< 27 September	29 September >

Guide to deletion

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

The result was keep. For all the words in this debate, the consensus is quite clear that the article is to be kept. Mkativerata (talk) 23:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Murzyn[edit]

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

~~Polish dictionary word, non-encyclopedic, not notable, not suitable for English wikipedia. Relevant policies: WP:ENGLISH WP:DICTIONARY~~ (see my comment at my vote below) --Lysy^talk 23:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Twice over. WP is not a dictionary and doubly so not a Polish language dictionary. North8000 (talk) 23:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Not all words are notable, but some are. What makes it less notable than entries in Category:Polish words and phrases and Category:Exonyms? The discussion of the word by Kłoskowska or Piróg seems to suggest it is notable. On a side note, it would be nice if the author would learn how to format references properly (cite templates...) and avoid the humongous quotes. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 01:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not a toponym. Regarding notability, you could easily find a source in Polish on cucumbers in Lesser Poland. Would this warrant an article titled ogórek (Polish for cucumber) on English wikipedia ? Would the fact that the Polish source discusses "ogórek" in Polish make it more notable ? --Lysy^talk 14:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for ogórek, however I think that we could use a dedicated article on Polish pickled cucumbers. Pl wiki distinguishes those from pl:ogórek konserwowy, and if there is no established English name for it, we may end up having an article on ogórek konserwowy on en wiki... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, there may be a reason to have Racism in Poland but no need to have an article on Murzyn, Cygan, Żyd, Chińczyk, Grek, etc. --Lysy^talk 17:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we are talking about a correct name for the article, this already suggests a keep vote (and a RM to start). Some words are encyclopedic, their usage is studied by scholars. The sources I noted above suggest this is one of them, and that it is of interest to scholars, just like Negro or similar words - even if it is much less researched. Also, I think we should have an article on Żyd, dealing with the word meaning in Polish language (analyzing the stereotypical image of the Jew in Poland through the use in proverbs and such) - although it could be a section in some larger article. Murzyn could also exist as part of some article describing words for black people in different languages, but as we are most likely missing them, keeping this one seems like a reasonable outcome. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 20:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually a very good illustration of the problem. If we could separate the article Żyd, concerned with the actual word, from anti-Semitism in Poland, it would be fine. The problem is that it's very hard to avoid having both articles discussing the same after some time. The same with Murzyn, we claim it explains the particular Polish word, but I'm sure it will have the tendency to evolve into Racism in Poland, which should be a separate article. But if we create it we would end up with two differently named articles with more or less the same contents. --Lysy^talk 17:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This is a notable word like negro, sambo (racial term), nigger, nigga and indeed Polack. The sources presented show that in Poland there is a considerable amount of academic and general societal discussion surrounding this word (whether it is racist and whether it should be replaced by other words). That's why I noticed it in the first place. It's the main word for 'black person' in Poland, has a long history, and deserves coverage. That it's from a foreign language is neither here nor there (see Ang mo, Ah Beng, Chukhna, Giaour and many other foreign words found in [Category:Ethnic and religious slurs] and probably other categories). I have the strong feeling certain editors object more to the airing of dirty linen, than to this article's actual encyclopaedic worth. Malick78 (talk) 14:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First Malick78 is the creator of the article so he is, understandably, fighting to keep it. Second, Malick78, you're assuming that this word belongs in the "Category:Ethnic and religious slurs" - it doesn't, it's not a slur. All the examples you gave above (Ang mo, Ah Beng, Chukhna, Giaour) are in fact slurs, and in each of these cases an alternative non-offensive word exists. Here "Murzyn" pretty much IS that non-offensive word in Polish. Yes, there are some people who are saying now that it's outdated and politically incorrect - more or less the same way that some people think that the term "black" in English is politically incorrect relative to "African-American" - and there are other people who say it's not but until a new word comes along and gets established this is just a standard translation of the word for "black person" in Polish. The fact that Polish academics are discussing the etymology of a Polish word is not sufficient for an English wikipedia - Polish academics discuss the etymology of lots of Polish words. You say " It's the main word for 'black person' in Poland" - but that's precisely why it belongs in Wikitionary not Wikipedia. Volunteer Marek 20:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that it deserves to be kept because it's a slur. I just found some foreign words (sure, slurs) that had articles about them, in order to show that foreign words are worthy of English language articles. I fully realise that it's a multi-faceted word with many interpretations, and therefore needs in depth examination to fully appreciate the complex nature of it. Hence an article ;) Malick78 (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, here's a video of Poland's first black MP John Godson discussing the term on Polish state TV with a black Polish musician. Does the word 'ogorek' get this kind of coverage? The comparison is completely inaccurate. Malick78 (talk) 14:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely: here's a source comparable to the one used for "cycki murzynki": Czas na ogórki!, here is a video prominently featuring ogórek and providing the rich cultural context Ogórek wąsaty, here is a political article about the role of ogórek in European Union policies: Unia przegrała z naturą, about ogórek's presense in Polish parliament:Efektowna konferencja, and here is another vital info, mentioning the "day of ogórek" Dlaczego ogórek nie czyta ?. The word "murzyn" does not even have its day. --Lysy^talk 11:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those things are about cucumbers, not the word 'ogorek'. In your excitement at finding such a wealth of information I think you may have got a little confused and off-topic. As for the link to "cycki murzynki", that was to prove it exists. You know it exists, all Poles know it exists, so a link to something about it was just a courtesy. Malick78 (talk) 11:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I only wanted to demonstrate that it's absolutely easy to find obscure or irrelevant sources. Relevant RS might be a problem, as it is in the case of murzyn. --Lysy^talk 11:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's even a research paper on ogórek by the famous Pirog: J. Pirog (2008). "Przydatność krótkich ogórków uprawianych w tunelu foliowym do kwaszenia jako małosolne". Zeszyty Problemowe Postępów Nauk Rolniczych. 527. and there are many more ... OK, enough ;) As for "cycki murzynki" it's the first time I've heard of it so this was educative as well. --Lysy^talk 11:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep—yes, wp is not a dictionary, but any word that is rich enough in conceptual content to inspire sufficient numbers of reliable sources that discuss the word itself as a topic (as opposed to merely using it) satisfies the gng, and we should have an article on it. i would take this position even if the article lacked sources, providing i could find sources, but in this case, there's no need to do that since the article is impressively well sourced. the article is well written, and convincingly makes the case for the notability and encyclopedicity of the term. i also find Malick78's comparisons with articles on other racial slurs to be quite convincing. these are exactly the kinds of words that turn out to be notable, and are exactly the kinds of words that need both definitions in a dictionary and entries in an encyclopedia— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article rather discusses racism in Poland than the Polish word. How about renaming it to Racism in Poland ? Looking through the "sources", they are either obscure, bogus or irrelevant. It's possible to write a similarly "impressively well sourced" article on almost any Polish dictionary word. --Lysy^talk 17:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i don't read polish, so it's true that i can't evaluate the quality of the sources as i would be able to do if they were in english, but it strikes me that your dismissal of them is too sweeping to be completely accurate. the one by Antonina Kłoskowska is clearly reliable, and the one by Patrycja Pirog certainly appears to be so, if the translation is accurate and the source is, as it appears to be, the proceedings of an academic conference. these two alone seem to me to be enough to satisfy the gng. i think that as it stands, the article is actually not about racism in poland, but about the word itself. the sources seem to discuss the word, not racism in general. if some of the other sources don't strike you as reliable, you could edit them out if you wanted. it wouldn't be possible to write such an article about almost any dictionary word in any of the languages i know. is there something special about polish in this regard?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources are obscure, but most of them are simply irrelevant. The video is a promotion of an anti-racist children book, the Żakowski article is about smoking and the author uses "I'm black" in the sense of "I'm being discriminated", the article by Pirog is about the connotations of black people in Polish art and culture (that's also what the conference was about). I cannot comment much on the text of Kłoskowska as it's not available online, but its title "Nation, race and ethnicity in Poland" suggests that it discusses racism rather than the actual "murzyn" word. Likewise the text by Ziółkowski is about the racist stereotypes in the US. I will not comment on the quality of the sources for cake recipes. --Lysy^talk 18:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not have articles on the translation of the term "black person" in Russian, Lithuanian, Finnish, Chinese, etc.? Volunteer Marek 20:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The video is not promoting the book, if you watch all 7 minutes you'll see it's about the use of the word 'murzyn'. Do you think that a Polish MP would come on the show just to promote the book? And why do the two black men start arguing? It's about the connotations of the word and how black Poles should be described. Please don't describe the sources inaccurately when not everyone here speaks Polish and can understand them for themselves. I would disagree with your descriptions of the other sources as well. Malick78 (talk) 19:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Kloskowska source is online and the relevant part is basically a footnote. Volunteer Marek 20:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try Google Books search for "pojęcie murzyn w języku polskim". Unfortunately, most Polish books just give us a snippet view, but a quick overview suggests there are more sources available (if not easily online yet). Rozprawy Komisji Językowej, Volume 32 from 2006 seem to have at least several pages on this word (one quote: "Ustalając konotacje semantyczne zbiorowe, odnoszące się do nazwy Murzyn, a które zakorzenione są w świadomości zbiorowej użytkowników języka polskiego, opisać należy nie tylko frazeologię i paremiologię, lecz i inne aspekty kształtujące..."). The article currently is poor and could benefit from better refs and more research, but the more I look into this the more I am convinced the subject is notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 20:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is applicable in this case. Of course Polish linguists study this word, just like they study other Polish words - maybe a bit more. Additionally, most of the hits seem to be to (unavailable) sources which are picking up the word "pojecie" "jezyk polski" etc. Searching for "pojęcie murzyn w języku polskim" with quotation marks gives zero hits. Same for variations designed to increase the number of hits [1], [2], [3] - all no hits. Even looking at the search w/o quotation marks [4] which one of these sources is actually discussing the word itself, rather than using it in some completely unrelated context? None as far as I can see. I mean some of them are just translations of English language works about completely different topics - like translation of John Stuart Mill which obviously has nothing to do with how the word is used in Polish. Volunteer Marek 20:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also [5], [6]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first one ("also" to what?) is a "maybe" - it's a Polish linguistics paper. So yeah, not surprising that Polish linguists would discuss a Polish word. But that's not really enough here, since that's what linguists do. The second one looks better, particularly since it's in English. But again, it's a linguistics publication - apparently about Slavic languages. So this too would support the inclusion of this type of entry in a dictionary, rather than an encyclopedia. The bottomline is that you can find these kinds of sources on almost any word, English, Polish, or other. Again, why not have an entry on how "black person" is translated into Russian, German, Hindu etc.? Volunteer Marek 22:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's really quite simple. There are no academic articles about the word ogorek. Murzyn has dozens. That's why it's notable. Malick78 (talk) 22:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait what?!? Where are these "dozens" of sources? Even the article now has only 13 sources over all and half of them are junk (somebody's webpage with some recipe on it, some opinion piece about smoking, letters to the editor etc.). And they're not academic. You got 1 sort of "academic" source which deals with it. You got a few academic sources which mention it in footnotes or passing. And you got one, maybe two, sources which are "academic" in the sense that they are articles by Polish authors about Polish linguistics. Quit making stuff up. Volunteer Marek 22:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What makes a word notable? If it is studied by the linguists, and touches upon sociological issues (discrimination, stereotypes, and so on), that seems to make it notable to me. It would be easier if we had Wikipedia:Notability (words), though (but we have a user essay, linked). But even the generic WP:N seems to suffice; the word received coverage in numerous, reliable sources - and I see no exception there that would make linguistic works not reliable for our purposes. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<- Ok, I don't know why this has to be repeated, but it's obvious that Polish linguists will study the etymology of Polish words - and you can find sources (in Polish) to that effect. That is NOT enough to show notability for the purposes of English Wikipedia, IMO.

But let's come back to this " coverage in numerous, reliable sources" - IT'S NOT THERE. Malick78 filled up the article with a bunch of junk he found on the internet consisting of things like:

Letters to the editor, from a newspaper. Not a reliable source.
Somebody's online cooking recipes. Not a reliable source
Somebody's blog. Not a reliable source but this one was actually written decently enough that I left it in for now.
An article about smoker's rights which uses the word in passing. Irrelevant to the topic.
An article about the Oscar awards which uses the word in passing. Irrelevant to the topic.

The last two, or even four, are just random usages of the word out there in the internets. They are not reliable and they most certainly do not show notability - just the fact that people actually use this word sometimes (crazy!)

What's left after you remove this junk? What are these supposed "dozens" or "numerous" reliable sources?

A link to a Polish dictionary [7] - which actually just shows that this belongs in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia.
The source by Klosowska [8], which *I* was the one who put that in, trying to make something half way decent out of the mess that was in there. Importantly, this "source" for the word is a ... a one sentence footnote. Other than that it is again irrelevant.
That whole "OPPOsite" website [9] and Patrycja Pirog which is really all that you have here. It's a goofy source (post-modernist writing nonsense) but I guess it does qualify under the heading of reliable sources. This is listed separately in the article's reference section 4 or 5 times, giving it an appearance that it's numerous sources being used, where it really is just one.
A link to a tv interview by Poland's black MP who says he doesn't think the word is racist. Ok, relevant but by itself not nearly enough.

That's it. Of these only one can be considered both relevant and reliable, the Pirog article, though certainly not "high quality reliable source". And even that article is mostly about racism in Poland and only deals with the word in a minor manner. It's sort of as if you found an article on Racism in US, which discusses the word "black" and used that as a basis for creating an article on Black (word for black people) or something, rather than the appropriate article on Racism in US or Black people.

The tv interview is borderline - if this was really a notable article topic and there really were "numerous" or "dozens" (as people here keep erroneously asserting) of other sources on it, then I'd probably support it's inclusion. But there are no "numerous" or "dozens" of other sources - at best you got 1 - so by itself this doesn't cut it. Volunteer Marek 17:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have a PhD, where did you get it? I want one from there too! Malick78 (talk) 19:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't act like a stupid asshole. You've just dismissed everything I said with an obnoxious off-topic comment which is obviously meant to be insulting. Sort of speaks for itself. Volunteer Marek 16:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And you try to stay civil. Otherwise you might get in trouble, like you have been before (you are the editor-formerly-known-as-Radeksz from the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list, aren't you?). Malick78 (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look, if you're gonna make personal attacks on people and make obnoxious comments then you have no right to demand that they "stay civil" towards you - you've given up the right to that kind of consideration. I could've reported you for that PhD comment but it's more time-efficient and to the point just to call you on it. Volunteer Marek 18:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surprised keep. Those who know of some of my previous AfD activity may be surprised to see this, but this is a good example of an article about a word that actually has valid encyclopedic coverage. I will point to this article in the future as an example of what some of the truly horrendous dictionary entries we have here should look like. Powers ^T 19:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per comments above. This belongs in Wikitonary, not Wikipedia. Author of the article is trying to make the term seem more controversial than it really is by cherry picking sources to make it seem more notable - in an encyclopedic sense. Move the whole thing to a dictionary. Volunteer Marek 20:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it's hard to see how anyone could cherry-pick in order to make something seem notable. what would they do? omit mentions of sources that don't discuss the topic? if there are reliable sources that discuss the topic then it's notable. a place for cherry-picking opens up if there are opposing views on an already notable topic and someone doesn't give a balanced account of that. that's how the term is usually used.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith, Volunteer Marek. No cherry-picking was needed. The first articles I found were all about the controversial nature of the word. Not many people write about words to say how unexceptional they are :) Malick78 (talk) 21:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In a way this actually addresses alf.laylah.wa.laylah's objection. It's a relatively - though not completely - uncontroversial word. So yeah, the only sources you're going to find are going to be ones which say it's controversial (and write down, that's basically 1). The people who think it's not controversial are just not going to write articles about it. So to answer alf.laylah.wa.laylah's question - yes, that's what cherry-picking involves here - not mention all the sources which use it in a controversial way. Volunteer Marek 22:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, so if I say Obama is a woman... can I back it up by pointing out the lack of webpages devoted to his female nature? Because, hey, if no one bothers to write about it, it must be something uncontroversial that everyone knows. Malick78 (talk) 22:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually a pretty good example. It's as if you started an article on The femaleness of Obama and then claimed that it was a notable concept because you found some post-modern studies article (singular) (and I am certain that such exists) about Obama's femalness. And then claimed that it made the topic notable. And then said "well, I can't find any sources which say that don't deal with Obama's non-femalness, therefore the concept is notable". ??? Volunteer Marek 22:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

