts at No. 16 with 20,000." duffbeerforme (talk) 09:54, 13 March 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. Tone 22:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Survivor: Slovak Republic[edit]

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

CSD A7 db-web declined by Nyttend who believes this isn't actually web content. There's no evidence of this being actually shown on TV and seems to be a forum-based ripoff of the reality TV series of the same name, which has no coverage in news sources and thus fails our notability requirements. Delete. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 05:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I don't see evidence of notability. Speedy declined purely because A7 doesn't include TV shows, which I see this as being — it's not because I believe that there's a plausible claim of importance here. Nyttend (talk) 05:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if this isn't actually a TV show and is just a web-based ripoff of one, then it must go. If evidence to the contrary is provided then I will change my vote. but for now, delete it. Demokratickid (talk) 14:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a tv show, and not covered in reliable sources. - Whpq (talk) 15:00, 15 March 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. /ƒETCH COMMS / 18:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Millet[edit]

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

I'm sure he's a great guy but doesn't meet notability standards. He did not work for the car company, but worked for the U.S. importing company which is, by no means, a Fortune 500 company. It is not much different from the head of the San Diego McDonald's franchisee, which is not McDonald's, but a company that just owns some restaurants in the San Diego area. So Ralph worked for a company and then retired, not an encyclopedic figure. Suzukix (talk) 05:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO 08:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forgotpassword321 (talk • contribs)

Keep - His passing was noted by Motor Trend, establishing that he was a notable person in the car industry, and reinforced by an obit in the New York Times. There are other obits but these two items are sufficient to show that he was notable. The New York Times doesn't publish obits of nobodies. -- Whpq (talk) 15:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet notability guidelines including WP:ANYBIO. Linda Law was in the New York Times like Millet but is equally non-notable. Amanda Knox is much more reported but has been deemed non-notable (but that's an extreme case of calling someone non-notable). I think since the man was involved with cars, people seem to think he's important, just like porn stars and actors. He didn't do anything encyclopedic during his lifetime, just a subsidiary head. Also the New York Times accepts paid obituaries, see http://www.nytimes.com/pages/obituaries/index.html Wikipedia is not for sale. Sorry.Ryan White Jr. (talk) 05:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - I have no idea who Linda Law is, or why she was in the New York Times, and I have no idea why you are using her as point of comparison here as she has not had an article written about here here in Wikipedia, nor has this non-existent article ever been put through AFD for deletion. So such a comparison seems to be completely irrelevant. Amanda Knox is completely apples and oranges so why bring that up here? The fact that The NY Times accepts paid death announcements is irrelevant as this particular obituary is not part of their paid death announcements. It is an article that they decided to run. This makes it an independent reliable source that has exercised its editorial oversight in the selection of subjects for print. That is the very definition of the type of reliable source that is need to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 10:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I left Wikipedia before because of the constant fighting and this is a clear example of it. Let's be reasonable. This guy is obscure but the topic of cars is very popular. Wikipedia is not supposed to be American-centric so would the president of Jasari Auto, the importer of Saab to Malaysia, be the subject of a Wikipedia article, along with the importers of Saab to Canada, Brazil, Italy, Bahrain, etc.? No, Wikipedia is not a phone directory. I looked up the Saab article and this person is so obscure that he is not even mentioned. However, strong feelings to keep are at stake. A good solution is to mention this guy in the Saab article and then delete the article; I am going to add this guy's name to the Saab article. This is the compromise solution that also doesn't violate Wikipedia rules about non-notable people. Midemer (talk) 18:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article doesn't even claim notability for him, much less demonstrate it. --MelanieN (talk) 02:43, 19 March 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. Tone 22:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kantor (ice hockey)[edit]

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

As a player in a junior hockey league, this person does not appear to meet the notability guideline for athletes. VQuakr (talk) 04:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable at all CTJF83 07:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject currently fails WP:NHOCKEY -Pparazorback (talk) 01:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NHOCKEY. Patken4 (talk) 00:57, 14 March 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 no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alien Youth: The Unplugged Invasion[edit]

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

This is not about an album, but merely a DVD release by the band Skillet. Video releases like this tend to be rehashes of the associated album and don't usually have the notability that albums do. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 23:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —BurtAlert (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There's a brief mention in Billboard ([34]), a short synopsis at Allmovie ([35]), and reviews from The Fish/Christianity Today International and Jesus Freak Hideout - not sure if the latter two are considered reliable sources - we have articles for Christianity Today and Jesus Freak Hideout. If considered reliable, then it's a Keep for me.--Michig (talk) 06:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Christianity Today and Jesus Freak Hideout sources are good. The Billboard and Allmovie, while reliable sources, are only trivial mentions and not worth citing. I'm not totally sure if those two sources provide the notability or not. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 03:32, 11 March 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sergeant Hatred[edit]

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

I doubt that the character is notable enough, this article has no sources and no real world coverage to establish the notability. JJ98 (Talk) 21:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added Rescue to the article with the hope that more references may be added. Artw (talk) 02:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing but plot summary, as per WP:PLOT Yaksar (let's chat) 04:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 03:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't seem notable. Forgotpassword321 (talk) 08:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources to WP:verify notability. Plot summary only, when Wikipedia is WP:NOT#PLOT. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to close this "delete" but is there any reason why some of this article can't be merged to List of The Venture Bros. characters? I'm surprised that nobody else has suggested this. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Ron Ritzman. The fact that no one has suggested that a fictional character from a notable franchise be merged to a list of characters is an indication of the relative poverty of this deletion discussion. Jclemens (talk) 02:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect it to the proper list article at List of The Venture Bros. characters. I already transwikied the entire history of this article to http://venturebrothers.wikia.com/wiki/Sergeant_Hatred to preserve it there. Dream Focus 04:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of The Venture Bros. characters#Team Venture. I don't think it's necessary to merge, as there is already an entry for Sergeant Hatred on the character list and there is way too much (unsourced) info on this page to be encyclopedic. — Bility (talk) 23:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Faulty nom says there is "no real world coverage to establish the notability" however I have found several sources which I have added to the article, and this one[36] all of which I consider to be "real world coverage". Onthegogo (talk) 04:53, 22 March 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 userfy to User:MichaelQSchmidt/Mountain Biking Videos. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain Biking Videos[edit]

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

Makes a few claims to fame (reviews from notable sources), mostly WP:OR and no strong reliable sources to indicate WP:WEB notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 03:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(sigh) Userfy this one to me at User:MichaelQSchmidt/Mountain Biking Videos. I have been involved in discussions with the author, and she now understands WIkipedi'a concerns with COI. If and/or when I can bring this into line with existing policy and guideline, it might return. If not, it will not be back. And in either case, observing how an article is improved to meet our criteria will be of help to the author.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:40, 16 March 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 Mandsford 22:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cold Steel... for an Iron Age[edit]