find the sources, write the article, and i promise to !vote keep when it appears here.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you missed the point ;) --Lysy^talk 17:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The "Murzyn" article provides substantial information on a notable topic, and the information is too extensive to fit in a dictionary. Comparable articles on use of analogous terms in other languages would also be welcome. As an electronic encyclopedia, Wikipedia can accommodate topics that might not be considered in a paper encyclopedia. Nihil novi (talk) 03:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Upon a closer examination of the article, I'm changing my mind, and I support keeping it. Maybe I should have withdrawn this AFD now but first of all I don't know how to do that, and secondly, let's have it completed for the sake of future doubts like mine. At the same time I would like to apologize Malick and everyone involved for the time wasted on the afd :) --Lysy^talk 17:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) Out of interest, what finally swayed you? Malick78 (talk) 19:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cycki murzynki. But seriously, some minimal research that I've done trying to verify some claims of the article. My initial impression was that this is yet another vanity article by a frivolous editor and that the term itself is trivial. However I've realized that the word actually does not translate well into English, and has an interesting and dynamic semantics. The article has some potential to develop, possibly into something different, which I perceived at a threat but hey, evolution is the spirit of wikipedia. Still, I stand that the sources are poor or irrelevant, but I've seen worse :) --Lysy^talk 08:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad the article has inspired somebody to research the subject :) As for the sources, hey, if I'd written a perfect article I'd feel bad that I'd left nothing for anyone else to contribute ;) Malick78 (talk) 10:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's what wikipedia is for ... --Lysy^talk 11:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cycki murzynki? Now I feel like WP:RFD this. Is this cake even notable? I admit I've never heard of such a cake... Who is going to search for it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 01:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Check google. I was surprised myself. Apparently Malick knows more about this cake. Myself I'll try to find and try some. --Lysy^talk 07:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a real cake, sure. Available in many places around Warsaw, though 'murzynek' is more common. Malick78 (talk) 08:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some words are notable.Ezaid Fabber (talk) 19:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt: I can't see any possible reason to have an article in English WP about a racial slur in Polish or any foreign language, especially when a corresponding article under that heading does not even exist on Polish WP. Sometimes, a foreign language slur may become familiar to English language speakers, like the Japanese "Gaijin", but this clearly hasn't happened with "murzyn". Not by a long shot. The subject of the article is Polish-language-specific at best and totally lacks any global relevance or significance whatsoever for English language readers (except those that also know Polish, and then exclusively because they know Polish). Most of the sources are of dubious relevance and reliability, trivial or tangential; a Christian on-line newsletter, passing references in newspaper articles on completely unrelated topics, a dictionary entry for a cake with a similar name and the like. The only reliable sources that discuss the term in any detail are all entries in Polish language dictionaries. Delete per WP:NAD, doubly so because the term is practically never used in English except perhaps among Polish speakers. As for the argument that the word is notable because of the the "controversy" that surrounds it in Poland, that's simply balderdash. I've been living in Poland for nine years, speak Polish, read the Polish press and am rather conversant with what is controversial and what is not in Poland. The "controversy" surrounding the word is not particularly notable even in Poland (again, as the lack of an article on Polish WP demonstrates). Not notable enough, by any means, to warrant mention in English WP. The fact that this word has been discussed by Polish scholars doesn't mean much as much the same can be said for thousands of words in the Polish language. That discussion also has very little global relevance outside of Poland. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I in contrast started the article because, while living in Poland and conversing with my young, educated Polish friends, have noticed that the word has a controversial status. As for 'global relevance', that would suggest deleting all articles on Polish villages, non-ministerial MPs, barely-read-outside-Poland books... etc. Wouldn't deleting these be deleterious? Malick78 (talk) 17:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How conroversial, compared to Ojciec Dyrektor, Smoleńsk, lustracja. in vitro or the American visa question? It certainly doen't make the Top Ten list of controversies in Poland. I'm not that sure it makes teh Top Hundred. See, it's a matter of degree. Now do you think it's notable enough to incude on English WP. Also, the other types of articles you mentioned have their own sepaerate criteria for inclusion in WP. None of those criteria apply here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, the fact that the white majority haven't quite twigged that racial terminology is important doesn't mean that it's not. But actually, I do think it makes the top one hundred :) And a Polish MP bothered to talk about it on TV... Think about that: it's hard to get them to do anything :) Malick78 (talk) 18:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to get a Polish MP to talk? You miust be kidding. It's all they ever do. Endlessly and ceaselessly about any kind of bullshit under the sun, including Tinky Winky. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The threshold for inclusion on WP is whether multiple reliable sources have discussed the topic in depth. (WP:Notability: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.") Here are some instances. [10] is a 10-page journal paper entitled “THE 'MOOR (NEGRO)' HAS DONE HIS JOB, MUST THE 'MOOR (NEGRO)' GO? THE HISTORY AND THE FUTURE OF THE WORD 'MURZYN' IN POLISH” and its abstract includes the sentence “There is a repetitive question coming up in publicist sources, how to replace 'Murzyn', if Polish is to follow western languages, in which the word Negro has come out of usage.” Another source is entitled “A NEGRO DID WHAT HE WAS SUPPOSED TO DO...'. A STUDY OF SOME ETHNIC METAPHORS’ [11] – its abstract states “The article reports on research whose goal is to analyze the image of black people in the Polish press after 1989. The aim of this work is a presentation of 'ethnic metaphors' with the lexemes 'Murzyn' (Negro), 'czarny' (a black man), 'Kali' (the name of a black hero in the novel 'W pustyni i w puszczy' by Henryk Sienkiewicz), 'Olisadebe' (the surname of a popular African football player, a member of the Polish national team) and others.” Those two articles are pay-to-view, but their abstracts speak to the in-depth coverage point. There is a derogatory form, ‘’murzyny’” as mentioned in the book ‘’Slavic gender linguistics’’ [12]. This article [13] about a Polish explorer, Sygurd Wisniowski, says: “In nineteenth-century Polish, "murzyn" functioned as a semantically neutral designation for "one belonging to a black race. African or American negroes"; its general application was possibly consistent with nineteenth-century anthropologists' attempts to create a terminology to categorise human races-"negro" being one such term. By contrast, Wisniowski's references to Maori employ a more varied, semantically structured set of terms, in which "Murzyn" features only once. Its use in "...parlament, w ktrym zaden Murzyn nie zasiada" [the parliament in which not one Negro serves] is significant in that it highlights both the absence, and the improbability, of any non-European serving in the New Zealand Parliament. As such, it functions as a statement of the inherent inequalities in the system of colonial government and of the author's perception of the European colonists' treatment of any indigenous population simply as another dark-skinned (and therefore unequal) people. In that context, "Murzyn" appears to issue from the mouths of the settlers, and thus could justifiably be translated as "nigger." Put together with the Polish MP’s statement and other material already in the WP article, this strikes me as meeting the notability standard. Novickas (talk) 16:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has encyclopedic value beyond a dictionary definition.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An article about the significance of a word that can go beyond the definition is always justified, if there is enough material--as there certainly is here. That the subject term also is found in dictionaries is not reason it would not be here: under that reason, we'd have to remove--among about a million other articles-- the article on Poland. And that the Polish Wikipedia has no corresponding article doesn't affect us if we can show the importance--the different encyclopedias have different coverage guidelines, or perhaps they haven't gotten to it yet, and will now. I'll just comment on two particularly misguided deletion reasons: one, that we ought to cover topics (including words & concepts) in Polish any less than we do English. We're the encyclopedia written in English, covering everything in the world notable enough to have an article for which we have people willing to do the writing--just as do other Wikipedias. Fortunately, many of the people active on other language Wikipedias are active here also, Polish being an excellent example of that, and we are in a better position to take advantage of that than some other Wikipedias may be. And another misguided reason that is fundamentally behind some of the delete opinions for words like this: that we do not cover topics which make some particular group look bad--that we might not want to recognize the fact that a particular language has a opprobrious term for outsiders; this is a failure to recognize the basic nature of NPOV and NOT CENSORED. The world includes a lot of unpleasant things, and they're part of the domain of an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete, with salt. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kira Hara[edit]

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

I could not find a single reliable source covering the game. Delete per WP:GNG. Author contested WP:PROD. Odie5533 (talk) 22:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

note—check article history if things look weird, article creator just removed afd template, although i restored it. (and warned) — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Two-line article. Zero sources. No news hits. Regular google hits almost all for other stuff. There does seem to have been a bulletin board discussion on it, once. Also, there's a Facebook page that might be related. Fails notability. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I prodded this in June, and it was deleted then. My rationale was "Can not verify the existence of this game, or of its stated developer, let alone find a reliable source. The claim that it was banned in South Korea should be easily sourced if true. Further, the article states it was for the Mac OS, but the stated release date predates the Macintosh by two years. Dubious. WP:N". The dubious details I noted are not included in this recreated version, but the delete-worthy notability arguments would appear to still hold. Electrified Fooling Machine (talk) 08:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I think it should be deleted and protected from recreation. --Odie5533 (talk) 12:54, 29 September 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) 22:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 21. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Most citations self-referential, the remainder were trivial mentions. No evidence that the awards themselves have received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (WP:GNG) - "Merely being mentioned in a source whose primary purpose is to cover an entirely different subject does not satisfy this guideline." (WP:TRIVCOV). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per the same rationale I posted to the deletion review whic will be quoted here-in as follows: "The article in questioned violated many principles of WP:BLP by it's very nature, not to mention it had been marked as in need of citations and references on the majority of its points - the majority of which had been tagged as needing a citation for over 2 years. Others would be continuously added without the addition of references to accompany them. The notability is in serious question as having undue weight given to them by editors rather than the industry themselves being as promotions such as WWE, TNA and ROH do not actually acknowledge the granting of these awards, let alone their existence. Per the totality of that, I must question the pertinence of the article and it's assertion of notability beyond that of a niche publication. With that accounted for, most of the article was in violation of WP:OR per lack of sourcing given which reduced verifiability, if not rendering it impossible." ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ ② 00:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with Wrestling Observer. As posted by Vodello and myself, a large variety of sources cited the Wrestling Observer Newsletter Awards to describe a professional wrestler's accolades, therefore it must be of high significance in the world of pro wrestling. The first three sources focus primarily on professional wrestling, while the rest of the sources are primarily non-wrestling related.

PWTorch.com described Kenta Kobashi as "the greatest Japanese wrestler ever", and that "this statement... is not one made without support from within the industry", justifying this claim by citing Kobashi winning the WON's Wrestler of the Year award and Match of the Year award in 2003, 2004, 2005. [14]
SLAM! Wrestling cited Mitsuhara Misawa as the Wrestling Observer's 1995, 1997, and 1999 Wrestler of the Year [15]
Wrestleview.com backed up Chris Jericho's "extensive" resume by citing that Jericho "won Feud of the Year, Match of the Year, Wrestler of the Year, and Best In Interviews in 2008 by the Wrestling Observer Newsletter. He also won Best in Interviews in 2003. He also won Reader's Favorite Wrestler in 1999 as well as Most Underrated Wrestler in 1999 and 2000." [16]
Newsday described Chris Benoit as winning the Outstanding Wrestler of the Year and Wrestler of the Year awards
VH1 described Chris Jericho as "2009 Wrestler of the Year by the Wrestling Observer newsletter"[17]
The South Florida Sun-Sentinel discussed on January 2, 2004 whether or not Brock Lesnar should receive the Wrestling Observer Wrestler of the Year award for 2003.
The Montgomery Advertiser mentioned Mitsuhara Misawa as the Wrestling Observer's 1995, 1997, and 1999 Wrestler of the Year
The Toronto Star referred to Jumbo Tsuruta as The Wrestling Observer's 1991 Wrestler of the Year, also citing the magazine as "highly respected".
On November 1, 1991, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette described Ric Flair as an eight-time winner of the Wrestler of the Year award.
The Democrat and Chronicle out of Rochester also refers to Misawa, describing him as Wrestling Observer's Wrestler of the Year in 1995, 1997, and 1999.
On December 30, 1988, The Chicago Sun-Times described Big Bubba Rogers, or the Big Bossman, as the Wrestling Observer's Most Improved Wrestler of 1987
The Sun (United Kingdom) described Bryan Danielson as four-time Most Outstanding Wrestler and five-time Best Technical Wrestler per the Wrestling Observer.[18]
The Montgomery Advertiser also mentioned Danielson's accolades above, as well as being owner of 2007's Match of the Year award.
UGO Networks also mentioned Danielson's Best Tech award.[19]
In the Philippine Star, they described MMA fighter Georges St. Pierre as "2008-2009 Most Outstanding Fighter by the Wrestling Observer Newsletter"[20]
Yahoo! Sports mentions Karo Parisyan vs Diego Sanchez was WON's 2006 MMA match of the year.[21]
A second article from Yahoo! Sports with another match of the year noted.[22]
Sports Illustrated also mentioned the awards. "Jackson's fight with Lindland placed seventh in the Wrestling Observer Newsletter's voting for fight of the year. Henderson is known for a more exciting style than Lindland, and Saturday's high stakes clash could be a classic confrontation."[23]

Now that the importance of these awards in the professional wrestling realm has been established, I'd vouch for the article to be kept or at least, merged with a parent article of Wrestling Observer. Starship.paint (talk) 02:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable awards given by a long time newsletter in the wrestling industry, one even used by many promotions today and in the past as a means to focus on the industry. Editor Dave Meltzer is credited as a long time historian of wrestling by many in the business today, such as by Bret Hart in his autobiography "Hitman: My real life in the cartoon world of wrestling".--WillC 02:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability certainly established by mentions in numerous reliable sources. If the awards were non-notable, they wouldn't be mentioned as significant accomplishments when wrestlers are discussed in publications all around the world. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the staggering amount of references listed above from the DRV that show these awards have been deemed a notable measure of a professional wrestler's accomplishments since at least 1988. I firmly believe this list passes WP:LISTN, and should be kept. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 14:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per the same rationale I posted to the previous deletion review. There are many long standing unaddressed problems with this article as can be seen from the tags, some dating back to January 2009. These are not notable awards. The article is poorly referenced, with improper references to self-published sources, and considering that the so-called awards refer to living people, the BLP concerns should not be ignored. Archetypal (talk) 18:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"These are not notable awards." If they're not notable awards, why have we found many reliable third-party sources independent from wrestling from as far back as 1988 citing these awards to describe a wrestler's accomplishments? For the fun of it? Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 20:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TRIVCOV ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's wrong and you've already been told so by administrator User:Jclemens.[24] We can't ignore all of these references. You can, but I would expect others that haven't gotten emotional and overly personal over these discussions to keep their fingers out of their ears and realize these are in fact notable awards. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 23:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The significance of their coverage in reliable sources is note worthy. I will not deny that. But I believe it to be note worthy for inclusion in the primary article for the Wrestling Observer itself, not in a standalone article listing every single award ever won - something the very administrator which you've quoted mused upon themselves: "...though I wonder if it might not be brought back as a section of another article, if the individual notability of the awards are in question." Also, Suriel1981 was very much within his right to defend himself against claims of being called a "Deletionist" considering that was the accusation hurled upon the deletion of the page over on the talk page for WP:PW^{(Static Link)}. In addition, the very person who initiated the DRV called it a "stupid decision". So much for the principal of assuming good faith.... Perhaps, one should examine their own statement before accusing another of being "emotional" and taking something "overly personal over these discussions", lest they open themselves to Tu quoque. I'm also forced to once again inquire who these awards are important to? Are they deemed notable by the industry itself or by the select few sources above and a specific group of wrestling fans (who have seemingly been colloquially dubbed the "internet fans") who - in truth - appear to make up the minority of wrestling observers (No pun intended). I have personally never seen the very existence these awards acknowledged by wrestling promotions in-canon by any promotion (i.e.: TNA, WWE, or ROH). Mostly, these awards are covered by the Wrestling Observer and a few select outlets who also report on them, but not the industry itself (which seperates it largely from another group of awards such as the Emmys or the Oscars. In addition, while those few select mentions listed above can be cited (the majority of which can be readily seen by their links provide little more than a passing of the awards receipt whilst making no assertion of their importance), the litany of others relies largely upon a single source - many of which remain out of print to this day (to the best of my knowledge - please correct me if I am wrong on this point) which renders verifiability impossible in addition. Even if they were in print, it would still be largely attributed to only one source and one outlet which then calls into question whether or not excess weight was being given to the awards and the assertion of notability is being presented; in the previous DRV which restored the article to its present form and initiated this very AfD, it was stated (and re-enforced here) by Starship.paint (and others) that, "The Wrestling Observer's awards are considered the most (or second most, maybe Pro Wrestling Illustrated has a say) prestigious awards in pro wrestling." With the prior examples accounted for and with the evidence I have presented before, I must once again inquire, "By who?"? Simply stated, this article has to many issues. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ ② 04:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You believe the contents of the article "to be note worthy for inclusion in the primary article for the Wrestling Observer itself", yet you voted Delete instead of Merge? Hmm? And well, the awards are considered prestigious because when citing a wrestler's achievements, so many organizations (as I have provided above) choose to back the achievements up with these awards? Isn't there a level of prestige there? Starship.paint (talk) 13:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the form of a passing mention, yes. If the publication has it's own awards, I think that should be mentioned on it's main article. But I do not think such an award list deserves its own article when it's not notable enough to carry it. Because that's what it amounts to in every single source cited above. All of them follow the same pattern in mentioning that a person has been the recipient of an award, but none actually comment on the award or why it is prestigious which yet again - without evidence to the contrary - shows evidence of subjective reasoning and the assigning of undue weight on the part of persons and not the industry. Many organizations? What organizations? A few news organizations gave passing mentions in the form of "[subject] is the recipient of the such-and-such award, the such-and-such award, and the wrestling observer such-and-such award". Each and every one of them gives a passing in that form. No wrestling organization (even a minor independent and certainly none of the major ones) has been cited as even acknowledging the existence of these awards. Not a single one. I ask again, with everything on the table, why does this deserve it's own article, and will any of these concerns be addressed by anyone? ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ ② 16:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Deserves its own pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack11111 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify. They'll just thump one of these policies in your face and it'll actually only serve to help them delete the article. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 00:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional clarification required, per WP:JUSTAVOTE ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ ② 03:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability clearly established in the given references.TheFBH (talk) 00:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't have a problem with all the material being on the Wrestling Observer Newsletter article, though that may make it very unwieldy. Either way, numerous other wrestling sources, including respected publications like PWTorch and non-specific sources like The Sun newspaper and Canadian Online Explorer, refer to the awards. Bret Hart and Mick Foley among others cite Dave Meltzer and the publication in their memoirs, making it of note. As for sources, this year's newsletter listed every winner in history of the still active awards, along with the top 3 for this year. Tony2Times (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It listed inactive award winners as well. Currently every single winner listed on the article is sourced.TheFBH (talk) 21:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per starship paint. This is a series of awards that is highly regarded in the wrestling industry, and companies have taken note of them, and been influenced by them (eg, "Piggie James" storyline being dropped almost immediately after winning Most Disgusting Tactic, and winner of 5 or so awards Daniel Bryan showing up around the same time)Crisis.E X E 18:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"This is a series of awards that is highly regarded in the wrestling industry" - Yet again, by who? While we're on the point, what's your source that WWE was influenced by the above cited example? That sounds a lot like subjective reasoning based on coincidence. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ ② 21:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - As reflected in talk page discussion on multiple articles and the large number of vandalism-related edits to this article, Dave Meltzer and the cult of personality surrounding him has been a point of contention. This has long been the case; in fact, it has existed long before the advent of the self-proclaimed/self-styled "Internet Wrestling Community." Someone decided to take a cheap shot at me for pointing this out, despite the fact that prime evidence of this exists mostly in the still-deleted talk page of this article. Two other concerns: I keep hearing of BLP violations, with no real explanation. Do you mean to tell me that we have to wait for David Crockett to die before we're allowed to point out what a God-awful embarrassment he was as a wrestling announcer? The other concern was due to undue weight because the present-day major wrestling promotions in the United States don't acknowledge these awards. Never mind that this is the Internet, after all, which is read by and accessible to the entire world, and presenting an American-centric view represents undue weight in and of itself. Since I don't read Japanese-language text (as I suspect would be the case with most people reading this), has anyone investigated whether publications such as Baseball Magazine Sha or Weekly Gong have referenced the awards, especially since Meltzer began traveling to Japan in the mid 1980s? Back to undue weight, a far more relevant example of undue weight is in filling untold numbers of pro wrestling-related articles with gratuitous references to WWE, TNA and ROH, even and especially when unwarranted, and ignoring proper historical perspective and/or proper worldwide perspective. Speaking of proper historical perspective, my primary complaint with the article has been that the early award winners have been presented in the article with little regard for accuracy WRT the promotions in which the wrestlers performed or the events occurred. As for third-party references, I question whether many of them could truly be called "independent" or whether these references made their way into print or onto the web due to Meltzer's journalistic connections.RadioKAOS (talk) 04:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- "As for third-party references, I question whether many of them could truly be called "independent"" - That's an argument for deletion, not keeping.
"Do you mean to tell me that we have to wait for David Crockett to die before we're allowed to point out what a God-awful embarrassment he was as a wrestling announcer?" - Er... I'm not going to list the policies that would violate, regardless of whether he's alive or not.
"I keep hearing of BLP violations, with no real explanation." - Here's a quote from WP:BLP - "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all"
"the early award winners have been presented in the article with little regard for accuracy WRT the promotions in which the wrestlers performed or the events occurred" - Isn't that another case for deletion? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. It isn't. This is grasping at straws for unrelated policies. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 14:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it is. I suggest you study Wikipedia's policies a little more carefully. Particularly WP:AGF, as you've demonstrated little understanding of that. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 14:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First they say read WP:AGF, then immediately follow it with a passive aggressive snipe. Classic. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 17:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Talk about taking WP:AGF, stomping a mudhole in it, and walking it dry (to loosely quote)... I have yet to see this so-called Anti-Meltzer rage that he speaks of. I wonder if RadioKAOS believes there is some sort of cabal working in WP:PW. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ ② 18:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If at first you don't succeed, snipe, snipe the keep voters? Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 18:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you so choose to take it that way, that is your prerogative. I'm personally waiting to see evidence of this cabal of Anti-Meltzer's he speaks of and has spoken of ever since this article was first nominated for deletion. Come to think of it, I'm personally waiting for anyone to address the legitimate concerns I raised here - twice; and that's in addition to raising the same concerns on the DRV where it went unanswered and continues to be unanswered here. Come to think of it, no one has even addressed the point made by the user who was under the IP:82.19.4.7 on the DRV (See the DRV for preceding context): "So ignore half of the analogy, industry awards which appear everywhere. Then do the same as above and ignore the common sense meaning of the analogy and make up your own to make a strawman. No one has said some random kid in walmart that's your construction (so if anyone is trying to derail the discussion it's those trying to build the strawmen arguments rather than actually trying to understand where the difference in opinion lies). If there are people who are notable enough to get coverage in third party reliable sources and all of them include in their bio that particular walmart certificate, that's the closer analogy to the situation here. "The Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards get worldwide media coverage" - and that's the problem, everyone is asking you to show that coverage - i.e. coverage of the award where are the third party sources talking directly in detail about the awards (not lists of winners, not talking about people and noting they won the award, but coverage about the award itself)." Is there anyone who will address their concerns and my own? Anyone at all? ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ ② 02:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY - this is a perfect example of new and better sources being found when the pressure is on. Bearian (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adjudication of the Bright and Morning Star versus Lucifer[edit]