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

fails WP:NALBUMS. 1 gnews hit, no awards or top song listings. [37] also nominating Unchain the Wolves from the same band. LibStar (talk) 00:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 03:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both, coverage not found. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. I could not find any coverage, either. Gongshow ^Talk 01:16, 19 March 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) 00:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Federer's ITF and ATP matches[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of Federer's ITF and ATP matches

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

Because Wikipedia is neither an almanac nor a catalogue. This list is a context-less collection of statistics, which makes no effort to add any encyclopaedic context. Pages such as Roger Federer career statistics, individual tournament entries and annual world tour articles (eg 2009 ATP World Tour) do a more than adequate job of providing information about tennis matches and careers, whilst also including a lot of statistical material. This page is a needless addition. Pretty Green (talk) 11:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a fixture list especially when that list is over a thousand entries long. MLA (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 03:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I don't think that this indiscriminate list is appropriate for the encyclopedia. If people want to know who Federer beat in the third round of a random tournament ten years ago, they can always go to a page on that event if it exists, and there are plenty of stats already at Roger Federer career statistics. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just fixture and not suitable for Wikipedia. Pelmeen10 (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a tennis almanac. —Lowellian (reply) 11:23, 16 March 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 Mandsford 23:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Martin (filmmaker)[edit]

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

Delete. Article about documentary director lacking notability according to WP:FILMMAKER and WP:GNG. Lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cind.amuse 17:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete: All of the citations provided in the article illustrate the notability of one of the films Martin directed (Lionel) and do little to indicate Martin's notability. I find no indication of publications citing him as influential or even exceptional. The AFI awarded "Best Feature Length Documentary" in 2009, but I can find no articles discussing the award or the director's contributions which might have led to it. Speed8ump (talk) 18:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Actually, the 2009 AFI Award for "Best Feature Length Documentary" was awarded to Scott Hicks and Susanne Preissler for Glass. Cind.amuse 21:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 03:25, 11 March 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) 00:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

H.N. Prasad[edit]

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

Delete. University professor does not meet the criteria for notability presented at WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG. Lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cind.amuse 17:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

defer: I suspect this is a valid deletion request (subject is likely non-notable), but the page has been created in the last 24 hours, and it is clear it is still being built. Suggest assuming good faith (WP:AGF) and defer the delete decision one week (March 10th, 2011). Speed8ump (talk) 19:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Welcome back to Wikipedia! No assumptions here. The process in deletion discussions calls for interpretation of guidelines and policy. Since recently returning to the encyclopedia and participating in deletion discussions, it may be advantageous for you to review our deletion policy. You can find it here. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Best regards, Cind.amuse 21:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nearly one week passed and the subject remains non-notable.DrPhosphorus (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 03:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, run-of-the mill academic, no signs of notability, nowhere near passing WP:PROF. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:10, 17 March 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) 00:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A.P. Singh[edit]

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

Delete. University professor does not meet the criteria for notability presented at WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG. Lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cind.amuse 17:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

defer: I suspect this is a valid deletion request (subject is likely non-notable), but the page has been created in the last 24 hours, and it is clear it is still being built. Suggest assuming good faith (WP:AGF) and defer the delete decision one week (March 10th, 2011). Speed8ump (talk) 19:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Welcome back to Wikipedia! No assumptions here. The process in deletion discussions calls for interpretation of guidelines and policy. Since recently returning to the encyclopedia and participating in deletion discussions, it may be advantageous for you to review our deletion policy. You can find it here. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Best regards, Cind.amuse 21:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 03:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears non-notable, Sadads (talk) 13:55, 16 March 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Blowpipe Run[edit]

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

Article doesn't satisfy the general notability criteria for inclusion. No significant coverage found. References appear to be local-interest pieces. Article history shows that the author of the article is also the person mentioned therein. Prod was removed by author. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence the subject is sufficiently noteworthy to merit a standalone article. -- Rrburke (talk) 01:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 03:23, 11 March 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. /ƒETCH COMMS / 18:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chris McLaughlin (sports broadcaster)[edit]

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

When attempting to find sources for this unreferenced BLP I discovered that the subject...exists and really nothing else. I see no legitimate claim to notability in simply being a sports journalist. If he had won awards, written books, or something it would be a different story but unless someone uncovers something that I missed the article should be deleted. J04n(talk page) 03:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. First thought on seeing this was that he should probably be notable, but the sources don't even come close to showing it at present. Recreate if and when. Alzarian16 (talk) 00:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability tests at WP:GNG. Pburka (talk) 15:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment I tend to agree that he's not notable. On the other hand, I don't see any evidence that there was a PROD that someone removed, or that the article's creator, User:Marks87, was made aware that this was nominated for deletion. Hence, I'm not sure that one can make a fair ruling on this. Mandsford 23:10, 19 March 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. Big Dom 23:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Atargatis (band)[edit]

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

I don't see how this band is notable. Article is unverified, and a Google search, while complicated by the multiple uses of the band's name, is pretty clear: no hits from reliable sources, really nothing but this. I'm sure similar articles in other metalzines can be found. They are on a label with a Wikipedia article, Massacre Records, but I'm sure having an article is not the same as being a notable label in the sense of WP:BAND. Drmies (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to meet WP:BAND criterion #5, having released two albums on one of the more important indie labels. Massacre Records has been around a while and has several notable artists in its portfolio. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Two albums on Massacre Records may meet criterion 5, depending on interpretation of that criterion. There are a few news items around, e.g. Blabbermouth.net ([38], [39], [40]) and Music in Belgium. Not one of the most important labels, and not the best sources, but as an internationally touring band that has released two albums commercially, I would err on the side of keeping.--Michig (talk) 07:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Michig, Amatulic, I value both of your opinions (we've been here before!). If you can make at least some kind of case for Massacre, I would be pleased. Amatulic, if the bands they have are like this band, then the argument is circular: the artist is notable because the label is because the artist is...but the articles for neither artist nor label indicate that they of themselves should be considered notable (let alone, for Massacre, "major"). Drmies (talk) 15:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, first I'll quote WP:BAND #5: Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of whom are notable).'

No question that they have "released two or more albums"

The criteria for Massacre are:

an independent label - yes
a history of more than a few years - yes, since the 1990s or earlier
a roster of performers - yes, see the Massacre Records article for a long list
many of whom are notable - assuming that even a fraction of the blue links of artists shown in Massacre Records meet Wikipedia's threshold of notability, then yes.

Looking randomly through the links, I see a lot of poorly sourced articles, although some are for well known bands, such as Anvil (band), which has been the subject of a documentary, has 15 of its albums with their own Wikipedia articles, one of which was released by VH-1. Raven (band) and Skyclad (band) appear to be other examples of notable bands. Many bands on the roster look like they had already established themselves by releasing albums under other labels before moving to Massacre. I think Massacre meets the intent of WP:BAND criterion #5. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 03:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep - millions of more notable articles, this barely meets it but one could state that they barely don't meet it. Midemer (talk) 18:45, 18 March 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 speedy delete. per consensus and per CSD A7. Owning a bar is not an assertion of IoS. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Maisani[edit]

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

Problems relating to WP:BIO and WP:RS. A non-notable individual in his own right (at least by Wikipedia editorial requirements), with BLP issues relating to a non-confirmed relationship with a prominent broadcaster. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 02:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Maisani is Anderson Cooper's boyfriend and a very prominent individual in Greenwich Village. He owns a gay bar. I believe he is important and should have an article. Mr. Boomabang (talk) 02:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mr. Boomabang appears to be single purpose account. Cullen328 (talk) 06:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mr Boomabang has now been blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Dayewalker (talk) 05:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Owning a bar is not a valid claim to notability on Wikipedia. Being the alleged boyfriend of a notable person is not a claim to notability. Being mentioned in gossip blogs is not a claim of notability. This biography of a living person is unreferenced, and I was unable to find any reliable sources that discuss this person in depth. Cullen328 (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability other than an unsourced claim of a relationship with a famous person. Dayewalker (talk) 03:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 04:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP and WP:RS. The article is unsourced and doesn't even contain the person's alleged claim to notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons above. Couldn't have said it better --Ebyabe (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete BLP/RS/N, per above. OSborn^arf_contribs. 20:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. There is inklings that Maisani is notable on his own for his nightclubs, one is in the world's best hotel (according to Conde Nast). But as a NYC Club/venue owner he undoubtably has/will have articles about him soon.[41][42] Here are two but they are more about his club's grand opening.Trekhippie (talk) 11:06, 13 March 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. Snow closure. (non-admin closure) Dusti^*poke* 03:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Yunus[edit]

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

Fawning advertisement for singer mostly known for a famous daddy. I will acknowledge it is possible that an actual article could be salvaged out of all this fluff and crap, but I don't know the field well enough to be certain. Orange Mike | Talk 01:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. She's sung leading roles at the Metropolitan Opera and other notable companies. Clearly meets the criteria at WP:Music. I agree the article language could be improved, but that is not a notability issue. The referencing also needs considerable work, but again that is not a notability issue. This Google News Archive search shows plenty of coverage. To the nominator, before nominating an article for AFD you should bother to do some checking for references to establish notability first. This was a very easy subject to find references for which would establish notability. Best. 4meter4 (talk) 01:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- response - I defer to 4meter4's superior knowledge of music; but I cannot bring myself to apologize for being unable to find the pony in the horseshit (I will admit to a strong aversion to promotional language). I also question how much of the coverage a Google search finds, is coverage of "singer" as opposed to "daughter of Nobel-winner re-united with dad" coverage. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of the news articles are about performances; 90% of which do not mention her father at all (when you remove articles with her father's name only 10% of the news hits dissapear). You could actually bother to read and analyze the search results for yourself instead of making snap judgements.4meter4 (talk) 03:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'd recommend withdrawing the nomination per WP:SNOW. --Klein zach 02:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I'm not too familiar with the specific music-person criteria, she easily passes WP:BIO with a number of articles specifically about her. (This piece isn't cited in the article - does anyone have a full copy??) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait, this is the same article. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but I agree that the article is longer than it ought to be. Vincent (talk) 04:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the arguments of 4meter4, but the article needs a liberal dose of the red pencil. Voceditenore (talk) 06:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 11 March 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 Mandsford 23:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Adlam[edit]

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

I am nominating this article for deletion because it fails to meet Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline. samrolken (talk) 22:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did a Google search and was unable to find any reliable sources independent of the subject of the article that discuss this person in depth. Cullen328 (talk) 02:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 04:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's hard to see what is supposed to be notable about him. He is an investment banker. He founded a venture capital group. He was CEO of some non-notable companies. So? --MelanieN (talk) 02:48, 19 March 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 both. The articles do not seems to contain reliable third party sources. Ruslik_Zero 17:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MediaINFO[edit]

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

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

Also nominating Geneza.

No gnews hits, looks like spam by an SPA. Only external ref appears to be a quite brief mention of the company existing. OSborn^arf_contribs. 01:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- OSborn^arf_contribs. 01:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- OSborn^arf_contribs. 01:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The MediaINFO software is new, it is installed primarily in europe and as the process of public procurement is fairly "offline" in europe there isn't yet a big number of citeable material online, neither are there dedicated websites referring to such niches, because well it is a niche. To make things worse the citeable resources are usually in languages such as French or Czech which seems to make these citations less "valid" although it shouldn't really.

I understand that Wikipedia's volunteer editors are busy people and are bombarded with things they need to do, however speed also makes for mistakenly discarding useful material. It also creates a culture of topics that are disproportionally over-represented such as branded shrink-wrapped software from the likes of Microsoft. The unfortunate truth is that the burden of proof for a small outfit that produces educational software used by educational institutions and universities now is discarded while terrible and long abandoned software running on operating systems nobody is using anymore have pride of place on wikipedia e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_Artist Whereas current and relevant content for now and the future is deleted! Many other articles do not have to meet such an exacting standard.. We need a break here, this is a legitimate entry for a serious outfit that works primarily for public sector organisations in europe and soon in the USA too. There is nothing garish or pushy about the entry. We have added some citations we will add some more, please read them, unfortunately they are not in english but this is software for the public sector in europe within a niche, it is difficult to have a huge number of mentions about it in the press. Wikipedia has a huge amount of detail about the most moronic games on facebook but no information on educational software national libraries use?? this is simply wrong.

I don't believe this article deserves deletion, it dispassionately describes what this software does for public libraries in europe. There seems to be a big bias for US-based software corporations on wikipedia, deleting small vendors from the listing will lead to a self-congratulatory monoculture of US software on wikipedia. Idarodes (talk) 13:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC) — comment added by Idarodes (talk • contribs) 09:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. MediaINFO says it is a web publishing software for digitized content. In other words, a webpage design or "content management" utility. Geneza is a privately held software vendor specialising in software solutions for Libraries and Publishers, the maker of MediaINFO. I'm afraid you get penalized -50 notability points for "software solutions".

The question is whether this particular product has any particular claim to significant effects on history, culture, and technology; and this article makes no claim for that kind of significance. As such it is just one of many such packages, with no particular claim to groundbreaking significance.

Perceptions of bias are largely in the eyes of the beholder. Now, moronic Facebook games have become cultural touchstones, symbols of the online culture of Facebook, and as such significance is easily shown. When people 100 years from now ask what online life was like in the early 21st century, the topic of Farmville probably will come up. I don't see a US-centric bias in software articles; what I see instead is an ocean of trivial tech-cruft, much of it obvious spam, where every bit player thinks that mention in a Top 100 list or a petty trade award confers historic significance. There also is a large and obvious bias in favor of minor open-source and free software projects. There are altogether too many articles on bit players in crowded software fields. And this software looks very niche, and it does the same thing that many other software packages do. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not for self-promotion, and this is clearly self promotion. It's new software, so let time tell whether it becomes significant sufficient (like it's competitor CONTENTdm has) for a Wikipedia article. If it does, I suspect the software promoters here will have plenty of citations to choose from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flippingtires (talk • contribs) 20:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all both entries above have not addressed the point that this niche software for mostly the public/academic sector, these institutions do not issue press releases by marketing which then becomes very quotable, neither is it in the hire-a-journalist-by-the-article as it happens with outfits owned by gawker media et al, the endgadgets etc of this world that are basically a legitimisation source for payment and which seems to be enough to have even vapourware listed on wikipedia. Many articles on wikipedia reference these "news" sites and blogs that are essentially recycling press releases.