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

I've been following this new article for several days, but the editors keep adding things which do not address the tags. To me, this article reads like in-universe propaganda for the UFO religion Urantia, and does not make any claim why this particular section is significant or notable using reliable 3rd party sources. Therefore, I'm nominating it for deletion. AstroCog (talk) 21:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of wp:notability. No references except self references. Plus the writing here is not even attempting to be an explanatory article. Just a repetition of internal writings / preachings for the cult or religion or organization that wrote the material. North8000 (talk) 23:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to be an attempt to summarize a concept from a religious tome, referencing only the book itself. Fails notability for lack of independent, secondary sources on this concept. And rather than a neutral description of the concept, its purpose would seem to be to explain the concept to an acolyte of the religion, thus failing WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tulsa Talons Roster[edit]

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

Contested PROD on the grounds of notability. I proposed deletion six days ago NOT because of notability, but because the article is a content fork of San Antonio Talons, as most of the text is copied from San Antonio Talons. The team was formerly known as the Tulsa Talons. Tampabay721 (talk) 21:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Additionally, the same user who contested the PROD, if you look at the talk page of the person who contested the PROD, User talk:Nalman you'll see that this is the third time the user has done so with invalid/irrelevant arguments. It seems this user is misinformed or acting in bad faith... Sergecross73 msg me 22:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Clearly a fork that has no reason for existing. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is already a Tulsa Talons article that redirects to San Antonio Talons, and there is not enough content in this article to justify a spinoff.—Bagumba (talk) 01:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete CFORK as noted. And this doesn't even seem to justify a redirect since it is unlikely to ever be useful and could even be confusing (WP:R#DELETE). Novaseminary (talk) 02:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The roster information is more suitably covered in a single article about the team. Cbl62 (talk) 05:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete source is the team website page.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Work Management[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Completely different from, and slightly better than the article on this title deleted by the previous AfD discussion. But it still seems too much like a student essay. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For something like this I would expect a reference to a tome or journal article or something with the phrase "Work Management" in the title and a definition in the first paragraph or so, even if that definition were as vague as they tend to be in the field. We appear to lack this here. Mangoe (talk) 21:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Author's Comments Keep

Work Management is a newer concept. There are several notable references describing the work management process and how it is an evolutionary process separate from project management. Several softwares define their solutions as work management including: Clarizen, AtTask, Wrike, ProWorkFlow, Me2Team, MindManager, Mindjet, PowelStudio, Sproket, WorkManager Pro, Taskey, Selectron Technologies, WorkWyze, 360 Facility, SharePoint, etc. This article will be continuously updated with a history as well as information on supporting softwares and other companies that employ the work management method. It is unbiased, informational and relevant to the project management space as it evolves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmpowerTMs (talk • contribs) 22:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that author's only other contributions are to AtTask. Mangoe (talk) 23:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EmpowerTMs, it might be a great new idea that shouldn't be in WIkipedia. The relevant standard is wp:notability. If you think there is coverage of the type required by the policy, you should put that in or un-obscure it quickly. Unless/until then I think this should be deleted. If something changes, please feel free to ping me on my talk page. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A management theory, vaguely defined in glittering generalities:

...a paradigm for understanding, organizing and managing work. Often associated with Project Management, Work management encompasses all work—including work not traditionally associated with project-based work. In addition to project-based work, people typically contribute to other work, such as the repetitive processes associated with their everyday responsibilities, ad hoc assignments, work requests, personal tasks, etc… This work must also be taken into account and managed in order for business leaders to have maximum visibility, accurately plan for resource allocation, get greater team member contributions and to increase effectiveness and value in the work place.

"Project management?" "Several softwares define their solutions as work management..." (!!!) Not a notable neologism, and an invitation for future problems. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Full disclosure: I did !vote in this AfD, however the snow has fallen, so, closing. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey H. Norwitz[edit]

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

According to Zscout370 (talk · contribs) and Geo Swan (talk · contribs), Jeffrey H. Norwitz, the subject of the article, requested deletion of this article at Ticket:2009011410017732. Zscout370 speedy deleted the article on 17 January 2009 per the subject's request. In 2011, Geo Swan corresponded via email with the deleting admin. A summary of their discussion and Geo Swan's comment about the subject's notability:

The administrator who deleted it did so after processing OTRS ticket 2009011410017732. The deleting administrator and I corresponded. They acknowledged that the article had been neutrally written, otherwise complied with all our policies, that Norwitz had no actual complaints about the article. The deleting administrator told me Norwitz simply didn't want a wikipedia article. The deleting administrator told me that their interpretation of the role of an OTRS team member that they felt they were authorized to delete articles to comply with an outside individual's request, when, in their sole judgment, the individual was of marginal notability. I don't agree that Norwitz was of marginal notability in January 2009. Since the deletion Norwitz has published another book. He has broadcast youtube videos. He has made more public appearances. So I think his notability is even more clear cut now.
... For what it is worth there are lots of biographies of Norwitz scattered around the web. So it is not as if Norwitz was trying to reduce his online footprint in order to protect his privacy because he was an interrogator at Guantanamo. Rather Norwitz just doesn't want a biography on wikipedia.
— User:Geo Swan 08:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

After Geo Swan contested the deletion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 28#Jeffrey H. Norwitz, Zscout370 restored the article, writing:

Restored at the time I did the deletion in 2009, I was the one that handled the OTRS ticket. My mindset at the time was to err on the side of caution and have short articles like this removed. Geo has been speaking to me off and on since the deletion and I agree that the content itself is neutral, but still at the time of deletion I was in that mindset. Now close to being the end of 2011, I was a n00b and realized it was not the best course of action now. After speaking to more OTRS staff since the DR was brought up, they felt that it would be wise to restore the material and let a regular AFD deal with the subject.
— User:Zscout370 17:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I have nominated this article for deletion to allow discussion about whether the page should be deleted per the subject's request. This is a procedural nomination; I am neutral. Cunard (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is established by the sources cited. I don't see a reason he should be allowed to opt out of having an article. He is public enough so that privacy does not seem to be an issue. Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia should not delete factual, neutral, reliably-sourced articles on the basis of the fact the article's subject doesn't like it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Since I have spent some time working on this article some might argue my keep is implied, and I don't explicitly have to say I think the article should be kept. But I will say so nonetheless. Norwitz is a real life Buckaroo Banzai or Indiana Jones, that is, he is a distinguished academic who is also a man of action. Doesn't he satisfy WP:ACADEMIC? And, as an NCIS agent he received four, count 'em four distinguished medals for classified counter-terror or counter-intelligence operations. Geo Swan (talk) 00:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Accepting the policy that we can optionally close a truly borderline bio in accord with the subjects wishes, the subject of this one is over the borderline. Personally, I think that was a very bad policy, and inconsistent with the much more important and fundamental policy of NPOV: to say that borderline notable subjects have bios if they like them, gives them a veto over the content, which is pretty much the policy of Who'sWho, a thoroughly unreliable source because it lets the subjects edit their own bios to their own satisfaction. this AfD is an example of why the policy is unsupportable: any deviation from an NPOV policy is always going to be a slippery slope, What's "borderline" is not definable, and it inevitably will lead to errors in judgment such as this one. DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep The subject is a sufficiently notable public figure, and cannot choose not to be in a Wikipedia article that reports facts already known, and correctly sourced. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep per DGG. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the holder of a named Academic chair. Style point: I really hate the "footnote stacking" in this article, particularly the mass of footnotes in the lead. One fact, one footnote — and if you feel the need to mention more than one work, bring all of those into that footnote. Carrite (talk) 15:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject is notable. It's bad enough how much non-notable stuff is in Wikipedia; if we start deleting the notable stuff we will have turned this project upside-down.--~T P W 14:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG et al., and per WP:SNOW. Easy consensus is that this person is notable, but understandably wants to "fly below the radar". Many eyes watching the article, and oversighting BLP violations, is sufficient. Bearian (talk) 19:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Green Party of Canada[edit]

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

Redirect to Green Party of Canada#History similar to the History of the Conservative Party of Canada redirect. Most of this article’s information is the same as the Green Party of Canada article. Aaaccc (talk), 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Redirect - Seems pretty obvious. --NINTENDUDE⁶⁴ 02:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and trim Green Party of Canada#History. Major federal parties can have sub-articles to prevent their main article from becoming too long. The Conservative Party of Canada only has 8 years of history, where the Green Party has 28. In fact the Conservatives ~~and NDP~~ should have their histories split off before they become too long. 117Avenue (talk) 03:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Enough data here to warrant a standalone article, then improve the article with additional reliable sources. I'm adding a rescue tag to the article, as I feel that the topic is notable and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Northamerica1000 (talk) 05:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The merging of this data to Green Party of Canada#History would make the Green Party of Canada article excessively long. Northamerica1000 (talk) 05:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I added another reliable source to this article: "The Green Party sprouts." from CBC News. Northamerica1000 (talk) 21:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 20:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 20:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although I earlier supported a similar redirect proposal for the History of the Green Party of Ontario, the national party is a different case IMO. A separate article about the history of a major national party seems appropriate. Nominator correctly points out that a lot of this information is duplicated at Green Party of Canada; that history section should be trimmed to a summary, leaving the detailed history for this separate article. Full disclosure: I was invited to this discussion by User:Aaaccc. --MelanieN (talk) 20:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What appear to be the two main sources for this lengthy article are both link dead. The obvious merge candidate is already a very long page. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Poorly written (particularly the lead), poorly sourced, but obviously rescuable. Sadly much of the work to improve articles only begins with a deadline, but that's human nature for you.--~T P W 15:52, 28 September 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, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 20:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Poorly written, but that is not a reason for deletion. Satisfies wp:notability, and a good topic choice for a sub article, and there is a plenty of enclyclopedic material for such an article. North8000 (talk) 00:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and trim Green Party of Canada#History per suggestion by 117Avenue - the subject meets WP:GNG and would be too long a section in the main party article. Hence it's suitable for its own article. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 13:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough valid information to fill its own article, no need supersizing the other one, nor eliminating valid encyclopedic information for size concerns. Basic information can be there, with the more detailed information here. Does anyone sincerely doubt this is a notable topic? Dream Focus 17:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a sub-page of Green Party of Canada, established so that main article does not become unwieldy. Expanded material here emphasizes that this is not a content fork. Carrite (talk) 16:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. AfD'd within the hour of creation...tsk. WP:DANNO The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kainat Soomro[edit]

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

WP:1EVENT. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 17:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. This article was created a very short time ago so it seems to be a little newbie-bitey to bring it to AfD immediately. It also doesn't appear to violate WP:1EVENT, as there are several events involved in this topic; it's not notable for any rape event as claimed, it's notable because of the ensuing legal battle. The only issue I have with it is that it's a recent event (and WP is not a journalistic body, as per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER) though sources (such as the one cited, or this one from more than a week ago) are not in short supply. Several Times (talk) 17:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one extremely important event for human rights. The fact that English sources are in ample supply for this event in Pakistan should say enough. JORGENEV 18:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now wp:notability appears likely if not already established. Article is new. North8000 (talk) 00:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - feels premature to have put this article up for AfD, I think users should think both ones and twice before putting up recently made articles for AfD. Anyway it passes WP:1EVENT per legal battle...,--BabbaQ (talk) 06:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Give it time to develop. If the article has not been expanded one month from now, delete. - DonCalo (talk) 23:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 23:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indian footballer who played abroad[edit]

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

Note to closing admin: The article has twice been moved since this AfD was started. The article is now at List of Indian footballers who have played abroad, and there are redirects at List of Indian footballer who played abroad and Indian footballer who played abroad. If the result of the discussion is delete, please delete all three of them. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article is original research, predicated on Wikipedia editor's research indicating that these four players have "made the cut to foreign club." ScottyBerg (talk) 16:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Based on the citation that was just added to the article, [25], I'm convinced now that the article is not based on original research. However, I have strong doubts that the article in its present form is the correct way to go. I agree that a list might be better. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't quite seem like OR since quite a bit of it is legitimately sourced. That being said, it is an essay and is duplicating content seen at each player's page. Since this page hasn't been around for long perhaps a '~~Userfy'~~ would be friendlier. Several Times (talk) 17:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge any useful content (that isn't duplicated) to the article for the player in question. The article looks like it should be actually called List of Indian footballers who have played abroad. Problem is the article itself suggests that there are only 4. In my opinion that doesn't really make a list of any worth. Pit-yacker (talk) 17:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Having checked a bit further, it appears the player descriptions are cut and paste from the articles for each player (with very minimal edit) so there is no information that isn't available elsewhere. Pit-yacker (talk) 19:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. In that case, Delete. That would indicate that there isn't much worth salvaging here, even for the article creator. §everal⇒|Times 19:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based on ST's reasoning. (Without prejudice towards the creation of a properly formed list on a similar topic.) Mark Arsten (talk) 19:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think that this is a subject of note - so many football players play (or have played) outside of their country of birth that it would need to be demonstrated via citation that Indian nationals doing so was somehow culturally significant or had an impact of the footballing world. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 10:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough; the relevant category Category:Indian expatriate footballers suffices. Giant Snowman 13:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Thanks for ur comment ,i want to mention here that all the information present in the article is 100% true and in most of the cases reference was provided in the article.And above user says that article should be called List of Indian footballers who have played abroad agreed,name of article has been named as u have mentioned above.Ands it was mentioned above that most of the line are duplicated,i want to make it clear i'm the one who put those line in that article and then i go on to copy that in this article.if want to delete then go first and delete those lines present in Baichung Bhutia ,Varin Mehta page.By the way thanks for OSCAR nomination. Preetam040 (talk) 15:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see the only part of that comment which seeks to give reason for keeping is "all the information present in the article is 100% true". However, the fact that something is true is not sufficient grounds for having a Wikipedia article about it. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Main aim of wikipedia is to provide the right information to User and for that reference is required which was present in article.So i see no reason to debate on this.If we say like this that something is true is not sufficient grounds for having a Wikipedia article then nearly 90% of article or list whatever you say should be deleted.Preetam040 (talk) 17:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Patently wrongCurb Chain (talk) 11:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Why would we want to take this page down. At this moment in time it is very rare to see Indians go abroad in football. I agree that the information that was copied and pasted should not be there but we should still keep this article as a list of some sorts. Also if you think about where is the first place a new football fan would go to learn about the game. Wikipedia of course and if that fan wanted to know about Indian Football (which more fans in India are doing now a days) then this article/list would be the perfect place to go. Imagine how a fan from India in the future would feel to look at this page and see that an India was or is playing for a big club like Manchester United or Chelsea or even (as much as I hate to say it) Barcelona. They would love it. So ya this page is perfect for new fans who may want to know more about Indian footballers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 17:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid argument to keep. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this should be a category, not an article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see the point of this list. Looks like POV pushing to me.Curb Chain (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , I don't see any point for deletion,just give a look it gives a good feel.Only demerit of this List is that some points are copied,but overall the tabulation and reference provided there is something impressed me, a big 'YES' for this article........Kumarsaurav1 (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC) — Kumarsaurav1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

"It gives a good feel" and "there is something impressed me" are not reasons for keeping. You may like to read WP:ILIKEIT.

JamesBWatson (talk) 16:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I mean to say by that that it was represented in a way that u really like to study this list article & in this small list article a lot of reference is given so there is no doubt over the research made by the the creater and editor....Kumarsaurav1 (talk) 17:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC) — Kumarsaurav1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete I agree with prior comments that this could be a valid category, but as an article it appears to push a nationalist POV. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is so intresting that many wikipedian has participated in this article just think if people will see this article they will get amused.take this in positive way,by the name of article only it is known that it is important one.....Kumarsaurav1 (talk) 05:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)— Kumarsaurav1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Unfortunately "it's interesting" and "people will be amused to see such an article" are not reasons for keeping an article. Have you taken the advice above to read WP:ILIKEIT? JamesBWatson (talk) 07:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:ITSUSEFUL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per The Bushranger. Not notable enough. I agree with JamesBWatson that the only reason this article could stay is it is 100% true. But being 100% true itself does not make it notable enough to stay. — Abhishek ^Talk 09:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An essay which is verifiable doesn't automatically make it notable. I see nothing worth keeping here. Argyle 4 Life^talk 12:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above or Convert to a category or Rewrite so it's clear whether Indian means of Indian nationality, of Indian birth, of Indian ethnicity or something else again. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From a worldwide point of view, this article may not really be notable, let alone interesting. From an Indian POV, however, it is quite notable, since very few make it to notable clubs (also, due to some kind of fascination with the West, it gets highlighted). Some of the foreign clubs mentioned over there, are in fact even less notable than Indian clubs, so there is nothing worth saving in this article really. A list of just 3-4 entries is not really useful is it. Delete for now, with an option of a similar article being open for creation anytime in the future. Lynch 7 20:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Francophone male singers[edit]

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

Overcategorization. I can't see that language is an appropriate defining characteristic for a list of singers. The fact that they're male? Definitely not. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 16:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. —ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 16:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. —ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 16:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 16:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 16:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems to be a list of male singers from French-speaking regions. But even then singers routinely learn to pronounce foreign languages well enough to sing in them regardless of whether they can speak the language. Adding the sex of the singer simply kicks up the trivial intersection issue up another notch. Mangoe (talk) 19:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fairly trivial and lumps together singers from different genres and nations merely because they are male and sing in French. Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely unnecessary. Trivial. Should I make a list of anglophone singers? Useless and trivial intersection.Curb Chain (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yollies[edit]

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

WP:NEOLOGISM -- a term that gets zero relevant gnews hits (the uses of "Yollies" which appear in archives are not for this usage). All sources cited in article written by same pair of collaborators. Article writer appears to be a promo account for the think tank publishing these writers. Nat Gertler (talk) 15:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this neologism which not treated in secondary sources. It is also likely that the article is an attempt to increase usage of the term. Cnilep (talk) 01:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Europe's missing yollies will probably get deleted as well so no need to redirect. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dating and marriage at Brigham Young University[edit]