The above is a convoluted defence of an originally rushed decision for deletion. The farmville argument of cultural value is enough to give me goosebumps, a democratic triumph of the lowest possible denominator! This logic reminds me of the highly recommended film Idiocracy and it actually is a defence of the popular no matter how retarded.

MediaINFO is created by academics for academics and has not hired some marketing company to get "news" items created so they can be cited... I think that if Jimmy Wales saw this application of the rules he would think this decision is missing the whole spirit of what wikipedia is trying to achieve, a diverse voice in the entries, not another regurgitation of the products of corporate america. I have no problem with the over-representation of open-source software, we use only open-source software simply because it is better software ourselves. I do have a problem when this turns into a religious-like jihad against perceived bit-players.

The argument of non inclusion of "bit players" seems to me on unsafe ground considering the triviality and overt commercialism of other entries. Essentially you guys are ending up counting famousness of software as a key requirement for inclusion, which is also very conveniently easy. It makes the commercial software entries read like the price catalogue of a provincial computer shop! Plenty of Norton Antivirus 360 and other bloatware needing a mainframe to run, and relative poverty on the fields of software where the innovation is happening. By this logic a resounding yes to Paris Hilton and deletion for einstein before he was famous.. In the end a rule can only take you so far, you have to exercise judgement in editing content, running a quick gnews query is not judgement guys sorry it is just lazy. The rest is defensive acrobatics of the indefensible.

The other thing is that i am really confused on what to include now because you seem to be taking everything the wrong way, on the one hand i have to prove the uniqueness, but to do that i have to input some information to prove that which i fear will lead to more chants of deletion.. The whole thing is reminding me of the witch scene from Monty Python's witch scene http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g If you guys never to listen to an argument why the torment? In an attempt to show the uniqueness of the software please note that the software is not a web publishing solution in the conventional sense, in fact it does not have a direct competitor as software that attempts to sort of do similar things is not really match the scalability, speed, cost, ease, simplicity by such a wide margin it is like comparing a kite with a fighter jet...

see this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBIVnlDX1VE&feature=relmfu this shows only the interface which is the first that makes it possible to use a library for a kid or a senior citizen.

Technical innovation abounds, support for advanced ways to eliminate file sizes without loss of quality which is very important when handling everything from ancient manuscripts to former communist magazines and books. The software uses the most advanced features of JPEG2000 which leads to impressive savings in storage that in the end makes it possible for libraries to use content that they digitised but find prohibitively expensive to deploy onto the web. None of our competitors can match that in the forseeable future and the Wellcome Foundation, a well known charitable institution invited people from MediaINFO for this exact reason to give lectures on how JPEG2000 can make projects that were not affordable in the past viable now..

Further references of the groundbreaking work from the Wellcome Trust website

http://jpeg2000wellcomelibrary.blogspot.com/2010/11/jpeg-2000-seminar-edited-highlights-2.html This event was hosted by the JPEG 2000 Implementation Working Group and the Wellcome Library with assistance from the DPC. at the Wellcome Trust, 215 Euston Road London, UK.

Deleting this entry is a bad decision that is increasingly ideological and it seems that the less informed the Wikipedia editors are the more fiery and certain they are becoming. That is simply illogical! Please step back, look at this on it's merits and without prejudice. Focus in particular on the weakness of the argument with which the article was tarred in the first place. Idarodes (talk) 20:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If no one is talking about the article, how can we ever know that what it says is true? Verifiablility requires reliable sources. This does, in part, protect MediaINFO/Geneza from slander. Your comment does not address how either article meets the GNG here on Wikipedia. Whether you/I/anyone like it or not, that is the current standard for inclusion. Most of the references you have provided are only bit mentions that some person is associated with Geneza/giving a talk, etc. OSborn^arf_contribs. 22:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is interesting to see how publicly accessible installations of this software at various customers isn't enough to show its verifiability. I would say that thousands of users of resources that are made available through Mediainfo could say something about its importance to them and the impact of sharing knowledge, accessibility of information and so on... If even national library recognizes the importance of this, I don't see why is this discussion even taking place? Comments from people who haven't even took the time to study the topic and are already commenting for deletion are scary to say the least. If wikipedia is going to allow to be edited and curated by people who won't take at least few minutes for learning about article topic, then this is a major blow to the whole idea of WIKI project. At least get some experts on the field of digitization for libraries/publishers instead trigger-happy mass that cannot recognize the importance of entry of this software for libraries who are discovering these tools. If wikipedia will become the place where you can find information only after long years of usage of systems (when thousands of references throughout internet can be found), then how is wiki different from old printed encyclopedias ? By the time you read from it, it is already outdated and belongs to Museum ... just like that game that you are mentioning above.

To sum-up, this software has verifiable independent 3rd-party reference (why else would academics organize seminars with it, and why would national library present its implementation if it is not genuine, innovative and of national importance?) TaradG (talk) 11:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC) — TaradG (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It looks like Geneza guys are facing good old inquisition, the Monty Python's witch hunt scene is the ubercool example. Citation from Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." So, what proof would you like from these guys? Couple of articles about their software on CNN maybe? If they provided you sample of their product, links to their clients websites where clients say they are using mediainfo for their digital archives (and we are talking about libraries, universities, publishers), the link to article where you can find they have been invited to a workshop focused about something closely related to libraries digitization process... So readers can check their material on the web of their clients, and trusts that are inviting them to participate on their workshops as presenters, and that sources are reliable.

"Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." - hardly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vilimm (talk • contribs) 14:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC) — Vilimm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Software's notability is not determined by how many installations it has- it's by whether is has "... received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". (WP:GNG) It needs more than simply a mention that XYZ uses ABC. Are there papers written on this subject? Where are they published? Are there books? Where? Reviews by reliable, external parties? OSborn^arf_contribs. 14:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not yet notable-- that's the only real conclusion. Perhaps it will be. There are a fair number of publications reviewing library and publishing software, and when it is sufficiently written about, it may well be notable; it sounds interesting, so it's certainly possible. Vilimm, you have two major misunderstandings here: The first, is that we are an encyclopedia of what ought to be notable—rather, we are an encyclopedia of what things are already notable. We are indeed an encyclopedia to which anyone can contribute, but not an encyclopedia where one can contribute anything. The second, is that one can get things done here by bluster. Of all the places for discussion I've ever seen, this is one of the most unlikely to be impressed by such methods. Trying to have written two articles was an error--an error rather common in people trying to promote something new. Trying to protest too much when its clear that it doesn't meet the local standards is not helpful. Saying we ought not have the standards we do is also not all that helpful, especially when its one of our really basic standards. Assuming for the moment you are doing publicity for them, this is not a good way to do it. DGG ( talk ) 03:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP IT! For my part i am heartened that finally some people see my point of view, in the end of the day Wikipedia has its house rules i understand that, but i don't like to be accused as a spammer because i have never spammed anyone and if this article is deleted i will be regarded as such and the nuances of all this will not be taken into account. The article cannot be recreated even if in the next years the article starts meeting your rules.. I submitted this entry because i am a geek and proud of it and because wikipedia is a place i expect to find complete information in..

The rules as applied in this particular category make Wikipedia promote large vendors like Microsoft and give extreme attention to every announcement of vapourware or software that simply doesn't work properly and is beta tested on the unsuspecting public. You guys even include badware such as realplayer whose corporate parent is the only reason why it is not regarded as malware/adware http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealPlayer and wikipedia gives it a huge page only mentioning that realplayer is as fun to have installed as a virus.

The fact is that if the largest corporations were to write the rules of inclusion in the commercial software category of wikipedia they would have come up with the ones used in seeking to delete MediaINFO.. it suits them fine because they help keep the public unaware of alternatives to their mostly rubbish software and entrench the dominance of this monoculture.

For a digital encyclopaedia wikipedia seems to suffer many of the faults of paper encyclopedias in that they were more museums of information. But they had an excuse, they were on paper and were bought once in a lifetime! Plus in the end they exercised judgement, they didn't try to become a human algorithm interpreter.

Now you can find out all about the software Pong from 1972 -from the era of the soviet union was still flying high http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pong - and mind-numbing detail about whether or not Sears stocked it or not and what konami thought, but anything useful about what is going on now in the fast moving world of software is restricted to mostly the world of big franchises and mega corporations in the USA and their press releases disguised as developments or changes.

How much swiss software is included here? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Software_companies_of_Switzerland It is almost non-existent, and i still don't see how Geneza is less notable than many of these just look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SVOX The more you look at this the rule seems to be you get included if you have offices in the USA.. If you have these rules their application seems to be selective and biased..

Idarodes (talk) 23:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it How can you say a list of facts is self promotion? And accuse me to make publicity for these guys because i say what i think? I just don't like big guys always pick on the little guys, even if they have no reason to do that, even if it's just for fun. Nobody said that you should not have standards. But your standards are not working for me as an Wikipedia end user. Because you want to delete something that exists for a fact. That is not "encyclopedia". If anyone wants to promote anything, there are millions of places to do that and Wikipedia is not one of them. They are just fighting for their basic rights, and they should have the same rights as the Miracle Mike there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vilimm (talk • contribs) 09:03, 21 March 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) 00:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Marando[edit]

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

Contested Prod. Subject claims notability through news sources from Canada, but these appear to only mention him in passing. Phearson (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Hairhorn (talk) 01:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Toronto news coverage is for a losing political campaign. He fails our notability guidelines for politicians and no other convincing claim of notability is made.Cullen328 (talk) 02:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think his newspaper candidate profiles are enough for WP:GNG, and he clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:39, 13 March 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 no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Victorious (soundtrack)[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. Future albums are not notable without substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. Nothing provided, no reliable sources found. SummerPhD (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - AfD notice was removed from article on 27 February by 90.217.229.13. Just restored. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Temporary redirect it to the show's page. Album artwork and more info will be coming soon! Silvergoat (talk∙contrib) 14:12, 12 March 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 redirect to Straitjacket Fits. Redirecting as an editorial decision. Consider this a no consensus close. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Wood (New Zealand musician)[edit]

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

Member of a notable band, but not notable by himself, per WP:MUSICBIO. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or possibly Merge with Straightjacket Fits article. No independent notability. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. David Wood was a well known figure on the nz music scene. I would question the knowledge of Derbycountyinnz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angusparish (talk • contribs) 11:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide any reliable sources to back this up? Adabow (talk · contribs) 18:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Borderline, but he was a member of two different bands each of which is notable enough for its own article. Same with bandmate Mark Petersen (musician). If the decision is to merge or delete then that article should also go the same way. Grutness...wha? 23:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 16:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just sneaks over the borderline for me too, and as Wiki isn't going to run out of paper, then.....Moriori (talk) 01:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, agree this is borderline though. I would say merge to Straightjacket Fits, but the only info here that's not in that article is the Herald quote, which IMO wouldn't be missed, and his birth year (which seems to be wrong[43][44]). --Avenue (talk) 11:58, 11 March 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. No arguments for "outright" deletion aside from the nominator. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. Note that per WP:MAD a redirect must be retained if content is merged. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Topple the Tyrants[edit]

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

Quite clearly no more than a news item about a small group. —Half Price 00:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for 24 hours (lets see if the story grows)

Yeah it never struck me as being very notable - maybe just put a line about it in the articles on Gaddafi or his son, or on the Libyan protests. By all means give at a little while to see if the story develops, but if not it can be deleted for sure. Michaelmas1957 (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However it has been on the international news (the netherlands, australia, and more). For just a bunch of guys they got pretty much attention. Though indeed I agree that this is just a footnote in history, it is a memorable footnote. Consider the opinions on these guys by anti/pro Ghadaffi Libya.

http://www.telegraaf.nl/buitenland/9230282/__Huis_Kaddafi_gekraakt__.html?p=3,2 http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/10/3159949.htm - AlwaysUnite (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:NOTNEWS is always misused --- the policy actually says that breaking news should be treated the same as other material. There are multiple secondary sources about the event, as per WP:GNG. In any case, we can be certain that more news items will follow from this, since the group will continue to seek publicity while others will seek to forcibly end their encampment. Though I do not believe we should attempt to evaluate "overall significance", if someone insists on considering that, I should point out that this item combines the UK's rather liberal accommodations for squatters with the ongoing situation in Libya. Should a court uphold the right of an international war criminal to evict squatters from an address he can't visit? Britain might make a sane decision about that, so people will call them crazy. Wnt (talk) 06:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete. Merge in to Seif al-Islam article. They are occupying one home of the son of Libya's Gaddafi. Nobody heard of them before they moved in. I doubt that anybody will remember them after they've been evicted. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 16:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Alot of people are coming to the page, see http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Topple_the_Tyrants, and as mentioned above I think this may have a lot of potential for expanding in coverage, 92.14.159.160 (talk) 23:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete. Probably deserves mention at Squatting#Notable and well known examples, but nevertheless not likely to be notable enough for an article of its own. (Might even be too peripheral for mention in Seif al-Islam). WikiDao ☯ 18:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like a high-profile story to me, also as per WNT's comments. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 19:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep—High-profile event that (seemingly) didn't get Portal:Current_Events'd and needs to be expanded. If more news is generated regarding the event, then the article definitely requires expansion (and CE inclusion), but if the story dies and is largely ignored, I'd support a merge.--thejoewoods (talk) 19:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep-I suppose it does have some significance when considering the global impacts of the Libyan crisis, and it is reasonably concise and well cited. Of course, it needs expansion, and as others have said, if it really seems to be going nowhere it can just be merged into the page on the crisis or Gadaffi as a footnote.Michaelmas1957 (talk) 22:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG and therefore NOTNEWS. Non trivial coverage (full articles on the subject, not just mentioned in passing) in reliable sources (the Guardian, etc). Anarchangel (talk) 07:18, 16 March 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 and rewrite as an article about the Turtledove series of books, rather than as a history of an alternate universe. Thus far, there are many suggestions that the article be revised, but no progress in that direction. If a rewrite is not done within a reasonable time, then this can be revisited as a failure to follow the consensus. Mandsford 12:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline-191[edit]