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

This is an essay with highly dubious sourcing. None of the independent reliable sources used mention Brigham Young University in any way. Sources that do mention Brigham are either not independent or not reliable by any standard (for example, the title of a facebook group). I do not believe dating and marriage at this university is a notable article subject and most of the material seems to be wp:synthesis based on statistical data Yoenit (talk) 15:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or maybe redirect. It's basically redundant to the content at Student life at Brigham Young University#Culture, and I'm a bit skeptical that independent sources have really given this significant coverage, persay. Not that there isn't some research out there on this: [26][27]. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Wow, it is not just redundant, it is a direct copy of that section. If the article is kept in some form the attribution will need to be fixed. Redirecting it back is fine with me. Yoenit (talk) 07:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If the only sources available are BYU publications, the relationship culture there hasn't received enough coverage to be notable in a general encyclopedia (as opposed to a hypothetical BYU Wiki, if one exists). Sourcing is also an issue, as nom points out. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Chadwick article showing in the footnotes is scholarly. Even if not fully independent, it should be regarded as close enough for our purposes, it is not a self-serving commercial assertion from a company website, which is the intent of the "independent" requirement. The piece here feels like an original essay, however. Close call. Carrite (talk) 16:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's THE PDF of the Chadwick et al. article, by the way... Carrite (talk) 16:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- The problem isn't that it's promotional in some way, but rather that publications devoted specifically to events on their college campus can't generally attest worldwide notability. Ie. a school newspaper might often discuss a particular a cappella group, which nonetheless is probably completely unknown outside the campus. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In my estimation this is a notable topic, the same as Dating and marriage at Bob Jones University would probably be. Carrite (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Mark Arsten already gives evidence of significant coverage of this topic in not one, but two books: Davis et al., Contemporary Marriage and Schuman, Seeing the Light. This article needs work, but the topic is pretty clearly encyclopedia-worthy. Carrite (talk) 16:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dunno, these two seem rather trivial. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks more like "substantial" coverage to me. Carrite (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I tend to think that those two are not enough coverage for a stand-alone article, but enough to justify a section in a related article. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wouldn't consider Dating and marriage at Bob Jones University to be notable either. To me, this article has the vague feel of a hit piece. --Yaush (talk) 16:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that could be sourced out, no doubt about it. Carrite (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Xendpay[edit]

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

I placed a prod template on this for lack of independent sourcing - the article author has removed that template and not added any sources, so here we are at AFD. The only sources in the article are to the company's own site, to a press release about a sports team they are sponsoring, or don't actually pention Xendpay. I've searched and I cannot find additional sourcing. MrOllie (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Advertisement for a foreign currency exchange and international money transfer service, allowing people to transfer money around the world over the internet. Pseudo-referenced to various web links; one is from its parent company, but even that website does not name this business by name. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant advertising and self-publicity. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't seem to find any secondary sources. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any notable news coverage or notable third-party sources, the article looks too much like an advertisement than an encyclopedia article. SwisterTwister talk 20:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was consensus chose the freedom to delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom through choice[edit]

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

A strange article – bits of it are referenced to reliable sources, but it is basically just an opinion piece/personal essay. This is a violation of policy: WP:NOTESSAY. The interesting thing is that the term is used in scholarly sources, but I can find no actual significant coverage of the term, which is what's required by the general notability guideline. Happy to be proven wrong, but at the moment it is a violation of policy and shows no evidence of being notable. Jenks24 (talk) 14:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an essay, plain and simple. Earlier revisions included a paragraph where the author asked others to ponder the topic together on the talk page. What is notable about this subject is already covered in a more descriptive rather than exploratory manner in articles such as free will. Give that this is the user's sole contribution to date it'd be good for someone (AfD is usually watched by plenty of people good at welcoming newcomers) who could guide the user onto less exploratory editing of content. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Chris and Jenks. It's just too weird—a stream of consciousness in places. The editor(s) who've contributed could be steered into helping on related articles as a way of inducting them into editorial practice on WP.

Tony (talk)

14:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this opinion piece. It has no place here. Or redirect to choice, free will, or Free to Choose. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very interesting, but falls afoul of WP:NOTESSAY. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, despite the occasional ember of interest. -- Hoary (talk) 22:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus - normally WP:HAMMER and WP:CRYSTAL would apply, but it appears the game is beyond the design stage. The article is still under construction, so userfication is also appropriate and does not required AfD. Bearian (talk) 16:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cross of the Dutchman[edit]

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

Game that has only been announced (since 2009, release predicted for Q2 2012 at the moment), but hasn't been released and hasn't received significant attention in reliable, independent sources, so fails our notability guideline. Searching for the game, but excluding their own site, only returns 85 distinct Google hits[28], many of those from Wikipedia, flickr, alexa, or the game studio itself. No Google News (archive) hits. Fram (talk) 14:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The game was first announced in November 2009 and under another name: Pier the Great. It received signficant attention back then, and was featured on the cover of a major gaming magazine and on local and national television networks. Then, there was no news for two years and the Studio worked on other (Nintendo DS) games. A month or so ago, a site was launched and the game was officially announced online. It has since received significant attention once again, and the site has been well-viewed and visited by hundreds of people a day, on average. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 14:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Even less results with that name[29]. By the way, shouldn't the game be named "Cross of the Dutchmen" instead? Fram (talk) 14:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There are many results when you search for "Grutte Pier game" or "Pier Gerlofs Donia game". Furthermore I believe the title to be correctly spelled with an a, rather then an e. It literally means as much as: "terror of the Dutch man". Mythic Writerlord (talk) 14:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please indicate which sources can be used to show that this game passes WP:N. Note that repeats of a press release don't count. Fram (talk) 14:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - There have been two different posts on the web's leading pirate(game) website and there was an entry on Blues News. A major gaming magazine featured the game on it's front page back in 2009 when it still went by the name of Pier the Great and was not named CotD yet. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 14:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - PS: The fact that French and Dutch sites also picked up on the news and wrote about the game in their own language also clearly indicates that these are not merely "copies" from the official release announcement and of the game's notability. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 15:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep At this point, it's nothing but a product announcement - there's barely any mention of the game itself that is not part of the company's own site, apart from a copy of the product announcement itself on several news sites. Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. --The Fifth Horseman (talk) 14:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article creator has proven sufficient coverage to satisfy verifiability and likely also notability. --The Fifth Horseman (talk) 19:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Many websites both in English aswell as in Dutch and French have picked up on the release announcement and the official site is well visited and has build up a community of interested people in less then one week, indicating the notability of the game. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Popularity is not an indication of notability. --MASEM (t) 15:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then maybe the fact that this is the largest Dutch game ever to be produced and the only game ever to be produced for which two full years of historical research were required even before making the actual game was taking place? That is, as far as I know, a new gaming record. Also, never before a game was created in which medieval western Europe was entirely recreated, and recreated in such vast detail and as realistically as in this game, CotD. For that reason alone, this game is highly notable and has gained significant interest already. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - All of that may be correct, but you need a reliable source to confirm that for the article. Otherwise, all you have is your own synthesis/original research on the subject.--The Fifth Horseman (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you post either links to reliable, independent sources giving significant attention to this game (in whatever incarnation), or references for off-line sources like the games magazine? So far, we only have your word for all this and can't verify it. This one you mentioned is hardly "significant coverage" or a reliable source, and this blog you mentioned, while a bit more extensive, isn't a reliable source either. When looking for sources in Dutch, the only one that appears is a gamers forum[30], nothing that satisfies our guidelines. Fram (talk) 17:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You conveniently forgot the French source, by the way. And I believe there also was one in Russian that I found searching the name of the game's main character at the most recent results of this month. Not all sources are online though, as two local newspapers and a gaming magazine also mentioned the game. It definetely is notable enough for a game. And so is Triangle Studios, the Netherlands leading game developer when it comes to Nintendo DS games. As user Masen, above, already pointed out, popularity alone is not an indication of notability... the very scale of this game, however, clearly is. In some ways it even is record-breaking. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 17:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Assume good faith, please. Chances are he didn't know about the "French source" you refer to. Also, he's quite right that at this point all we have is your say-so. Provide the references and you'll pretty much have your case made. --The Fifth Horseman (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:SPAM. - DonCalo (talk) 18:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Tell me why this is spam? By all means, DonCalo, enlighten me! It is not at all unusual for articles to be created about games before they are officially released. Take a look at The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, to name one prominent example of this. The game is not expected to be released untill November 2011 yet the article was created as early as 2010. CotD is well-sourced and definetely notable in more then just one way. It may not be as well known as some other games-in-progress but it definetely is a big project, whether or not many people have heard of it or not, it still is a notable project in many ways. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 19:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - As it currently stands, given the lack of reliable sources and references and the slightly biased tone it is written in (you are obviously enthusiastic about the game) it can be construed as bordering on WP:PROMOTION. As you may recall, putting a CSD-G11 tag was exactly the first thing I did after noticing and reading it: [31] . Far as Skyrim goes, that game has received significant media coverage as evidenced by the article's references section. --The Fifth Horseman (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - As for the slightly biased tone in which the page is written, I already put a npov-tag on it myself so that someone with a more neutral viewpoint might help me with that. I also asked a request for comment on the article, for the same reason. I knew (and know) the article is a far cry from perfect, but I've spend too much time on looking all these things up to see it deleted like this. At least now people are looking into it, and because of this AfD, it get's at least some attention which hopefully will improve the page. I cannot do it alone. ;)
    - The other game indeed got significant media coverage, because it is part of a much bigger franchise and has a much bigger following then CotD has. Still, the idea of a game focused around this particular historical figure has excisted for quite a while and has already received more then significant media coverage in 2009 when it was first released under the name of "Pier the Great". Then there was a period of two years in which there wasn't much news, and now a new game, CotD, has recently been announced for release in mid-2012. Evidence that this game has received significant coverage can be seen in the fact that it was on the television news (local & national) and that it was on the cover of a gaming magazine. The release some two weeks ago was picked up on Dutch, English, French and Frisian websites. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 06:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yesterday this was created... an unknown manga made into a video game to be released in 2012... has not received quite as much attention as CotD has, yet has not been nominated for deletion... Mythic Writerlord (talk) 07:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Frankly, you would do better to provide the sources necessary for this article, instead of repeating your vague assertions time and again, looking for other articles which may be worse, or running to Jimbo to complain. For starters, you have mentioned appearing on the cover of a gaming magazine multiple times now: perhaps you can just once actually give us the name of the magazine, and the date or issue number? If you want us to change our opinion, or if you want anyone else coming here to agree that this should be kept, then you will have to provide actual and good sources, not vague references to French or Russian ones. Fram (talk) 07:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Some sources:
1
2
3
4
5
6 - on de Volkskrant, one of the Netherlands largest newspapers to date
7
8
9 (also mentions the budget at the time for that year: $300.000,-)
10 (on the Dutch gaming industry)
11
12
[32] (about Triangle Studios opening a studio in Dallas, USA)
13
14
- These are just some sources. There is much, much more where that came from. The gaming magazine that featured the game on it's cover is called profyl, I believe. There is a link somewhere. ;) Mythic Writerlord (talk) 08:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, finally. Three groups of sources there: gaming sites, local/regional news sites, and De Volkskrant, the only really good source in my opinion. At least we are getting somewhere, but it isn't enough as far as I am concerned, certainly taking into account that these were sources about the first incarnation of the game, with the different name and a release date already in the past (as you indicate yourself above, "Then there was a period of two years in which there wasn't much news, and now a new game, CotD, has recently been announced for release in mid-2012."). The new press release, change of name, new release date, new platforms it is intended for, all seem to have failed to grab the attention of the reliable sources, and if I'm not mistaken all the sources you provided are from 2009? Fram (talk) 08:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not all sources are from 2009, some are though. In the meantime the release date (first set at 2011) has been moved one year forward to 2012. For the rest of it, besides the title, not much has happened. The new announcement was only done to raise awareness for the site, blog and now thriving gaming community of CotD on which articles about the game's progress are written just about every other day.

As I've said, this is just a list of sources that can easily be found searching for either "Grutte Pier game", "Pier the Great", "Triangle Studios", "Grutte Pier spel" (Dutch) and many other possible search words. There is much more where this came from, I could give you another ten sources with ease.

The game did not "fail to grab the attention of reliable sources", also. De Volkskrant would be a relaible source, and so would the Leeuwarder Courant. Other sources are less reliable but nonetheless well-known and visited. How about FOK!, one of the Netherlands leading online communities (if not the largest)? This community quickly picked up on the Volkskrant article and over 200 comments where made. Please do not forget, not all sources are online, not all newspapers and magazines are online; there are also offline sources, quite a few of them.

I hope all this makes clear the Grutte Pier game is in many ways notable and has, in fact, received significant attention since 2009, throughout 2010 and also now, in 2011 (especially the last two months or so since the official site and forums where launched). Mythic Writerlord (talk) 08:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Online communities like fok! don't count as reliable sources. A flurry of news reports after an initial press release, and then nothing from the reliable sources. They seem to be taking a "wait-and-see" approach for the moment, and that seems to me to be a wise course. Fram (talk) 08:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another reliable source: here. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 15:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a reliable source. From their "about" page: "All of our user’s articles are posted to the website,[...]". If it was included in the printed version of the magazine, things would be different, but appearing on that website is not an example of coverage in a reliable source. Fram (talk) 09:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lack of reliable, third party references. - Weak Keep - Looks like a bunch more sources were added. I no longer have a problem with it. (Though still not the best either.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there's enough references that discuss this game for it to be considered notable and I have little doubt it will receive a number of reviews upon release. Silverseren^C 23:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ...if it ever gets released. Many games are announced and never released, this one has already been postponed for a year. WP:CRYSTAL applies here. Fram (talk) 12:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are plenty of games that are notable even if they are never released and sometimes because they aren't released. Duke Nukem Forever isn't as good of an example now that it has been released, but it still applies. This game has gotten a rather significant amount of coverage even though it has yet to be released and I believe that coverage trumps any WP:CRYSTAL concerns. Silverseren^C 16:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, WP:CRYSTAL applies to your argument that "I have little doubt it will receive a number of reviews upon release." That doesn't mean that the subject can't be notable already, but your additional argument was a WP:CRYSTAL violation. Fram (talk) 07:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userify for creation once the thing ships and there are some real third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Antagrade Electrical[edit]

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

Disputed speedy CSD:A7, disputed prod. This article makes no assertion of the notability of the organization, and it does not meet the guidelines of WP:CORP. As a sniff test, it gets exactly zero hits on Google Books, for example. Wtshymanski (talk) 13:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Article is about a company that do electrical engineering. (They does, do they?) It well founded in 1983 by electrical engineers. (I should hope so.) Google News, Books, and Scholar know them not. Top general searches are this page, their Facebook, and their internal site. No showing of significant effects on history, technology, or culture that would make this business an encyclopedia subject. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Also it has zero references, and thus no indication of wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 14:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - DonCalo (talk) 18:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator. No real reason was given for removal of the speedy or prod tags. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google turns up some hits, but really just business directory listings. Just another unnotable company putting its "about" page on WP. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whiskers (band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

PROD declined procedurally due to previous AfD. The article is almost identical to the last revision before the previous AfD and thus this could really have G4. Zero reliable sources with which to establish notability, particularly any evidence that the band or works pass WP:MUSIC. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero references = no indication of wp:notability, article is almost 2 years old. Doesn't even have claims in text that indicate likely wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 14:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references to back up their possible claim to notability (UK and worldwide tour - WP:BAND/4) ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 15:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Q (Star Trek). I didn't know the guy was in a band. But really, there's nothing here to verify notability and I can't find the merest hint of independent coverage of any of their albums. §everal⇒|Times 20:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm unable to find coverage for this group in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 21:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 8)#Sophie Habibis. Exercising a bit of discretion here, seems like what I have put down is a more specific target. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Habibis[edit]

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

Contestant from The X Factor (UK series 8) who is not notable at the present time, having not even qualified for the live finals yet. ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing apart from passing mentions in routine news stories. Moswento (talk | contribs) 12:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or maybe redirect to The X Factor (UK series 8). Definitely redirect to the list of the finalists if she becomes one. But she's not notable at the moment. –anemone projectors– 13:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She is in the final 16, of which is notable in itself. How is one to dictate how notable she is, there is widespread publicity of this aspiring singer, all information supplied is fact and referenced. 'User:benford89' 14:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect to The X Factor (UK series 8) In reply to above, we're judging notability by comparison against general notability guidelines, which the subject does not appear to meet. If there is widespread publicity then please demonstrate it. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 15:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a fansite. - DonCalo (talk) 18:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ I would like to further note that there is plenty of notability. All one has to do is search said subject into google and a list of relevant pages, from national newspapers, youtube, on-line blogs and the X Factor website. I believe this does meet the criteria, maybe you all have not watched or care for the programme so will not have heard her or noted the impact she is about to have on the music scene. 'User:benford89' 22:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot vote twice. - DonCalo (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The X Factor (UK series 8). Habibis has done nothing notable per WP:MUSICBIO, and is not notable outside X-Factor S8. matt (talk) 12:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support this suggestion and have changed my comment accordingly. No prejudice to recreation if subject comes to meet WP:MUSICBIO/WP:GNG. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your above comment, I beleive she has met section 9 of WP:MUSICBIO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.160.171 (talk) 10:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What??? Section 9 states "Has won or placed in a major music competition". This individual has done neither. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 15:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 23:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 15:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. She had made the final 32 X Factor contestants which is significant in itself, is tipped to make the final 16 because of her 'flawless performance' at Judges House, and consistently favourable remarks from Kelly Rowland and other judges. Her existing public profile make a Wikipedia entry appropriate. This will be further justified if she makes the final 16. Having the foresight to keep the entry will maintain Wikipedia's reputation for being ahead of the game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.229.40 (talk • contribs)

You just gave the perfect reason to delete this entry. Wikipedia is not about who might become notable, but about what already is notable. - DonCalo (talk) 19:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly not notable - fails every aspect of both the general notability guideline and the guideline for singers. No prejudice to recreation should she win the competition, but getting through to last 32 or 16 of The X Factor is most definitely not 'placed'. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the series. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've add the AfD header back into the article Stuartyeates (talk) 07:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gamotica[edit]

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

I could not find any reliable source covering this event. It is promotion of a brand new event. Delete per WP:GNG. Contested WP:PROD. Odie5533 (talk) 12:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I couldn't find any coverage either. Moswento (talk | contribs) 12:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:SPAM. - DonCalo (talk) 19:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't seem to find any secondary source to support the content of the article. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It appears to be a genuine article and a pretty large event. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 07:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak about how genuine an unsourced article is, but you said it was a pretty large event. Do you have a reliable source citation that shows that it is a large event? --Odie5533 (talk) 12:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete. Meets CSD criterion A7 for organizations. causa sui (talk) 21:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FLEXTERA[edit]

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

no indication of notability - speedy deleted several times already as purely promotional. Google searches produce no significant secondary sources. noq (talk) 12:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of wp:notability North8000 (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Article is about a SOA-based suite of over 70 off-the-shelf Java financial applications for automation of retail, corporate and universal banking, treasury and capital market operations, and insurance business. Solution-speak advertisement for a back office software suite. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Incomprehensible and WP:SPAM. - DonCalo (talk) 19:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable 3rd party refs to establish notability; created by an SPA so probable spam. Dialectric (talk) 21:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Move to History of horse domestication theories and expand. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Four Foundations theory[edit]