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

A fictional timeline is inherently something that fails WP:NOT#PLOT because it will always be a plot summary and nothing else. The article is also solely sourced to the books themselves, thus having no independent way to WP:verify notability. There may be some third-party sources that have reception about events in the books, but they would belong in the articles about the books, not an excuse to create a WP:CONTENTFORK of the books that recaps the plot. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 03:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 03:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 03:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is a fictional series article, it is not supposed to be a fictional timeline article, the fictional series itself is called "timeline-191". 65.95.15.144 (talk) 06:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuild/rewrite to more properly reflect that this is an article on the novel series, and not just a plotdump. Merge all the book articles here too. 65.95.15.144 (talk) 06:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite the article to be about the book series as a whole and not merely a plot summary. --Goobergunch|? 18:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - delete as a pure plot article. An article on the series could be created, but completely separate from a complete timeline of the series. Yaksar (let's chat) 01:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite to reflect the series itself and not be a pure plot dump 74.177.202.165 (talk) 23:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article (and related ones) need work to focus less intently on plot devices and provide more information on the series in general; it badly needs an introductory section and a publication history. Most of the plot detailing should be removed, with the essential aspects committed to the articles on the series' components. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from Nominator my first preference is still for deletion. I don't think a rewrite makes sense here as I'm not sure we'd be talking about the same article or topic anymore. But if it will help to produce a consensus, I'll add my support to a rewrite if it will get this article in line with policy, especially WP:NOT#PLOT, by making it substantially more about the development and reception of the series and not just a plot summary. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is essentially an article about a notable book series. Needs improvement, not deletion. —Lowellian (reply) 11:25, 16 March 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 redirect to Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends#Promotions. —GFOLEY FOUR— 23:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Big Fat Awesome House Party[edit]

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

Only one source, this article does not have enough any references to establish the notability. JJ98 (Talk) 00:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect toFoster's Home for Imaginary Friends#Promotions there is a small section for the game there.--76.66.189.59 (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends#Promotions per the above IP. The rest of the material is basically WP:GAMEGUIDE stuff. Otherwise, not notable as a stand-alone article. –MuZemike 21:32, 11 March 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) 01:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMMAP - Information Management & Mine Action Programs[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. Only promotional sources can be found (contested prod). ninety:one 03:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Article is about an organization concerned with land mines; a worthy cause, but no showing of notability for this organization particularly. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obscure organization Ryan White Jr. (talk) 05:13, 17 March 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) 01:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Modernism[edit]

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

Admitted neologism. No evidence that the movement has more than one participant. Fails WP:GNG. LordVetinari (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Various writers over the years have seen fit to use the word "new" right before the word "modernism" for various reasons. However, I was not able to find any reliable, independent sources that discuss this specific artistic concept, which is really a form of original research that doesn't meet Wikipedia standards. Cullen328 (talk) 04:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR, non-notable contrivance...Modernist (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a well-defined term, its meaning depends on the person using it. —Lowellian (reply) 11:26, 16 March 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. /ƒETCH COMMS / 18:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aspire 2010 Charity Dance Competition[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Aspire 2010 Charity Dance Competition

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

Contested prod. Unreferenced article about an utterly non-notable schools dance competition in Hong Kong. Fails WP:EVENT and WP:RS andy (talk) 13:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aspire 2010 involved many students and also adults, which should be appreciated and respected--> notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickyip a55 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC) — Nickyip a55 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

"Notable" has a specific meaning within wikipedia. Please read WP:EVENT and WP:GNG. andy (talk) 14:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aspire definitely has a good depth of coverage and also a wide range of audience.. User:Nickyip_a55 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.246.136.181 (talk) 14:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. If "Aspire definitely has a good depth of coverage", then please list some of this coverage. Facebook is not a reliable source and does not constitute coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please Don't Delete -http://mygsis.gsis.edu.hk/CalendarNews_NewsArchiveContent.aspx?id=472b48992ee84c209c1d18ac03fcb029 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bchk totoro (talk • contribs) 10:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC) — Bchk totoro (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant or reliable in depth coverage of this event. Does not meet WP:NOTE guidelines. Barkeep^{Chat | $} 13:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It already has sufficient coverage and will gain even more coverage in the future, as this will be held annually in the future. User:Nickyip_a55 —Preceding undated comment added 13:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Just saying that there is coverage is coverage without actually providing any is not a strong argument for keeping the article. -- Whpq (talk) 14:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Look, kids, I'm sure this was a great event. Even the logo is excellent. It was put on, it was successful, it served its purpose. That does NOT make it worthy of an article in an international encyclopedia like Wikipedia. Please read the notability criteria at WP:N and you'll understand why. If this article does get deleted, as it probably will be, you might give the event a small (small, mind you!) mention in the article German Swiss International School. --MelanieN (talk) 02:57, 19 March 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. postdlf (talk) 02:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WILD Wrestling[edit]

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

Promotional article for wrestling organization of questionable notability. No significant coverage in independent third party publications. Google search on "World Independent Ladies' Division" shows only 52 unique returns. COI as well - Article creator appears to be creator and owner of the promotion. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't meet WP:CORP. Nikki♥311 06:49, 12 March 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AKT Academy Matriculation Higher Secondary School[edit]

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

Article of an insignificant school. Few points behind nominating it for deletion:-

Written like an advertisement.
Unclear motives behind writing this.
Doesn't provide a single external source to prove its authenticity.
Completely non-notable; nil coverage on web.