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

The theory appears to be non-notable, if not entirely non-existent. A google books search for "four foundations theory" gets exactly one hit, to a "book" which is actually a compilation of articles from ... Wikipedia. "four+foundations+theory" Worldcat, 0 hits; JSTOR, 0 results; Google scholar, 0 results. Searching the principal source cited in the article, Bennett's Conquerors, for the string "four foundations" in Google books gives no result (which may of course be due to shortcomings in Google). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ The portion of Bennett's book which is cited can be read through Google Books. It does not seek to establish any such theory; indeed, the number of subspecies Bennett talks about varies through the passage. I find it hard to justify keeping the article in the absence of a scholarly source that presents this theory under this name. Mangoe (talk) 12:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on subsequent discussion I'm inclined to go along with the renaming proposals. Mangoe (talk) 16:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - while not named as such, it's covered in such books as The Horse by Julie Whitaker (published 2007, isbn 978-0-312-37108-1 p. 20), Horses and Horsemanship by Ensminger (1990, isbn 0-8134-2883-1 pp. 4-6) (note that this is a agricultural science textbook, so it was taught in schools), A Natural Approach to Horse Management by Susan McBane (1992, 0-415-62370-X, pp. 10-12), The Worlds Finest Horses and Ponies by Richard Glyn (1971, isbn 0-245-59267-9, pp. 13-16). That's just from a quick pull from my bookshelves. I'm not opposed to a rename, if a more suitable name can be found, but the fact that books published in 2007 are still peddling this now-discredited theory, certainly makes it notable. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's a theory without a name, wouldn't a short section in horse do? Mangoe (talk) 13:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- the name is not a good one, but this is a topic with historical value considering history of horse research. It's a major theory, if obsolete, and should be covered. Pitke (talk) 14:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Material looks encyclopedic and sourced. North8000 (talk) 14:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. If the hypothesis is out there, but the name is bad, merger to domestication of the horse seems appropriate. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion or merge, possible renaming: The Domestication article already covers this in a summary fashion, to add all of it there would put undue weight on this older theory when that article is already long and has extensive discussion of current science. The term "Four Foundations Theory" is out there, but it is not necessarily an "official" name -- not sure if there IS a name. The question, of course, would be finding a new name, but that's doable. Montanabw^(talk) 16:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Two responses: first, if the term is "out there", it is reasonable to expect a citation to that effect. Second, I'm opposed to spending a lot of space on a theory which is now found to be incorrect. If it is undue in domestication, it's undue anywhere. Mangoe (talk) 17:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your theory would mean that we would need to remove wiki articles on, say phrenology or Geocentric model. We need to explain some of these older concepts, particularly when they still have echoes in the modern age. As stated previously, I'm OK with a rename, but I'm just not sure if there is an "official" name for the four/seven/multiple origins hypothesis that this article discusses. For amusement value, but also to bring home my point, here is a 1913 article that argues BOTH that the Przewalski is the ancestor of the modern domestic horse (it isn't) AND that there were two body types, the "Forest horse" and the oriental type. Montanabw^(talk) 17:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'~~Keep~~'Rename to more inclusive and neutral title and expand to reflect history of domestication origin debate. The four foundations 'theory' once was a valid hypothesis about the origin of the various horse breeds. It has been found incorrect later when DNA studies became available. The information is far to much for the domestication article, where the current coverage there is already more than what I would give it. Based on that it has been discussed in the scientific literature, and has gained some prominence for a while, it seems right to keep an article about it. The problem seems to be more with the name, specifically because there does not seem to be a name proposed for the idea. And as Montanabw indicated, there are a lot of variants of this idea with two three etc number of founders...-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Updated with proposal below. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: I have no idea what an ideal title would be, but would "multiple origins hypothesis" work? Just throwing it out there. There were also a couple of single origin hypotheses out there, arguing either the Tarpan of the Przewalski as the predecessor of the domestic horse, and yet another that argued that the subtypes were acutally separate species. This article, with yet some other title, could also discuss those a bit more. Montanabw^(talk) 18:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge I have never been very convinced of the prominence that has been accorded this concept in the wiki equine pages. As noted already in the comments above, it doesn't have a standard name, which brings up the problem of WP:synth if an arbitrary name is given it by wikipedia. It was noted on the Evolution of the horse talk page, it was a very short lived (almost) hypothesis, which was very quickly shot down by molecular research. It never made it to the level of theory, and is only covered in a few non peer-reviewed books.--Kev min § 20:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the material you have been concerned about in various articles I think has been replaced with more updated material that has become available. For those who care, the primary source for the article is pages 4-7 of this work. The problem that this article originally was designed to explore, and one that is a gap in other articles as well, is the development of breeds and distinct phenotypes. If you go out to various breed registries, many STILL insist that their breed was descended from the "pure" wild horse that was first tamed (therefore their breed is better). We keep revisiting the "wild horse" issue on WP over and over again when folks with romanticized beliefs about their favorite breed make unsustainable claims of great antiquity. So whatever comes out of this discussion, that's the underlying concern from my end. Montanabw^(talk) 22:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As already pointed out in several places, including higher up this page by both myself and another editor, that source does not mention the theory at all, and as such can hardly be considered a reliable source for it. The use of it as a reference in the article is in my opinion questionable. Apropos, does the other source cited in the article, Gladys Brown Edwards The Arabian: War Horse to Show Horse, specifically mention the Four Foundations theory? On which page? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are ignoring several RS's presented. You seem focused on not liking the title, so argue for a rename. Expanding that to an argument for a deletion on that basis is a real stretch.PumpkinSky talk 02:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The idea in the article has been very well established, it was never formally named much. Not naming things explicitly is a normal thing for ideas that are generally accepted (as it was for a long time). -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge Probably best explained somewhere among the up to date theories.RafikiSykes (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Questions: for Ealdgyth: thanks for posting some references, I envy anyone who has a real library; but unless in those references the Four Foundations theory is discussed under that name, how are they relevant here? For Kim van der Linde: if it was once a valid theory, it should be easy to find academic sources that discuss it; since I have signally failed to do so (perhaps because I am not a very good researcher, or don't have access to the right databases) can you point us to some? Thanks to both (and indeed to all who have responded). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think there are two issues. The current article is far to single-minded focused on a single book with a somewhat more than before worked out scenario of the 'Multiple Origins Hypothesis' (MO). This theory was carried to rest first in this article and all subsequent follow-up articles. As for older articles supportive of MO, I have no idea, never really looked for those articles, but they do go back many many decades, which are less easy to find online. The second is the name, and the more neutral 'Multiple Origins Hypothesis' should do. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
that Science article calls the theory (or theories) "mutliple origins scenario" or "multiple origins hypothesis", which is fine as a name, as far as I'm concerned. Another RS - Equine Genetics & Selection Procedures by Equine Research Publications published in 1978. This is another text-book type work. Discusses "four ancestral types" on pages 17-21. The name may or may not be a perfect fit for the article, but the fact that there was once a widely considered theory of multiple origins for domestic horses is definitely true. The fact that it is now discredited doesn't negate the fact that at one time variations on the multiple origins theory held the field. Another reference - The Horse (second edition) by Evans, Borton, Hintz, and Van Vleck (1990, isbn 0-7167-1811-1) pp. 5-6 where they reference Horses by George Simpson (1951, Oxford University Press) as sharing the idea. As a side note, I don't watchlist AfDs, so if you have a question for me, you need to ping me on my talk page. I also have the Vila paper that Kim van der Linde mentioned above. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Even if people call it different names, this is a historically significant theory that is still being discussed. Deleting this is sheer deletionism run amok. Redirs from each major name option should be made to the parent article (this one or an agreed upon rename). I would also support a section on this in Domestication of the horse with a subarticle link to this article. PumpkinSky talk 23:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Other info, My point, again, is not to promote the theory as current, but to defend keeping a separate article that explains what was once a widely held view and one that several breeds have a vested interest in continuing to promote in order to make their breed sound more "special." To illustrate this, I did a search just on "Tarpan" in Hendricks and pulled 20 hits, most of which were claiming various wild horse antiquity theories for various breeds. (Hendricks' weakness is that she pulls from breed propaganda without a lot of critical review) Another source, dubious but completely independent of wiki and with a decent critique of the theory, and at least sourced, though not particularly well, is at a spam-blocked URL associatedcontent (dot) com, and it comes up if you add /article/7837506/the_four_foundations_theory_of_horse_pg3.html?cat=53 The same author (Rena Sherwood) has a similar article in helium (dot) com at /items/1879457-four-foundations-horse helium.com], which I freely admit is not an RS for wiki, but as far as evidence the concept is "out there" and not a WP:SYNTH or WP:OR figment of the imagination, this will help. Montanabw^(talk) 23:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how "what was once a widely held view" could have gone so very thoroughly off the radar that the only source for it is an essay on a collaborative website. If a theory is notable, like, say, Phlogiston, it leaves a documentary record which persists after it is discredited and largely forgotten. And what is the relevance of the Tarpan here? That is not a theory, it is a documented fact; I believe there are photographs of it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a notable (though now discredited) theory on equine evolution/domestication. Besides the references that Ealdgyth and Montanabw provide above, discussions of this can be found in The Encyclopedia of the Horse (Edwards, 1994, pp. 22-23) and The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Horse Breeds (McBane, 1997, pp. 8-9). These two I found in just a quick look at my bookshelf, without even doing an in-depth search or checking out the local library. The references provided show that this theory has been discussed in everything from popular literature to textbooks. Both of these books call it the "Four basic types", but I doubt this would make a good article name. The information in this article would be undue weight if merged to another article - a discredited theory does not deserve this much discussion in either Horse or Domestication of the horse. However, it is a notable theory that deserves to have its own article, as has been shown by the many sources provided here. This theory did go through several variants (as is shown partly by the difficulty of deciding on a name for it), and the discussion of these variants will make a long (and well-sourced) enough article that it should be split out on its own. Dana boomer (talk) 00:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts[edit]

After thinking a bit more about this, I think we maybe can find a more constructive solution here. What we know is that the single origin/multiple origin has been a debate for many many years, and the end conclusion was that both ideas were true (stallions single origin, mares multiple origins), albeit without the explicit link between appearance and breed types. This debate has been discussed in length in many many papers, and it was only solved in this century after DNA sequencing became very wide spread. It has been named many things, one alternative example is monophyly versus polyphyly. I think the best solution would be have an article detailing this debate, and have summary statements in the relevant articles. As a name, we can think of something like "Single versus multiple origins debate in horse domestication". That would be a more inclusive article and provide much more information about the topic than the current rather narrow article. Any thoughts? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like this approach. I think it would make sense to come up with a good article name, move this article to that new name, and then build upon it to make it more comprehensive. We also could just start plinking away at improvements in the existing article while we work on a name. (I also have Vila, I think) Montanabw^(talk) 20:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also like this approach. Because of the various multiples of the multiple origins theory (was it three? four? seven? twenty-eleven?) "four foundations" is too narrow. I personally find "Single versus multiple origins debate in horse domestication" very clunky, but so far haven't been able to think of anything else that describes what we're looking for... I'm willing to help on the new article, although I think my "help" might be more along the lines of copyediting, formatting and cheerleading, since you guys have better libraries than me on this subject. Dana boomer (talk) 00:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about "History of horse domestication theories"? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the right direction except that it isn't really quite domestication; it's more like origin of body types or breeds. Maybe "Domesticated horse origins hypotheses"? Still real clunky, but puts the subject first. Montanabw^(talk) 17:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another try. History of horse domestication theories. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination. Kim has given us evidence that a theory something like this one, albeit with another name, was refuted in academic publications. If I understand correctly, that is taken as sufficient evidence of notability for a fringe theory here, so I believe I should withdraw my deletion nomination. I would be happy to defer to the scholarship of Kim and Ealdgyth, and see the article renamed and rewritten instead. History of horse domestication theories seems to me as good a title as any, and definitely better than the previous suggestions. A question: as it stands, the article contains some discussion of hypothetical body types, and some of hypothetical species (Equus agilis) and subspecies (Equus ferus silvaticus); would/ should the latter be included under "domestication theories"? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Treadaway[edit]

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

Possible hoax, as IMDb link provided is a dead link and no Sean Treadaway exists on their site. Even if it isn't a hoax, no significant roles or coverage in independent reliable sources. The-Pope (talk) 11:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - strong likelihood that this is a hoax. It resembles an IMDB entry - yet there is no IMDB entry. It lists him as the TV Fashion Reporter in Sweet Home Alabama - but that was apparently someone called Kena Allen. It looks like someone of this name, from Georgia, with the same birth year does exist, so I think this is a case of a hoax that has lasted far too long? (I am of course willing to be corrected) Moswento (talk | contribs) 12:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good Catch. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. DonCalo (talk) 19:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.85.167 (talk) 10:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC) — 124.171.85.167 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - Let sleepeng dogs lie 219.90.159.94 (talk) 01:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC) — 219.90.159.94 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Speedy Delete as WP:HOAX. The many asserted roles either belong to some other actor or do not exist at all. In Selma, Lord, Selma there is no specific role of "Selma Deputy Sheriff", and the deputy roles that are listed, belong to other actors.[33] In Remember the Titans, there is no specific role of "Sports Commentator/P.A. Announcer", and the listed roles of Reporter or Commentator belong to other actors.[34] In Boycott (film), there is no specific role of "Montgomery Police Officer", and the listed roles of Policeman belong to other actors.[35] In Sweet Home Alabama, there is no specific role of "TV Fashion Reporter", and the listed roles of Reporter belong to other actors.[36] And lastly, in Bobby Jones: Stroke of Genius, there is no specific role of "Bobby Jones Caddy at '30 US Open", and the listed role of Bobby Jones' Caddy or any Caddy belong to another actors.[37] A web search finds that this 6-year-old Wikipedia article has allowed this person to insinuate himself into a number of non-RS as if actually attached to these projects... but none are verifiable in anything even approaching RS. He should have limited his imaginary career to those non-RS, as it does not cut it here. And on a sidenote... even if his roles were verifiable (and they are not), they are so minor that he would have failed WP:ENT and lack of any coverage fails WP:GNG. As hoaxes go, this one is not even believable. Kudos to the nominator for catching a long-standing hoax. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The IMDB page didn't mention any major roles - 4 of the 6 were uncredited, and none of the characters were named. Also the page has been removed - maybe their information was incorrect. Other names have been added or removed, often in the "uncredited" section, and some of the actors' pages still exist with no appearances listed. No other sources can be found so the article is now unverifiable, but if this was a hoax it was also a hoax on IMDB. An article on Wikipedia had been deleted before, so I don't know where this information appeared first, however it seems to have been added to IMDB from a list as the page before is Brad Treadaway (not mentioned in Wikipedia) and the one after is Lyn Treadgold. Peter E. James (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Page is gone now. Current IMDB search for him finds "Page not found" and on that page seems to be sugestive of someone trying to get him back on IMDB by referring to the Wikipedia article. Online searches for this individual find him in numerous non-RS databases, assumedly supported by the IMDB and Wikipedia hoax. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Book Club (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND 1-6 and 8-12. No evidence provided that the band meets point 7 either. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 10:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 10:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Band doesn't appear to meet notability criteria, although I did enjoy the sentence: "Despite half the band departing, Pat Conwill and Tom Colclough were swiftly drafted in as permanent replacements and were also both cousins of drummer Anthony Allen." Moswento (talk | contribs) 12:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Haven't been able to locate any references supporting notability according to WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Only hits are self-published or about people reading books in Sheffield. Favonian (talk) 09:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete History looks well written, but with not any chart hits, it doesn't have evidence of notability. May I also suggest that these articles Joe Carnall & The Book Club, The Book Club, The Fantastical Adventures Of Mr. K and Death in the Afternoon are worth nominating for deletion as well? Perhaps per CSD A9 once the band page get deleted. Minima © (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global Poverty Project[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:ORG. Submitted on behalf of User:Domenico.y per this. JFHJr (㊟) 06:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I promise I'm not in cahoots with the nominator in any way. I do agree with the nomination: not notable. JFHJr (㊟) 06:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - organisation of non-note - per WP:NN and WP:BLP. Domenico.y (talk) 02:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y[reply]

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia Witthoft[edit]

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

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which evidence the existence, or lack of existence of this guitarist. Apparently there is a question on that point, e.g., [38], not that that's a particularly reliable set of data either. No evidence of notability under GNG nor MUSICBIO. Additiona sources welcome, as always. joe decker ^{talk to me} 06:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If this is a hoax, perhaps it is a notable hoax. Someone created the music and videos credited to Cynthia Witthoft on YouTube. http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynthia_Witthoft and http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynthia_Witthoft have both been deleted. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are unreliable. All her singles and albums haven't hit any charts. If there was a Polish Zombies article, I would've redirected it instead. Minima © (talk) 06:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - either non-notable musician or non-notable hoax. Existence =/= notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:SPAM. - DonCalo (talk) 19:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I almost tagged it A7 when I first saw it, but I noticed the AfD here. Not even an attempt to show notability, and no references. Therefore, delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Not a hoax, but not notable. Only sources are YouTube and social networking sites. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

World Victory Road Presents: Sengoku 4[edit]

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

also nominating:

World Victory Road Presents: Sengoku 2
World Victory Road Presents: Sengoku 3
World Victory Road Presents: Sengoku 1

all fail WP:SPORTSEVENT. routine non notable sporting results. LibStar (talk) 05:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sengoku was one of the biggest orgs in the world and these events feature very notable fighters and world title fights. WölffReik (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to the articles there were no world title fights at any of these events. Also, the issue isn't about the organization or the fighters, it's about whether the event is notable. Papaursa (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick Google search finds [39][40][41] and [42] for Sengoku 4 and more may be found in Japanese press. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These articles are merely sports reports and comments about an upcoming event. Not sure if that really meets WP:EVENT. It certainly doesn't show the first 3 events were notable. Papaursa (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not finding anything but routine sports coverage and I don't see anything of historical significance. Astudent0 (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all The quality of fighters in these events and the reputation of the promoting organization exceeds that of similar AfDs for which there is a clear 'delete' consensus. I am concerned that deleting these articles would set a precedent that could then be used to wipe out large numbers of MMA event pages. I would much rather see people nominate bottom-tier organizations and events for deletion, as I have recently done, than rush to delete events like these that the MMA WikiProject has identified as being associated with top-tier promotions. Lots of notable fighters who are currently competing in the UFC were recruited by the promotion after successful stints with the Sengoku promotion. That, it seems, is the historical significance of these events. Even if no titles were contested in these particular events, the competitors included multiple Olympic medalists and past/future UFC title holders. These aren't backyard bum fights we're talking about here. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 21:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not advocating the deletion of the organization or questioning that there were notable fighters, but what is the enduring historical significance of, for example, Sengoku 3? I think to claim every MMA card, even from the UFC, is historically significant is incorrect. I do agree that there are a lot of low level MMA organizations and events that are more worthy of removal. Papaursa (talk) 22:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of the day, sporting events are rarely ever historically significant. Sports exist for the entertainment of the fans and the satisfaction of the competitors. If we're being honest, even the Superbowl is of little historical significance (how can something really be truly significant if it happens every year like clockwork). One could easily take a strict interpretation of the notability guidelines and advocate for deleting the majority of mixed martial arts event pages. I'm sure Libstar would be happy to nominate every one of them - it isn't hard to envision him tagging several hundred articles in a single AfD with his trademark "here we go again, another sprawling series of fighting results with no evidence of meeting WP:EVENT." I just don't see what that would constructively accomplish. I prefer to see AfDs being used like scissors to trim Wikipedia like a bonsai tree, rather than like a flame thrower to clear cut the entire forest. The question as I see it is whether Wikipedia should remain a primary web destination for people to read about top-tier martial arts events or not. If that is the goal, then the nominated pages fall comfortably above that threshold. I realize this conversation is beyond the scope of this AfD, but given the rate at which these AfDs keep appearing, it is one that the Wikipedia community needs to have (not just two or three editors who follow martial arts AfDs). I could spend an hour chasing down Sengoku references in the Japanese press to save these articles, but there is really no point if this nominator is just going to put another dozen pages on the chopping block tomorrow and a dozen more the day after that and so on. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 03:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Valid points. You could reasonably say that very few things are significant in the greater scheme of things. I try to think of them as whether or not they're significant in their field. For example, I tend to believe fight cards with world title fights for major organizations are notable, but cards with just another set of fights are not. This would be simpler if people who create the articles would search for some good sources instead of just reiterating fight results and moving on to the next event. Papaursa (talk) 04:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm not seeing enough coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. This is a case where we have a lot of coverage in independent reliable sources, but whether it is significant is open to debate. Many of them deal with iClothing as their primary subject, and when dealing with companies and their founders WP:INHERITED is always case-by-case. In this discussion, I did not find a consensus over this matter. Meanwhile, WP:COI and WP:BLP are non-issues with regards to deletion. First of all the COI allegations are speculation, and even if they were true, the article should stay if the subject is notable. BLP violations, if any, can be addressed by removing unsourced content from the article. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Davina Reichman[edit]

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

Fashionista subject is not notable per the following: guidelines:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. (...)

After significant cleanup per WP:BIO, WP:SOURCES, and WP:BLP the article content indicates its subject is not notable in an encyclopedic way. Some media coverage has been given to the subject's clothing line as a concept, but a stand-alone article for this individual as a subject is not supported by that scant coverage. Having removed interested parties from references, the facts they asserted, and assertions unsupported by any citations, the article reads like a brief social media profile. JFHJr (㊟) 05:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JFHJr,

Reichman is not a Fashionista, she is a fashion entrepreneur ^[1]. Her iClothing brand and her Being Born Again Couture mark that.

You have "cleaned up the article" in such a way that it is very obscure and there is nothing left of Reichman except a few lines which by itself aren't notable.

I don't know if I could do this, because I am new, but could I roll back your "cleanup" to the one before you "edited", therefore Reichman is notable once again?

Keep and roll back the error

Thank you. Domenico.y (talk) 06:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y — Domenico.y (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please have a look at WP:NN for general notability guidelines, then see WP:SOURCE, WP:BIO, and WP:BLP as to why the references were invalid, and as to why claims about living persons must be verifiable through reliable third-party sources. My edit summaries were adequate, and a rollback is uncalled for. JFHJr (㊟) 06:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"verifiable through reliable third-party sources" - interviewers and magazines interviewed Reichman for her notability and her fashion entrepreneurship for her founding of iClothing and she changed the course of history for 2 Australian fashion designers with Being Born Again Couture (which you took out).

Where are those cites of ABC News (America), CNN, The Wall Street Journal, Sydney Morning Herald (SMH), Gizmodo, www.news.com.au (Australia), 360Fashion, Fashion ONE TV, Channel 7 & Channel 9 (Australia), ChanceTV (NYC), Veja TV (Latino) and NDTV (China)?

She is Australian but she moved to New York City to make a name in the fashion industry which is mighty hard and she has. Please roll back the changes that you have made so others can comment on her notability. Domenico.y (talk) Domenico.y —Preceding undated comment added 06:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

For context, this is the version of the article before I edited. I removed references and text gleaned from sources either directly from the subject, closely related, or which were uncited. There were no CNN, Wall Street Journal, Gizmodo, ABC, and other cites when I removed content. That's why I removed the content (see WP:BLP). Even when covered in media, one story does not establish notability. Please take care to verify that edits you think happened actually happened. JFHJr (㊟) 06:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks - the references have been removed by a little pixie I think! I will edit the references back in but tomorrow evening. Thank you for your time. Domenico.y (talk) 07:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y[reply]

Delete - the references are nothing but fleeting mentions and the web pages mostly closely paraphrase the same articles or a press release about an event. This is not extensive coverage in the serious press that make for reliable sources. Fails WP:BLP, WP:BIO and WP:ORG whoever (person) or whatever (fashion company) the subject is. The article is a blatant vanity page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per same rationale as Kudpung. Chillllls (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now, I have re-written the entire article so it has references before which JFHJr could not find. I have rolled back the comments till "Ok, thanks - the references have been removed by a little pixie" at 06:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC). Put a "rescue" tag for admins Domenico.y (talk) 19:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y[reply]

I've reverted your removal of other people's comments. Please don't do that anymore. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding references published by Davina Reichman (Linkedin profile) or for her (Q&A by Reichman; statements by companies, groups, or events associated with Reichman). These are inappropriate because they are not reliable, verifiable, third-party references. Blogs are also problematic and should not be used as references. Please also make sure the cites you use actually refer to the content in the references; "DAY 4 RAFW 2010. Killer Wedges, Draping genius, True Blood and front row privalage(again)", Beyond the Runway and others that you added did not actually refer to the claims contained in the article. Also, if you can't find references, please don't cite the statement with "Couture Fashion Week NYC website www.couturefashionweek.com but can’t find reference – where should I look?" – if you put the content in the article, a reference must be ready. Otherwise please keep these things as a draft in your own user subpages. Thank you. JFHJr (㊟) 19:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't know fashion entrepreneur from a cork hat, but this subject meets Wikipedia:Notability. It's true that article creator is a bit enthusiastic adding sources that are merely photos, but there are some real ones there too. Wall Street Journal, Fashion Maga-Zine,Fashion Maga-Zine again, and News.com.au are real coverage. --GRuban (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wall Street Journal or News.com.au, a subsidiary of News Limited or Womens Mafia or Artmonthsydney not reliable? You have got to be kidding, JFHJr. Since when can that be faked or not reliable? I will edit the article again to ensure the references by NOTABLE publications are available for everyone to see. Domenico.y (talk) 20:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y[reply]

For example, the WSJ Blog and news.com.au video are about iClothing, not really about the creator. Interviews don't necessarily establish notability for the speaker, but may be probative of the notability of the subject about which they're speaking (iClothing). Interviews and the like are objectively problematic because we're hearing firsthand accounts of the subject. Otherwise, mentions must be notable, and not every mention in press garners notability. The two-part article on Fashion Maga-Zine is clearly closer to an acceptable WP:SOURCE (here and here), but a notable person (cf. that person's products) should have wider coverage in well-known, reliable media if it's truly a notable person. JFHJr (㊟) 20:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - Reichman created and founded iClothing, facilitating them. She created a new technology-fashion instrument. How many of you out there have done that please? Please see the video on news.com.au and read the article on The Wall Street Journal, if you haven 't already. Who's to say what is well known? Are you Australian? Do you consider the Mornings with Kerri-Anne "notable"? The population of Australia tunes in every morning to watch that show and it is on every workstation TV in consultancy's around Australia. As for ABC TV, that is notable because they are in every country. They take off old links from the past 6 months every year to make room for more content. There was a link on ABC TV's Art Nation but now it appears to be gone. Shall I cite ^{[dead link]} but somehow get the archived old copy? Please look at the images from the Being Born Again Show and compare them to the images on the different sites - they are exactly the same, Lo Sordo and Fenitti created garments with Reichman's assistance and influence. Thanks Domenico.y (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y[reply]

Again, you've restored problematic text despite clear explanations why it's inappropriate.
1) "Her career in [[fashion entrepreneur]]ship started from that point on.<ref name="chance">http://chanceplus1.com/davina-aussie-celebrity-fashionista-takes-nyc/ "Aussie Celebrity Fashionista Takes NYC", ''Chance TV'', 16 May 2011</ref><ref>http://www.blacktiemagazine.com/New_York_Society/NYC_Awards.htm "New York Society News The Most Inspiring Individuals in NYC Awards", ''Black Tie International Magazine'', 30 June 2011</ref>" ... neither of these cites supports the statement you restored. You also added:[interviewed by] [[ABC TV]]'s "Art Nation"<ref> ABC TV,”Art Nation, presented by Fenella Kernebone”, 2 May 7pm [http://www.abc.net.au/arts/video/tv_program/ARTNATION.htm?clip=rtmp://cp44823.edgefcs.net/ondemand/flash/tv/streams/artsportal/artnation_10_fashionandart_hi.flv&title=Art%20Nation%20-%20Fashion%20and%20Art, retrieved Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 11:32 PM</ref> Again, that video has zero to do with Davina; don't use irrelevant cites.
2) Davina Reichman is affiliated with the Being Born Again Couture Fashion Show, which is arguably not notable in itself. References authored by the BBACFS are unacceptable because they are closely associated with Davina, and because the event's mention is not notable.
3) Again, Q&A sessions are problematic because we're getting information about the subject from the subject. Please stop adding this reference for any of the content within it; also, interviews don't make the interviewee notable.
4) your references here do not support the claims you made in any way: Reichman created and influenced 2 famous Australian fashion designer’s range, Michael Lo Sordo<ref>Gallery Talk: Christopher Horder and fashion designer Michael Lo Sordo discuss their collaboration for Australian Fashion Week 2010, [http://artmonthsydney.com/_webapp_793518/Gallery_Talks_-_Precinct_3?A=SearchResult&SearchID=1836949&ObjectID=793518&ObjectType=35]</ref><ref>Runway Comms, photo of Lo Sordo’s fashion design print by Getty Images, exactly the same as the Being Born Again Couture fashion show print [http://beingbornagain.net/Images/web_sm/Michael_Lo_Sordo_Christopher_Horder.jpg] print a month before [http://runwaycomms.onsugar.com/RAFW-2010-runway-comms---Adelaide-Fashion-PR-Lui-Hon-Elliot-Ward---Fear-Saint-Augustine-Academy-Michael-lo-Sordo-8361646 "DAY 4 RAFW 2010. Killer Wedges, Draping genius, True Blood and front row privalage(again)"], ''Beyond the Runway''</ref>. and Nicola Finetti<ref>Nicola Finetti Guy Peppin Collaboration is exactly the same as the Being Born Again Couture fashion show print [http://beingbornagain.net/designers/Nicola-Finetti-Guy-Peppin-collaboration.html]</ref><ref>Nicola Finetti spring/summer 10/11 Arrow Peplum Full Circle Dress [http://www.nicolafinetti.com/eboutique/nicola-finetti-ss10-11/252-arrow-peplum-full-circle-dress.html], 2 May 2010</ref> using her Being Born Again Couture Fashion Show. ...these are not acceptable references for the assertions you're making! This is original research. Please read WP:SOURCE and WP:OR.

I'm removing the parts that cite only that Davina was interviewed. It's not notable that she was interviewed. If she's notable, there will be something about Davina from a third party source.

And finally, if you need to cite to a dead link, try searching the Wayback Machine (just google it). JFHJr (㊟) 21:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, hold on please ((hold)) Domenico.y (talk) 21:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y[reply]

P.S. I take it you don't know about fashion, but when people influence 2 major fashion designers, it's notable, no matter what country they are from. The designers may not have mentioned this, but through photos and references, we can see that. That is the sole reason I kept in those references. Now I have to really go catch the train for work. I will be back online in 13 hours' time.

Thank you for respecting that ((hold)) tag. Domenico.y (talk) 21:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y[reply]

Again, you have re-added the following: Reichman created and influenced 2 famous Australian fashion designer’s range, Michael Lo Sordo <ref>Gallery Talk: Christopher Horder and fashion designer Michael Lo Sordo discuss their collaboration for Australian Fashion Week 2010, [http://artmonthsydney.com/_webapp_793518/Gallery_Talks_-_Precinct_3?A=SearchResult&SearchID=1836949&ObjectID=793518&ObjectType=35]</ref><ref>Runway Comms, photo of Lo Sordo’s fashion design print by Getty Images, exactly the same as the Being Born Again Couture fashion show print [http://beingbornagain.net/Images/web_sm/Michael_Lo_Sordo_Christopher_Horder.jpg] print a month before [http://runwaycomms.onsugar.com/RAFW-2010-runway-comms---Adelaide-Fashion-PR-Lui-Hon-Elliot-Ward---Fear-Saint-Augustine-Academy-Michael-lo-Sordo-8361646 "DAY 4 RAFW 2010. Killer Wedges, Draping genius, True Blood and front row privalage(again)"], ''Beyond the Runway''</ref><ref>Photo, Natalie Imbruglia wearing Michael Lo Sordo Morning Time Drape Skirt[http://blog.leblackbook.com.au/natalie-imbruglia-wearing-michael-lo-sordo-mo], May 2010</ref><ref>TALENT Q&A: Davina Reichman [http://www.womensmafia.com/2011/06/talent-qa-davina-reichman/], 21 June, 2011</ref> and Nicola Finetti <ref>Nicola Finetti Guy Peppin Collaboration is exactly the same as the Being Born Again Couture fashion show print [http://beingbornagain.net/designers/Nicola-Finetti-Guy-Peppin-collaboration.html]</ref><ref>Nicola Finetti spring/summer 10/11 Arrow Peplum Full Circle Dress [http://www.nicolafinetti.com/eboutique/nicola-finetti-ss10-11/252-arrow-peplum-full-circle-dress.html], 2 May 2010</ref> <ref>Nicola Finetti photograph of Natalie Gruzlewski wearing Being Born Again Couture Finetti/Peppin Collaboration, [http://www.nicolafinetti.com/logies-2011-natalie-gruzlewski], May 2011]</ref>

The claim of influence is not supported by the cites you've provided; only one reference mentions Davina (her own Q&A), and even that one doesn't say she "influenced" anyone. Please cite only to references that support your claim. JFHJr (㊟) 21:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear JFHJr,

If you please look at the photographic evidence, you will see. "influenced" - it does not need to say that when looking at those images. Please look and see and then you will note that it is correct in saying that Reichman influenced. I am busy finding articles after work - please let me finish work. And hold off editing till I get off work because it is unfair. Admin - can you do something here please to put a hold on the article? Domenico.y (talk) 22:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y[reply]

I've looked at every cite you keep restoring. Multiple times. I've even watched videos you've used as refs. The influence you're identifying is not stated in any reference you've cited. What you're describing is exactly what is forbidden by WP:OR and WP:BLP. Have you taken a peek at these policies? You can't synthesize what sources don't say on their own. Such use of references to further WP:OR is not academically or encyclopedically acceptable. Again, please stop attempting to restore that section. Besides, even if you could conclusively establish influence through valid sources, you'd still have to show notability to have a mention in a WP:BLP. Please do have a third, second, or perhaps first look at the numerous policies and guidelines I've tried to point you to. Thanks. JFHJr (㊟) 22:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to talk about synthesising sources, please link to WP:SYNTHESIS to aid matters - it's probably not a word to chuck at non-native English speakers without explaining. And I expect it's a concept many non-academic people are not too familiar with, either. Ma®©usBritish ^[Talk][RFF] 00:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The person gets coverage in reliable sources mentioned in this AFD already. Dream Focus 00:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete severe conflict of interest indicated with long winded defenses of this individual. clearly fails WP:BIO. gnews reveals a mere mainly 8 passing mentions confirming attendance at events. hardly makes you notable. LibStar (talk) 00:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I know her from Australia. This was obviously written by her or someone on her behalf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.22.238 (talk) 01:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— 68.175.22.238 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

WP:IKNOWIT is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 02:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have to admit that the extraordinary efforts that the defender(s) are making to keep this article do indeed appear to be indicative of a very strong confilct of interest. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, it's also very easy to disparage newbie eagerness as being COI. As much as I see "COI" being thrown around, I have yet to see what the COI is, specifically. Until then, it's either a choice between obeying WP:AGF or contradicting WP:BITE. Ma®©usBritish ^[Talk][RFF] 02:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right on, Marcus. As far as I can tell, the WP:COI comments seem speculative. AGF says assume the editor simply feels passionately until it's clearly demonstrated otherwise. Let's talk about Davina Reichman's notability here. JFHJr (㊟) 02:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right, as I see it, all these "COI" stones being hurled are what some people consider "legitimate" personal attacks, which AfDs often resort to so I'm not getting embroiled in this one in terms of deletion – COI is often in the choice of sources, not the editor themselves, and people need to learn to discriminate between the two – as far as notability goes, I can't be sure, my strengths lie in history where notability is not usually as difficult to determine as "modern" personalities and BLPs. What with all the crap on the internet: mirror sites, blogs, twitter, scoops, etc I much prefer real scholarly books, and being able to identify notability from more than any website can offer, including Wikipedia; plus I'm not really into over-paid/over-rated celebrities and media attention anyway – I don't read magazines, don't watch TV or follow the news, so I'm not too good at recognising notable modern biog sources, or more to the truth, I'm not just patient enough to filter through all the "COI" online crap to separate it from "reliable" online crap – Google is useless these days, 1 good site in every 100 results. Given the considerable COI changes to, and debate surrounding this article I'm borderline weak keep/delete, and think "keep and improve" might be the outcome. In the case it gets deleted, I think Domenico can still work on a v2 from scratch and have less trouble in the long run than he has now. Ma®©usBritish ^[Talk][RFF] 02:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Give the guy/girl a break, he's/she's new. Possibly more important, COI or not, there really are some reasonable sources in amongst the hype. Don't throw the article out with the bathwater. --GRuban (talk) 01:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Despite the extra-long text above, the issue is simple. Yes, its not a great article, and it was created by the subject and likely subsequently edited by people with COI issues. But as to whether she meets WP:GNG, its a fair nomination, because its a borderline case. The coverage cited by GRuban is either enough or its not, we'll either reach consensus or not. It might get deleted, it might not, the outcome in these marginal cases of notability is not always predictable nor consistent, and the delete !votes have merit as well.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Obvious WP:BIO and WP:BLP issues, not even getting into the additional areas where I think there is evidence of WP:COI, WP:SYNTH and WP:OR going on here. Also, WP:BITE is not even light-years close to being a valid reason for leaving an article remain in the encyclopedia when it should be deleted. Trusilver 04:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I was researching last night and came across this article: http://www.textileglobal.com/2010/05/the-fashion-group-international-of-sydney-presentation-interpreting-trends-aw-2010.html and in here is the I think proof I am searching for: "Davina created & facilitated the Michael Lo Sordo & Chris Horder collaboration for Rosemount Australian Fashion Week. Michael is using Chris’ prints for his fashion collection this season." - it is not a blog, it is textileglobal.com.

I could have sworn I put this in the first place, but I can't find it. Is this necessary proof? What JFHJr is concerned about I have speculation, not proof and he is right because I failed to put in that article it seems, but I think this is proof? Then I can put in the references of the photo of Imbruglia wearing Lo Sordo print, that runway.comms article and the ArtMonth article referenced? I don't know if I am allowed to do this though because there is too many 'deletes' already? Thank you. Domenico.y (talk) 18:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Domenico.y[reply]

Put the question, and similar comments, on: Talk:Davina Reichman as it'll make this page less convoluted. Ma®©usBritish ^[Talk][RFF] 18:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Apparently Marcus' own research regarding COI now seems to suggest he ~~believes~~ has a concern there is a COI. Since this information has not been updated on the AfD I am providing a link here [43]. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not assume or infer what I believe - WP:OR - I don't jump to conclusions, like yourself. The diff above does not state my belief, it poses a concern, get off your high-horse. You are using information to advocate a POV, and further harassing Dom. I have warned you about this priggish wiki-lawyering already on ANI: [44][45] I suggest you take note of it. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 14:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there is a COI editor problem with the article, no jumping is required. Its a textbook case. However, whether the subject is notable for purposes of AfD is a separate inquiry. Everyone is whining about mostly irrelevant stuff in this afd. Gruban and myself and have addressed notability in our votes, Kudpung has rationally stated the non-notable deletion rationale. I think no reasonable admin is going to give D.'s wall of text too much weight.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 15:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sorry if I incorrectly read your concern as a belief, Marcus. I have struck the word "believes" from my post and changed it to, "has a concern." Regardless of if you believe it is a COI, the evidence of such is quite clear. But as Milowent has rightly pointed out, that is not the primary concern of the AfD, and this should focus on the subject's notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence - tell me how a "friend of Davina" is any less biased than a Christian editing religious articles, a Beatles fan editing John Lennon articles, etc? The COI is thin-ice, he hasn't admitted to working for her. You're pushing your point too far, I've already raised this concern on ANI, I think you're out of hand and using this AfD as a mission to "punish" Dom for your own reward. It's no longer amusing. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 15:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am only responding here because you have asked, and providing a link to the COI logic here [46] and follow-up with additional information here [47]. But as we have discussed upthread the COI is not the primary focus of this AfD. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both editors seem to have differing points of view in Talk:Davina_Reichman#Comment_and_action.3F.