Even after two years span article is still hanging with cleanup tag. Bill william compton^Talk 17:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- See how the subject is mentioned on other related article - here, which clearly defines only promotional motives behind creating this article. Bill william compton^Talk 18:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've removed the promotional wording - you can see what I removed at [45] -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, i didn't remove it because i wanted to demonstrate- how the subject of this article is covered on Wikipedia (which is clearly promotional in nature). Bill william compton^Talk 18:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the long-standing consensus that verifiable secondary/high schools are suitable subjects for articles. We don't base deletion decisions on authors' motives. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Phil Bridger.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 14:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - higher secondaries are notable. However, the notability of this one is underscored by its remarkable academic achievements. Internet coverage is patchy on Indian schools so, to avoid systemic bias, time should be given for local sources to be found. TerriersFan (talk) 20:02, 17 March 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. /ƒETCH COMMS / 19:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feng Lin[edit]

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

No indication of notability, article is about some minor fictional character in a novel, only source is to another WP page that doesn't even mention the name Feng Lin. Ashershow1_{talk•contribs} 18:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or Redirect to Fengshen Yanyi (the name of the story in which he appears). Since he seems to be a minor character, a redirect is probably not necessary. --MelanieN (talk) 03:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to an absence of sources to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:10, 19 March 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. /ƒETCH COMMS / 19:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

War Division[edit]

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

No sources, no sign of any such organization online, title is very ambiguous, article is written with absolutely no context or explanation. Ashershow1_{talk•contribs} 18:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Google searching for "War Division" returns nothing, but searching for "War Division"+alien gets us some promising results. Remarkably, here [46]. Will try to search it more in-depth after lunch =P (though if we agree to keep it, it needs some urgent cleanup) ༺ gabrielkfl ༻ (talk) 19:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to United States Department of Justice War Division. After a quick comparison between the article and the record from archives.org, it's clear they treat of the same subject, which proves this article is not a hoax. It is indeed a subdivision of the DoJ which was active for only a couple years. Of course, the text needs some heavy cleaning to become an encyclopedic article, but it's not a case for deletion. ༺ gabrielkfl ༻ (talk) 00:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The revised title sounds much less ambiguous, I applaud your research; I guess if you have time to write this yourself then be my guest. Be sure to include some context though. :) --Ashershow1_{talk•contribs} 00:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. ^^ ༺ gabrielkfl ༻ (talk) 00:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The rename and the rewrite makes it much clearer what this organisation was. Coverage is behind pay walls, but this example from the NY Times has the formation of the division as the headline for the article. -- Whpq (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Now a legitimate topic for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Necrothesp (talk) 13:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: the nominator's concerns have been addressed, and I don't think it's likely to generate any opposition now. bahamut0013^words _deeds 15:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to United States Department of Justice#History, where the text fills out a tiny bit of the total lack of info about the DoJ in World War II. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to section stated by Buckshot06. Article is presently stub, and although notable is part of a larger organization. A subsection of aforementioned section can be created that documents this sub-organization. If the size of the information becomes sufficiently large using reliable sources it can be spunout. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with merging this one to the main article, but it... looks like it was already done... ༺ gabrielkfl ༻ [talk] 06:24, 15 March 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. !Votes from new and unregistered users have been given lower weight, as is customary here. Stifle (talk) 09:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kiyoshi Shiina[edit]

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

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

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

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

Delete. The references are minimal, not independent of the subject, sometimes a name on a list, while some don't even mention him at all. In order to establish notability, we need significant coverage about the subject that are reflected in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Cind.amuse 20:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I really agree with the nominator but if somebody has some time to add reliable sources we could avoid the deletion of the page. Unfortunately, I do not have enough time to add references about the subject. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 21:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- black belt magazine is a notable and independent source. :) CrazyAces489 (talk) 22:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah I know, but the more reliable sources we have, the better. I also appreciate your efforts in improving the page. :) -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 13:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Is the Daily News good [47]? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrazyAces489
      - or Hartford Courant [48] ?? (talk • contribs) 06:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Is St. John's University notable and independent? CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The coach of the St. John's University Judo Club. Has served as a coach to 2 American Olympian Summer Games representatives (1976 Teimoc Johnston, and 1992 Joe Wanag). A pioneer of the Judo in the United States. Mentioned in black belt magazine multiple times. Similar to that of S. Henry Cho. You should try and google "sensei shiina" and "k. shiina" and you will find more information on him. I am expanding the article as we speak CrazyAces489 (talk) 21:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not see any significant coverage about the subject himself from an independent source for the subject to satisfy the notability requirements under WP:BIO. Unfortunately, there are no guidelines under WP:NSPORT that would allow for people to discern if he is a notable athlete within the field of Judo. Barkeep^{Chat | $} 15:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Blackbelt Magazine (a major publication in the world of martial arts) has spoken about him on several occasions.(look at the references). He has trained 2 Olympians and is the current coach of the St. John's University Judo club. CrazyAces489 (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Actually, there is a set of criteria--WP:MANOTE. I found no evidence that he meets any of the notability criteria listed there. The Black Belt magazine reference just has him in a list of instructors that, apparently, anyone could submit a name to. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- blackbelt magazine

These are all passing mentions--the BB magazine reference listing him as a martial arts instructor, the next lists him as best man at a wedding, a one sentence mention as a judo traditionalist, one sentence mention as one of his college's champions, mentioned among others as a referee at a tournament, and the final one is a mention as one of the leaders of "the Nihon University Juyukai." All of these are one line mentions, usually in conjunction with a bunch of other names. Where is the "significant coverage" required by WP:GNG? Or please show me which criteria in WP:MANOTE that he meets. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 18:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A large number of students: Try to be objective. Remember that there are over 6 billion people in the world. He has had a large number of successful students including 2 olympians. CrazyAces489 (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This criteria actually refers to arts and styles, rather than martial artists. Cind.amuse 22:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see enough references and substantial students of quality to keep. A very high ranking martial artist and a university coach. 162.83.194.253 (talk) 21:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like a previous IP poster, I also fail to see what criteria under WP:MANOTE this individual meets. High ranks alone are usually dismissed in these discussions because there's no universal standard for belt ranks. It should also be noted that he's in charge of a club, he's not a university coach like, for example, the school's basketball coach. I haven't found significant coverage in independent references to support the case for notability. Papaursa (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In Judo there is a universal standard. Also Daily News [49] and Hartford Courant [50]as references] are independent references. 24.239.153.58 (talk) 05:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - So every judo instructor grades exactly the same way and all students of a given rank have the same skills? I don't think so. These are also more 1 line mentions. Where are the articles about him and not his blind student? Did you notice this under the notability criteria for martial artists: "Criteria supporting deletion: 1.Only achievement seems to be that they teach an art"? Papaursa (talk) 06:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - He doesn't just teach the art he coaches national and olympians the same way that Béla Károlyi did for Kerri Strug! The Daily News is more than a one line mention. I wish someone would place in the references on the Article so we can see how many actually exist. Shiina was also a national high school champion and recognized in the collegiate championships.[51] And yes, there is a universal grading scale for Judo. 24.239.153.58 (talk) 07:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - AS a college athlete, he would qualify. "Have won a national award (such as those listed in Template:College Football Awards or the equivalent in another sport), or established a major Division I (NCAA) record. " [52] 24.239.153.58 (talk) 07:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Béla Károlyi was the the coach of the U.S. national and Olympic teams, not just of an individual on the team. According to the article Shiina was "mid Japan" high school champion which sounds more like a state or regional high school event (and high school events are almost never notable), while having the "best technique" at a meet of 4 universities doesn't exactly sound like a national award like the Heisman trophy. However, I'm now done with this discussion since I won't convince new IP users from New York that are probably connected to his school. Papaursa (talk) 01:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He passes the google test. Has appeared in multiple secondary sources. He has trained multiple high ranking students. Some of his students have strong articles. The article does need to be re-arranged but it can stand on its own 2 feet. 149.68.97.25 (talk) 17:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Made NYT [53] 7 Dec 1980 Japan Judo, a "dojo," or judo school, in Stamford run by Kiyoshi Shiina, who possessed the highest ranked black belt. appears to me to ice the notability issue. Collect (talk) 13:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Notability is still not being shown. Comments to previous 2 posters: There is no google test (see AFD arguments to avoid). The fact that some of his students have articles doesn't matter since notability is not inherited. The latest article mentioned is about Joe Wanag. No one is arguing about whether Wanag is notable or that Shiina runs a dojo, these simply don't show Shiina is notable. Astudent0 (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Um -- the NYT is not Google. And the NYT specifically referred to him as holding the highest ranked black belt - which is what is claimed. In fact, the NYT is considered one of the strongest sources on WP. Lastly, the NYT is WP:RS on Wikipedia. Ergo - the "it is google" is an invalid counter-argument entirely. Thanks. Collect (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notice that I said the last two posters--the one in front of you said "passes the google test." Also, a high rank is not among the notability criteria for martial artists (see WP:MANOTE). A number of sōkes have been deleted in discussions if they met no other notability criteria. Astudent0 (talk) 16:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Notice also that notability is also affected by coverage by major news publications, over and above the "specialized notability standards." If one is sufficiently notable for the New York Times, a guideline intended to relax notability standards for a specialized area does not remove the notability per the primary policy. The separate notability guidelines are primarily to allow people in who are not notable under the general rules. The specialized guideline can redefine notability otherwise to make it more restrictive. Collect (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I agree GNG takes precedence, but that requires "significant" coverage and I believe that condition is not met by being mentioned in an article on your student. As I said before, the article is about Wanag (notable) not Shiina (not notable). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astudent0 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it has not shown strong sources to show notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Notability established. Reliable sources that have already been listed..