Conclusion: In any case: Christopher Horder [48] is famous Australian artist which exhibits in Liverpool Street Gallery, Sydney, Australia.[49] Michael Lo Sordo is a famous Australian fashion designer. After the Being Born Again Couture in April, Lo Sordo received heaps of press in regards to the prints (which were collaborated by Christopher Horder) which Reichman 'created and facilitated'. Lo Sordo was showing in Australian Fashion Week using those very prints in May.

Now even for ArtMonth, Sydney Australia says "Gallery Talk: Christopher Horder and fashion designer Michael Lo Sordo discuss their collaboration for Rosemount Australian Fashion Week 2010." [50] They collaborated for Australian Fashion Week [51] " Christoper Horder's CV reads"...Being Born Again Couture, collaboration with fashion designer Michael Lo Sordo" [52] and there is of course facebook [53]

"Reichman created and facilitated a Michael Lo Sordo and Chris Horder collaboration project for Australian Fashion Week" (according to JFHJr is the correct citing of the text) Textile Global, The Fashion Group International of Sydney Presentation Interpreting Trends Autumn Winter 2010, [54], May 27 2010

(It is much easier to put the text on the AfD for Reichman, because only 2 editors commented and 2 out of possibly 100 editors is not the majority.)

Domenico.y (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y[reply]

Don't use <ref>s in comments as there is no ((reflist)) in most talk pages, just articles; use 2 square brackets to link to wiki pages, one square brackets for external links. Also, Facebook is not a reliable source. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 18:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JFHJr,

Why did you remove my text when you said to do "Reichman created and facilitated a Michael Lo Sordo and Chris Horder collaboration project for Australian Fashion Week"? with that reference? I do not understand. On wikipedia, it says that you should not remove anything without explaining it fully. I have let that slide as I am sure you have a good reason for it, but this isn't offering me help to improve the article and what I had asked for initially is assistance and help and only a few you of editors have provided that. Thank you. Domenico.y (talk) 18:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y[reply]

This is not the place for that discussion. The explanation and discussion are at Talk:Davina Reichman. You have misrepresented what I've said and done, and it's not the first time. You have also disregarded every bit of advice regarding the addition you made. Please read advice until you understand it. Your edits are becoming disruptive. JFHJr (㊟) 18:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding notability JFHJr What makes a fashion designer "notable"? It is because you say so in many posts that Lo Sordo and Finetti are not notable? In Australia, they are notable, they just don't have wikipedia pages. The fact that someone isn't "noteable" in other countries besides Australia does not mean they are not notable in that country.

For example, why did ConcernedConcernedVancouverite, another editor with the same privileges as you all, remove "COI" in the Being Born Again Couture Fashion show article but they did not remove that in any other place like for example in the Hugh Evans (humanitarian), Davina Reichmann or Anina (model), after I said that I have no relation or do not promote any articles I am editing? Confused.

I meant to say in the post while 2 editors agree on this point, can we see what the 98 or other editors say *before* you delete my edits please.

Reasons being: I can see from comparing the images that Lo Sordo and Fenitti's designs that they are the same or similar etc, but JFHJr would not have that as "proof" because it did not say "influenced", even though I cited a bunch of articles which intimated(?) that Reichmann may have "something to do with" Lo Sordo and Finetti choosing those particular artists to "copy" and make their Australian Fashion Week range out of (and yes, fb is not a source).

Fashion is subjective in some parts, not objective, take the designer houses "Louboutin vs YSL" case which was fought in court, so that is why I asked initially that could anyone please find someone that knows fashion and that can comment on fashion to assist.

Domenico.y (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y[reply]

Take it to the talk page - no one is discussing edits here. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 20:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:GNG - She gets significant coverage in reliable sources already in article. Rednevog (talk) 19:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Her coverage is mostly in regards to iClothing, which may be notable. But she doesn't WP:INHERIT that notability. JFHJr (㊟) 06:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Whilst there is a general consensus to delete, with around 2/3 of the votes going that way, there are further factors in play. First of all, a number of votes are weak. Merely pointing out that "the article has lots of sources" isn't a good argument in this particular discussion, and of the course votes along the lines of "it's notable" , or "deleting would be censorship" are of course given less weight. That's not to say there are not weak Delete votes as well - there are; there appears to be little evidence that this article is synthesis or original research, and NPOV is usually grounds for fixing, not deleting. However, the argument that was pivotal here was the one first pointed out by Dzlife and expanded on later; "A perfect implementation of a WP:POV fork as defined under our neutrality policy: "A point of view fork is an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts". This is clearly what is happening here, and the argument was not refuted by any Keep voters. Whilst NPOV is not a reason to delete, content forking certainly is. Given both that this was the strongest argument, along with the general consensus to delete, the outcome is clear. Black Kite (t) (c) 05:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of killings of Muhammad[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 20. If you have time, please read my closing comments as well as the previous AfD and DRV discussions to get an idea of the issues involved. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per WP:ATTACK or Purge killings not actually performed by Muhammad per WP:SYNTH / WP:SOAPBOX or as a last resort Rename to List of killings ordered by Muhammad. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is not encyclopaedic, it is biased, and the criteria for adding people is flawed. Unflavoured (talk) 07:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A list of cherrypicked incidents from biographies synthesized together into a soapbox aimed at proving that Muslims are really bloodthirsty. Reliable sources don't discuss this topic. If reliable sources don't discuss a topic, we do not create an article on it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you mean a list of names of historical people whose lives ended by order of Mohamed as described in biographies, religious texts, peer reviewed scientific publications from both modern scholars and historians as well as works from antiquity? Without POV judgement, the names were simply listed. That article would prove that Muslims are bloodthirsty only to delusional people... Reliable sources do speak about this topic, its just you created a Catch-22 situation, so all sources that mention this topic automatically become unreliable, racist, discredited and full of hateful words. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 07:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

So, I point out that the incidents are cherrypicked from sources that don't actually discuss the list topic and that the goal was to make it seem that Muslims are particularly inclined to kill people, and your response is "But Muslims kill people! Sources say so!" Yes, that refutes my comment masterfully. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, must be getting walleye vision. I said those things or are you Synthesizing original research here? This is a discussion about the List of killings of Muhammad. You keep confusing the man's first name (Muhammad) with 1.5 billion followers of his religion (Muslims). You sure you marked the correct article for deletion and not accidentally pick the wrong cherry? Cheers! Meishern (talk) 08:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, words mean things. The fact that the argument for deletion is that the article is SYNTH, and that you apparently can't contradict that, doesn't mean that "omg SYNTH" is now a magic bullet response to anything anyone says to you, such as "your comment in no way refuted my argument." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dudette, if you say words mean things, than stop deceiving people by making up/lying/inventing quotes and attributing them to me. Anyone who reads whats written above can see clearly that you have 0 credibility for using your lies as the foundation to build your faulty arguments. If you have a hard time telling Republicans and Democrats apart as your page states, its possible you may be a bit out of your depth determining synth in books you've most likely never seen. Once a liar.... Since you are a proven emotion powered liar, I will not argue with you. Add to your page - Confuses Mohamed and Muslims; strong history of inventing over-the-top quotes and attribute them to editors i disagree with. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 16:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Since you no longer have anything to contribute to the discussion, I advise you to withdraw; you are only incriminating yourself further by continuing to comment. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Where are the reliable contemporary sources that discuss the topic of "killings of Muhammad". Yeah, didn't think so. The list hopelessly cobbles together "information" from sources of varying (low to very low) reliability. Roscolese summarises the problems well directly above. Wuqi55's contribution to the DRV is a devastating critique of the reliability of the sources. I adopt their reasoning as my own. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Political/Religious censorship is NOT acceptable on Wikipedia, this is the second time I've seen this article up for deletion, given there was no consensus the first time I'm not sure what going again is going to achieve, clearly those with imaginary friends will vote to delete whereas the more rational faction will vote to keep since the information (and any offence it might cause) can be easily avoided by simply not viewing it! Deleting it merely takes that choice away from the user and places it with censorious religious fundamentalists, is that what Wikipedia is for now? I hope not. Hideki (talk) 11:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've read this comment over three times and I don't see a policy-based "keep" rationale. Just random speculation, bordering on personal attacks, about other editors. If it helps you, I'm a Jewish agnostic and I think this article should be deleted because that's generally what we do with articles that have no sources discussing the topic. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the consensus last time was to delete the article. Unflavoured (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm completely rational, subscribe to no religion and have no imaginary friends whatsoever and I voted to delete for completely rational reasons, so there's nothing "clear" about it. Don't characterise everyone with a different opinion as being a loony. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Rename: It is well-sourced (list of references consists of authoritative sources; as far as I know, and or most of these extra-Qur'an writings are and have been relevant to the study of Islam by Muslim scholars during centuries). The article has a well-defined topic that is verifiable (as opposed to something subjective things like "times when president Bush misbehaved", which would be subject to varying definitions of whether something was a misbehavior or not). Of course, nobody can verify all testimonies, whether a killing occurred or did not, or whether it was ordered or was not, but whether the testimony describes an ordering of a killing or not is undisputable. The article is also historically relevant in the same way as a list of crusades (of Christian church) is. It is biographically relevant in the same way as a list of Apostle Paul's visits to Jerusalem is. Any claims of supposed intents of the article's existence are unsourced, however. --Bisqwit (talk) 11:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. for finding research of references and notability, I suggest the web search "muhammad ordered killing -wikipedia" rather than the one suggested atop this AfD. --Bisqwit (talk) 12:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give us some of the sources you found with this search? I'm finding...a lot of self-published anti-Muslim tracts and a few reliable sources that don't discuss the topic, just like before. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even serial killers and notorious warlords don't have a "list of killings of.." articles. Totally inappropriate and no encyclopedic value other than to go along the lines of pseudo-academic anti-Islam websites. And this is not about censorship; content from that page can be easily squeezed in elsewhere. The title is borderline inflammatory for Muslims; an unnecessary political stance that the wiki community doesn't need. Tachfin (talk) 13:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merging isn't the same as deleting. But where, exactly? It wouldn't be appropriate for the already-too-long Muhammad article. So where do you propose to merge it? The inflammatory title is irrelevant, that can easily be changed to "assassinations involving Muhammad" or something similar, not a reason to delete. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not proposing a merge. The article doesn't bring any new information, I'm sure the different episodes that it mentions already exist somewhere else; most likely in the people allegedly killed articles. Since Muhamed was an important historical figure, there are many articles discussing the different aspects of his life (Political, religious, tribal, historic you name it). Thus, either some of the content already exist therein or can be added. We already have Criticism of Islam and Criticism of Muhammad, so I don't understand those who are shouting censorship. But to have a single purpose article that is un-neutral by definition (cherry picked incidents to prove a certain POV) is not appropriate. You can imagine the POV issues if people decide to imitate this article in other areas. Tachfin (talk) 17:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, honestly, I can't. I don't see this as POV at all, I don't see any of this as cherry picking, rather I see an attempt to present a comprehensive list. The fact of Muhammad's involvement in assassinations is a perfectly non-controversial subject dealt with neutrally in sources, such as the Gabriel source already cited. Military and political leaders throughout human history have used assassination as a political tool. So did Muhammad. Where's the POV?

Regarding other articles that may expand on this topic, keep in mind that this is a list article. By their nature, items in the list may have associated articles explaining things in more detail. List of common misconceptions, for example, lists what it says, and many of the articles linked therein also go into detail about a misconception pertaining to that topic. Having details in other articles isn't a reason to delete a list. Should it be a list article? A prose article may work better with the topic, and likely wouldn't generate the erroneous POV perception that this article has generated. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A list of Items suppose the existence of an article about each item. In this list, only 13 out of 43 have articles. The 13 even include tribes and battles...All of this is actually already covered in Military career of Muhammad. Maybe you're genuinely unassuming but take "List of killings of X" and replace X by a random person/organization at some point the POV-pushing and WP:SYNTH will strike you. The fact that there were deaths which Muhammad had more or less something to do with them, isn't one of the most defining features of the subject unless someone is trying to prove a biased point. It's no wander that it is the first "List of killings of" article. Tachfin (talk) 22:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thirteen is not enough for a list? I believe you proved the point that this article is salvageable. At one point some article became the first biography of a king, soldier or clown. Being first is controversial and that's why instead of dumping this article over semantics, its best to keep working on it. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 07:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A soapbox article with an inherently non-neutral title and consisting of original synthesis. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Already refuted in the first AfD. The title can be changed. There is no synthesis if sources discuss the topic (as they do) or discuss the individual items in the list. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be reliably sourced. Wikipedia is not censored. NYyankees51 (talk) 15:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which are these reliable sources that discuss the subject? (Sources are not reliable in a vacuum.) It's all very well to claim that people are trying to censor you (omg noooo) but do you make the same complaints at AfDs for teenage bit-part actors and amateur films? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I really do not see the point of this article. Mohammed was a military leader in a brutal age; he had people killed. We do not have a list of people killed by other such leaders and neither should we. It is not political or religious censorship, but merely calling for deletion of a pointless and unnecessary article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.It is well sourced.It's information might be of use to some people. --Sam 15:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where are these sources that discuss the subject (a necessary hurdle for the existence of an article), and why do you believe WP:ITSUSEFUL will compensate for this absence? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete A perfect implementation of a WP:POV fork as defined under our neutrality policy: "A point of view fork is an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts". Inherently violates WP:NPOV because an article about this topic is inherently WP:UNDUE weight. Created by a single purpose account who sees Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX for anti-Islamic propaganda. Our policy on WP:Neutral point of view implores us to delete articles that are formulated in a way that can never be neutral. See the essay WP:Be neutral in form and the policy WP:Attack page. There's no coincidence that the first list of this kind isn't about the killings of a modern gangster, a four star general, or even a Fascist dictator. The first list of this kind targets a religious figure revered by a billion people. These contributions are not good faith contributions to neutral encyclopedic knowledge. Dzlife (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep -- perhaps renamed to include "ordered by". This is an unsavoury aspect of his career, which certain Muslims would no doubt like to bury, but the WP WP:NPOV principle measn that it should be kept. The article is well-sourced, and I presume the chroniclers cited are virtually the only sources available. It is not mere anti-islamic propaganda, since it has plenty of reliable sources, or at least as reliable as are available from a remote period. Of course there is no list of "killings by Jesus Christ" or "killings by Buddha", because there were none. Jesus reversed three natural deaths, as well as his own. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where are these reliable sources that actually discuss the subject (a necessary hurdle for the existence of an article), as opposed to biographies from which the creator has cherry-picked incidents to make an attack page? (That is the NPOV issue. There are no sources discussing killings of Muhammad? Then we don't let editors use original synthesis to create an article with the aim of promoting the idea that Muslims are particularly bloodthirsty.) You yourself in your comment seem to be admitting that there aren't any sources (if the chroniclers are "virtually the only sources available" and they don't discuss the subject...), so why are you letting this "let's stick it to some Muslims" non-policy-based keep argument trump the "no sources" policy-based delete argument? Neither I, the original nominator, nor most of the other users voting to delete are Muslim, so trying to use people's religious views to discredit their arguments would fail even if that weren't a WP:NPA violation. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. As has been repeatedly pointed out to Roscelese, sources that "discuss the subject" are NOT a requirement for a LIST article (in spite of that, sources actually do discuss the subject, making one wonder why the deletion proponents are so keen to denigrate any source that does without proper review). Lists are by their nature collections of items that share a common characteristic. See our Wikipedia:Featured list articles for examples.