New York Times
The Daily News
St. John's University Website
Blackbelt Magazine
Hartford Courier
United States Judo Federation 149.68.165.189 (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only you guys at St. John's think notability has been established. That's why we're having this discussion. Astudent0 (talk) 17:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A lot of good verifiable sources have been added, but the editor is not familiar with ref tags, so the reference list doesn't yet display them all. I'm doing some adjustment, but I'd like to see judgment withheld until it can be made more clear what's on the reference list. The outcome may still yet be delete, but I'd like it to be more clear what has been added. Mandsford 00:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done. It'll be up to the article's writers if they want to change over from links to citations for the rest of it, such as evidence of well-known students of Shiina. Mandsford 12:38, 21 March 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) 01:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Meseroll[edit]

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

Not seeing any substantial third party coverage fails WP:GNG, and WP:ENT, WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR as well The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 00:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Everything I can find is self published, published by a PR firm operating on his behalf or mirrored from the same materials. I don't think he meets notability. Bob House 884 (talk) 18:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found no independent support for claims of notability in any of his fields. Article has no independent sources at all. Papaursa (talk) 01:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:GNG. I found a couple matching hits in Google news archive but they were either press releases or trivial mentions, neither of which help show notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete it must be deleted. nothing notable as of yet. 149.68.97.25 (talk) 17:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO. only trivial coverage. LibStar (talk) 07:05, 15 March 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 speedy delete. Calling it an hoax was a bit cruel. But,at best this would be deletable as original research so IAR and zap it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Rules of Accumulation[edit]

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

"Fictitious set of rules" (quoted from article) with only references being "user's own knowledge, quotes, personal motto and mother's opinion". Would have speedied it but wasn't sure what criteria to use. LordVetinari (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails as original research. Actually, quite a lot has been written about gamblers' behaviour and on the superstitions, rationalisations, etc that they follow, eg Gambler's fallacy. But Wikipedia is not a place to publish our own thoughts on a topic. AJHingston (talk) 00:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article violates more of our policies and guidelines than I care to list. It is a wierd mix of something made up referenced to the exact opposite of reliable sources.Cullen328 (talk) 04:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ~~However, I do give the article creator credit for audacity in creating~~ an article sourced only to "User's personal knowledge. Resident and gambler in Bristol", "User was personally quoted as saying this", "User's own personal motto", and "User's mother believes this to be true." --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I struck out part of my comment in light of the article creator's comments below. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Highly informative article with regard to a widely appreciated set of rules. Many users looking to find a list of the mythical laws of accumulation betting will be highly satisfied when finding them here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.208.126 (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page provided me with vital insight into the laws of accumilation. Last week if it weren't for this page and my strict following of the laws thusly laid out my accumilator would not have successfully come through. I am highly grateful to the user who created the page and wish him all but success of his continued following of said laws and hope his accumilator destiny will be as fulfilled as my own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.208.99 (talk) 19:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because an article is based on superstitious theories it doesn't mean it can't still provide a useful insight into the culture of an area and some people's beliefs in supernatural phenomena. I for one thought this was a very interesting and well written article that provided an insightful look into this particular area of human psychology. I cannot understand why it would be deleted just because someone doesn't personally agree with these beliefs, would you also suggest to delete a page about religion? If your only grounds for deleting this article are that they were invented by human beings then please allow me to suggest that we delete the other 99.99% of wikipedia pages.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanleyrovers (talk • contribs) 20:49, 11 March 2011
- Stanley, when you say that the article was "very interesting and well written", I believe that you may be biased in that opinion, given that you wrote almost the entire article yourself. This bias is natural and understandable, but it needs to be taken into consideration here. Furthermore, the concern that I and most of the other "delete" recommenders have is not that we don't "personally agree with these beliefs" or that these rules were "invented by human beings", but that the rules are sourced only to your own personal knowledge, your personal statements, your personal motto, and your mother's beliefs. I actually thought that, when you used those as "references" in the article, that you were making a joke and satirizing the Wikipedia guideline on reliable sources. Please read Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Reliable sources and then review the article and this AfD discussion in light of them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep saddos. keep it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.177.29 (talk) 00:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Metropolitan90, I am sorry but to have to side with the article's creator here. The standing for this page comes not just from his mother's opinion or his own experience. I have followed these guidelines ever since our baby Jesus blessed me with the 18th year on this planet and hence I could present myself before the counter in such refuges as William Hill and Coral (NB, other bookmakers exist). I consider it highly prejudice to remove this page purely down to your personal opinion of it being invalid. Your case for removal lacks substance, and I have just the same case for arguing this highly influential page's existence. By removing these laws not only do I consider this as a mockery of my almost religious approach to the weekly accumulator bet since the start of my 18th year, but also I believe you are removing the hope of thousands who seek refuge to their accumulator, for some it truly is all they have, and these laws are the backbone of their day-to-day lives. I speak not from opinion but from personal experience. Please do not remove these globally renowned rules, I hold them close to the hearts of me and my people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.208.126 (talk) 03:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3; article so tagged. Clearly WP:MADEUP; speedy deletable as a hoax. RichardOSmith (talk) 11:41, 12 March 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.