It has also been pointed out repeatedly that assassinations are a well-known part of Arabian history, and no respected historian considers Muhammad's involvement in such assassinations as controversial or anti-Muslim. The fact that self-published anti-Islam sources point this out is irrelevant; the article does not rely on such sources. Numerous sources by notable historians give it a trivial mention, further indicating that it isn't a controversial topic to anyone except those deletion proponents who feel the article bashes Muslims somehow. Since when did this AfD become a forum to trot out the same tired old arguments? How about something original for a change? ~Amatulić (talk) 18:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Reliable sources are not an absolute defense to WP:POV pushing. If you take reliable information and WP:SYNthezie it around a cherry-picked topic, you can imply a very powerful and biased point. (For example, Killings under Margaret Thatcher's premiership could be supported with a lot of statistics. Killings in the name of Jesus Christ would also be verifiable.) There is nothing wrong with using reliable sources to verify violent acts, as we have already done in the articles Muhammad and Caravan raids. The problem is cherrypicking those facts and sources around an inherently WP:POV topic, thus creating a stealth WP:ATTACKPAGE. Our job is to disseminate knowledge, not to give editors a WP:SOAPBOX to assemble references around whatever argument they're pushing. Dzlife (talk) 16:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - What evidence do you have that this list constitutes POV pushing? It simply lists assassinations involving Muhammad. Among legitimate scholars of Arabian history, I have found no controversy about this. It's simply a fact of history. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - This doesn't 'simply list assassinations' - for example, the page includes the Expedition of Khalid ibn al-Walid (Dumatul Jandal), and a 'Man from Aslam tribe' (effectively a judicial killing). The trouble with 'simply listing' 'simple facts' is that the non-simple context of these incidents cannot be explained in a list format. Notable assassinations involving Muhammad can be (and already are) documented elsewhere, where subtleties of historical background can be treated properly. The sole fact of the existence of such assassinations doesn't mean that a 'list of killings' is the best way to document them. Carminowe of Hendra (talk) 21:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - This is a pretty good point. However, it justifies rewriting more than it justifies deletion. I would prefer the subject to be treated differently than a list article, myself. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        The topic is already well treated, if you look at Military career of Muhammad, Muslim conquests, Caravan raids and so on. There's already some borderline POV issues in those articles, but they can be resolved through normal editing, unlike this article. The problem is this article in its title is designed to exclude any context and to merely list the "killings". It's so inherently designed as a POV fork to paint the violence in as negative a light as possible that the policy would even justify deleting this title as a redirect. None of that should be taken as a policy to outright censor Muhammad's military actions, where presented in a neutral context in a wider article. Dzlife (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Smerdis of Tlön. It doesn't matter how well-sourced it is, because this material has an inherently non-NPOV title and its content needs to be rewritten from scratch. Therefore a "keep" !vote makes no sense. The only thing it would be acceptable to "keep" would be different content with a different name.—S Marshall T/C 15:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As other contributors have pointed out, above, articles can be retitled. No offense, but you seem to be acknowledging that the topic itself is worth covering. What I think doesn't make sense is insisting on a deletion on a topic you acknowledge is worth covering, when articles can be rewritten in place, and when renaming can be trivially performed when necessary. Geo Swan (talk) 02:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep Has the list of Muhammad's killings actually been commented-on by third-party sources? I don't mean mentions of his killings, but scholarly commentary on them as a whole. If we find such commentary, we could put together such a list. I'm more sympathetic to religious articles such as this at AfD. There has been over a thousand years of academic study on Islam and I'd be suprised if no scholar ever worked on Muhammad's killings. The rename "ordered by Muhammad" suggested above would help the article's perceived POV problems. Them From Space 18:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the absence of sources that I'm talking about. At the last AfD, there was one source that was borderline useful, but the others were various anti-Muslim tracts that, to quote myself, wouldn't be reliable sources if they were published on JihadWatch today and aren't reliable just because they were printed on paper in the nineteenth century. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no absence of sources, and characterizations of some as "anti-Muslim tracts" is not a useful personal opinion. One of those (Muir) happens to be an historically significant source by a notable historian; not including it because of an "anti-Muslim" perception strikes me as a blatant violation WP:NPOV, which requires that articles should reflect the sources available. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right... so we accept an "anti-Muslim" source as reliable in an article about killings allegedly ordered by Islam's last and most important prophet... Articles are to reflect the reliable sources available. You can say Muir is "historically significant" all you like. That doesn't make him reliable. Try again. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can claim it's unreliable all you like. This isn't the place to make that determination. It is a significant source by a notable historian. Your opinion on its reliability, simply by virtue of a perceived bias of the author, is completely irrelevant. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Notable person" =/= "reliable source." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But notable as an historian does suggest that the source be given some weight, especially taken in the proper context. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some have demanded reliable sources with discussion of "killings (or assassinations) ordered by Muhammad." See [55] which says "The Jews had correctly concluded from the murders ordered by Muhammad that they would be attacked next. They did not foresee, however, that the attack would occur so suddenly." per the snippet in the search page at [56]. Other books in the list also discuss such killings. A referenced list, of historical significance. Keep per the arguments of Bisqwit. Edison (talk) 20:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You have cited from a book the blurb of which is "This comprehensive meticulously documented collection of scholarly articles presents indisputable evidence that a readily discernible and uniquely Islamic antisemitism has been expressed continuously since the advent of Islam. The contributors show that the Koran itself is a significant source of hostility towards Jews as well as other foundational texts". It is a work that is written by and panders to the far right. So think again.--Mkativerata (talk) 20:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, by citing a book by Bostom from an anti-religious publisher you're not exactly refuting the argument that it's only unreliable attack sources that discuss this idea. (Also, your snippet quote doesn't even indicate anything.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - So, any source critical of Muhammad is automatically deemed "unreliable"? (I'm not commenting on the specific source mentioned above, but in general.) On what grounds? That seems to be what your position has been so far. Please clarify. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, I don't think we're going to move this into generalities. If you want to defend a source from a guy with no academic expertise in the subject (he's a professor of medicine), known for anti-Muslim polemics and not for scholarship, publishing in a house of an anti-religious bent, defend it on whatever grounds you think you can. If you have another source, we can deal with that one on its own - we're skilled that way. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, I think we do need to speak about generalities, because "unreliable" appears (to me at least) to be how you've been characterizing the sources in general in the same breath as commenting on anti-Muslim bias. I agree that the specific source mentioned above isn't appropriate, though. So I ask again, is it your position that any source critical of Muhammad is to be considered unreliable? ~Amatulić (talk) 16:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poor criteria for inclusion, which result in grouping together assassinations and other types of killings, and the fact that the article is framed as a list forces it into a format which isn't suited to historical contextualisation, but sets it up to be a SOAPbox. Carminowe of Hendra (talk) 21:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree that a list format isn't the best way to treat the subject of assassinations involving Muhammad. But that in itself isn't a reason to delete it. The use of assassination as a political tool in Arabian history is an interesting general topic, for which Muhammad can be used as a prominent example. It would be nice to see the article expanded and generalized rather than deleted. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But what you're saying now is essentially that we should change everything about the article: its title, structure, and content. How is this different from deleting and rewriting from scratch? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly not much. Note that I have abstained on !voting in this round. I am just challenging arguments that appear to be invalid, that's all. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dzlife. Though there are sources for the various events gathering them together in this fashion is WP:SYNTH. Eluchil404 (talk) 17:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit torn here as this does seem to be a somewhat notable topic and I would find it hard to imagine that this hasn't been studied at all in the last millennium or so. Bit it is certainly hard to find unbiased scholarship on the issue and a page like this would hard to write in a neutral fashion. And one might argue that the Killings of King David, Moses, Popes etc. would be just as valid and this could lead to a lot of wiki-conflict. So maybe it is best to make sure that we cover the killings in Military career of Muhammad and similar pages. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article meets general notibility guidelines and is well sourced. Alternatively it could be Merged with Military career of Muhammad. Pass a Method talk 21:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the comments above. I don't have something very original to say, but I agree with Mark Arsten that virtually any leader, political or military, who has signed off death warrants qualifies for such a "List of killings of". ("list of killings of Lucius Cornelius Sulla"? "list of killings of Henry VIII of England"? "list of killings of Catherine de' Medici"?) Never mind soldiers, especially snipers. We don't even have a "list of killings of Carlos Hathcock". It's clear this topic (killings of Muhammad) is even more artificial, as he didn't do them himself; the events should be discussed in context in the appropriate articles, not in this table. I think the comments of User:Dzlife highlighting why this table is a WP:POVFORK are also relevant. Note for example that Muhammad's order to kill 'Asma' bint Marwan is presented as certain fact in this table, while the article linked is more circumspect: "Some classical and post-classical hadith scholars such as Al-Albani, Majdi, and Al-Jawzi have rejected the story, with some declaring it as fabrication, pointing out in their arguments that the chains of transmission by which the story was transmitted are all weak." Even Amatulić admits that a proper treatment of this topic amounts to deleting this table. And there's not much else here. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 23:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTRELIABLE -- The references used in this article are predominantly primary sources from early Muslim scholars, namely Hadith that have beeen transmitted orally. The use of these as reliable historical sources have been largely questioned among Western scholarship. See [[57]]. Hence, unless each or, at least, most of the listed incidents can be supported by more than just Hadith and Tabari, the article's reliability is questionable.

WP:THIRDPARTY -- As well as being heavily dependant on Hadith sources, the article lacks substantial references from third-pary sources - which also calls into question the topic's notability (WP:NOTE), as suggested above. From the references, only three or four out of the fourty-three are corroborated by works of Muir or Watt. Temperamental1 (talk)

Delete per WP:POVFORK and lack of reliable sources that discuss the topic (as opposed to mentioning individual instances). Also compare List of killings of Richard Nixon, List of killings of Ghengis Khan, List of killings of Napoleon, List of killings of William the Conquerer, List of killings of Lucretia Borgia, List of killings of Jesus of Nazareth, List of killings of Urban II... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF NYyankees51 (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...which says "you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist" (emphasis added for your benefit). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point that Stephan Schulz is trying to make (and surely the one I was making) is that no serious reference work takes such an approach to historical figures, especially leaders, whose responsibility for killings may or may not be direct or uncontestable. There's a good reason why stuff of a certain kind doesn't exist. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 22:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Other stuff exists, Tachfin (talk) 22:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have obviously not read what you link to. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 23:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean but WP:OTHERSTUFF (a.k.a WP:OTHERCRAP) is not the same as WP:Other stuff exists. In short automatically flashing the "otherstuff" essay whenever someone makes a comparison isn't always valid. Although comparisons are not a conclusive test, they form a part of the overall argument, so an entire comment absolutely should not be dismissed because of a comparative statement. This is what WP:Other stuff exists is about. The essay might have become vague in meaning as it got edited over time, the original version is clearer. In this case it's perfectly valid since there isn't one Precedent even for people whose job is killing. Tachfin (talk) 23:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying what you meant by that link. :-) Have mörser, will travel (talk) 00:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You welcome :) Tachfin (talk) 00:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Let’s sum up the main arguments of those in favor of censorship. The primary argument used to kill this article is: “Why are you doing this list if not to stir up trouble WP:SOAP? It’s an attack and POV WP:SYNTHESIS from biased racists or writers I don’t like. Even if we admit that the list is 100% factual, notable, reliable and verifiable, its existence threatens the way that Mohamed is perceived WP:ATTACK by readers of Wikipedia. This article will be misused to enflame islamophobia, and is against my agenda and political philosophy. It’s better to let sleeping dogs lie.”

There are over 100 references and about a dozen books by Muslim authors from the last 20 years including from well-known peer reviewed publishing houses. This information was not cherry picked, since nobody is hiding or disputing it but editors with an anti-religious agenda. SOAP doesn’t apply since a number of geometrically opposite conclusions could be reached from reading that list (brilliant general who used contemporary tactics to the fullest, is one such conclusion.)

Synthesis doesn’t apply to the entire article. If (as someone claimed) 13 of the killings were written about in a reliable source, is that not notable? That is not Synthesis. Is there a benchmark for a total number of assassinations by a major historical figure to reach before it becomes notable?

There is no POV here. It’s a list supported by academic secondary sources. Anti-Semites interpret a list with the number of Holocaust victims and their names as a badge of honor while other see it as an unspeakable horror. The total number of victims and their names, are just a list, the POV comes from interpretation and personal biases.

This list can and should be salvaged. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 07:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

wikt:cherry picking; WP:SYNTH –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So for cherry picking, you are saying that the list was compiled from selectively picked, well documented, ripe, attractive cherries (assassinations), while editors ignored the dozens of other killings which are not as well documented? Or are you saying that assassinations were picked from a massive list of kind, humane deeds; and now to balance the list, we would need to add a good deed for every assassination? ... 'Monday 11am. ordered Abdul killed.' 'Tuesday 9pm. Caught thief terrorizing the village.'?

WP:SYNTH I addressed. Opponents of the article are cherry picking sources which match their ideology and only consider those reliable and valid. A Catch-22 is also created since for a source to be considered reliable it must not mention views contrary to the ideology of the censors. Lets work with what we have here, trim it down, polish it up, and we'll have a GA in no time. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 08:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why I'm wasting my time responding to such a silly comment, but I guess I'm compulsive: no, "views contrary to the ideology of the censors" (lol) do not disqualify a source. It is sources where the author has no academic background in the subject, where the source is recognized as poorly researched by other parties, and/or where accuracy is intentionally subordinated to agenda that are being discarded here, and really this is how Wikipedia works and should work. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given Wikipedia's processes for peer review I would not be surprised if this is voted a featured article by some, but you still have to explain how removing context and discussion of primary source credibility does not create a WP:POVFORK. Concrete examples have been given above, and you have not addressed them. Nor have you addressed the general problem that historical "facts" are not always certain and there may be a range of opinion on the credibility of primary sources, and this type of discussion is not suitable for a table. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 13:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have an overall problem with POV being used as a reason for its removal. The language can easily be toned down, which is unlikely to create a POVFORK... murder/assassination changed to 'x ordered his followers/army to kill/end the life of/put to death person y'. If that statement is backed up by sources, it is not POV since nobody is disputing that the events occurred, but the opposition demands an unreasonable number of references, shooting down perfectly valid references with vague objections - islamaphobe, too old, not notable enough. If there is credibility issues with the primary source, Quran and commentary written by contemporaries of Mohamed, not many publications will be found on that subject since even disputing the credibility of those texts (or altering them) is punishable by death in a number of Islamic countries. You also mention the problem about accuracy of historical records yet these very records are the basis for the rest of academic writing on the topic, and are widely used and accepted both in Wikipedia Islamic articles and other publications. I think its the opposition that needs to explain how the topic itself influences the certainty of the same historical events, since in other articles no one questions the certainty of these same events.

I think that (a) toning down the language (b) writing in neutral prose Mohamed's orders to put to death certain people as it is agrred upon, and removing those killings which are causing the biggest problem, will still create a valuable neutral list. Can add introduction that this form of warfare strategy (preemptive strike) was the norm at the time. Scrapping the whole article is a mistake, since sources, synth, povfork are not the primary reasons for people objecting - its a sensitive subject that is not politically correct and will make people sleep easier if the topic just disappeared. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 16:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the recently improved (by me) article on William Muir, you'll see that his early works, especially his Life of Mahomet (which is heavily referenced in this table) are not "perfectly valid references" if by that you mean reasonably neutral and accepted as such by later historians. They speak of Muir's opinions, as any work speaks of the author's opinion at a point in time. And some of Muir's opinions had changed dramatically over his lifetime. They have been criticized by Muir's contemporaries and by later scholars. (Life of Mahomet has been described by a contemporary review in The Times as "propagandist writing" with Christian bias and as "odium theologicum".) The lack of discussion in this table is contravening WP:NPOV, and the format is not suitable to amendments. Most of the significant material in this table has been cherry picked from other articles by discarding such nuances, thus making it a WP:POVFORK. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You sure hold yourself to a different set of standards when you edit articles. You added a whole section earlier today to William Muir full of information critical of William Muir, basing it all on 10 pages from 1 ultra-anti-Muir source. I removed your Times quote, since you didn't reference it and checking Google, all i found was 1 result - from you. Loved how you used such a POV source accusing him of being a crusader, a propagandist, a christian fanatic. "Nevertheless, his earlier hypercritical Life of Mahomet was used as a poster child by contemporary Muslim" ... wow, and you are here complaining about POV when you make statements like the previous sentence? And you did all this today eh? Now you are on this page loudly proclaiming Muir is a weak source to use for List of Killings Articles, and all basing that on your own POV edits and unreferenced quotes. Cute! Meishern (talk) 19:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your sneaky vandalism and unwarranted accusation [58] has been noted and reverted. The quote is referenced from the only book-length biography of William Muir (and his brother) The book's author academic page is here. I suppose you object to her so strongly because it's not one of the trashy anti-Islam authors that fill your web knowledge. Keep up your disruptive editing and you'll find that the only encyclopedia you can edit is Conservapedia. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 19:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Consider looking up the meaning of the word sneaky. I will save my retort for the talk page of the article. I stand behind what I said. Cheers!Meishern (talk) 22:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consider reading the meaning of minor edit. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 00:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Poor criteria for inclusion, sources are questionable and not verifiable. The tone "list of killings" is not very encyclopedic, what about list of killings for G Bush?--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 10:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1) questionable sources ---This article previously had over 150 references, and currently has over 100 references. Each and every one of the 100+ reference is from a questionable source? over 75% of the sources are Muslim (Ibn Kathir, Ibn Qayyim, Ibn Kathir, Haykal, Mubarakpuri, etc... These sources are highly respected and are unbiased.

2) sources unverifiable ---Is there a particular source that you feel is unverifiable or all 100+ sources? Is it that the authenticity of the source that's troubling you or its verifability? The Sunni haddith (Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari) are used as primary sources which the Sunni Muslims consider to be the most authentic sources after the Quran. Ibn Ishaq's biography is used which classical Muslim scholars consider a 'sure authority' on this subject. Here is what is said about Ibn Ishaq's biography (reference: [1])"Muhammad Ibn Ishaq is held by the majority of the learned as a sure authority in the Traditions, and no one can be ignorant of the high character borne by his work," the Maghazi; "Whoever wishes to know the history of the Muslim conquests, let him take Ibn Ishaq for guide," advises ibn Shihab az-Zuhri (vol II pg. 584); al-Bukhari himself cites Ibn Ishaq in his stories. ash-Shafi'i reportedly proclaimed: "Whoever wishes to obtain a complete acquaintance with "the (Muslim) conquests, (they) must borrow this information from Ibn Ishaq"

3) what about list of killings for G Bush --- WP:OTHERSTUFF, not a valid reason for removal

4) title change - i also agree. However the title change alone should not justify complete deletion. Cheeers! Meishern (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The references used in this article are predominantly primary sources from early Muslim scholars, namely Hadith that have beeen transmitted orally. The use of these as reliable historical sources have been largely questioned among academic scholarship. To quote from Criticism_of_Hadith#Western_Criticism:

John Esposito notes that "Modern Western scholarship has seriously questioned the historicity and authenticity of the hadith", maintaining that "the bulk of traditions attributed to the Prophet Muhammad were actually written much later." He mentions Joseph Schacht as one scholar who argues this, claiming that Schacht "found no evidence of legal traditions before 722," from which Schacht concluded that "the Sunna of the Prophet is not the words and deeds of the Prophet, but apocryphal material" dating from later.[16] Though other scholars, such as Wilferd Madelung, have argued that "wholesale rejection as late fiction is unjustified".[17] Other non-Muslim scholars of Islam, such as Maurice Bucaille and Cyrus Hamlin also criticize Hadith.[18][19][20] Also see Hadith#Western_academic_scholarship

Basically what the issue here is that being recorded in hadith, these incidents are believed by Muslims - however they are not regarded as authentic historiographic sources.

This unreliability is further attested to by the severe lack of WP:THIRDPARTY sources - of which there would, more than likely, be plenty, if the topic were notable. There are less than 5 (of the 43 listed) cases that are referenced by third-party sources, even those use the same source. Temperamental1 (talk) 05:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Temperamental1, I took a quick look at the "Other non-Muslim scholars of Islam" that point [17] above lists, and I think that passage may need revision. If the views of this small group are to be believed over thousands of Muslim scholars, they must be credible, so look for yourself:

(a) Maurice Bucaille was a gastroenterologist and an amateur Egyptologist who wanted to prove that the Quran was written by God himself. Most of his books are on ancient Egyptian medicine and mummy autopsies. Above, he is labeled as a non-Muslim scholar yet he states in interview that his "inner soul cried out that Al- Quran was the Word of Allah revealed to his Last Prophet Mohammed." Not sure why an amateur explorer of digestive tracts of Egyptian Mummies is even listed as an authority on dating Hadith.

(b) Cyrus Hamlin Wealthy Firebrand Protestant minister/missionary in Ottoman Turkey in mid 19th century and close relative of VP of USA and 2 civil war generals. Educated in a seminary, he spoke no Arabic and was an administrative director of a network of missions. He wrote two books filled with amusing anecdotes about spending 20 years converting Muslims in Ottoman Turkey.

Is either (a) or (b) a scholar of Islam, an authority on Hadith? So on one side we have thousands of Islamic scholars and on the other side we have a wealthy American missionary in Ottoman Turkey converting the locals and an amateur proctologist to the Pharaohs?

(c) Joseph Schacht was a German British world caliber Islamic Historian who came up with an extremely controversial hypothesis which goes against all past research, documents, and traditions. He is considered the father of the revisionist movement which is very controversial (to put it mildly).

You argument may be valid for that sentence of the quotation - however that does not change the fact that Western scholarship does not accept Hadith's as reliable historical sources at all - hence an article entirely based on it and only one or two third-party sources does not stand the Wikipedia guidelines.

post-scriptum: I should also point out that none of the scources actually discuss the subject/topic. Simple mentioning one incident does not suffice, to reiterate, as per guidelines, WP:THIRDPARTY sources are needed and is likely of questionable WP:NOTE as a result. Temperamental1 (talk) 01:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Temperamental1, you made a statement and backed it up by listing western experts, and i proved 2 to be fakes and 1 to be the father of the controversial revisionist movement. Now you state that "Western scholarship does not accept Hadith's as reliable historical sources at all". Western scholarship does not accept Quran, Torah or New Testament as reliable historic sources but categorizes them as the Iliad, since the existence of all religious prophets from those book can not be established by western empirical standards such as used to prove that Julius Caesar existed. I am not sure that acceptance by Islamic Western Scholarship is a requirement for entry into an encyclopedia, since most of it is very new, revisionist, and extremely controversial. This is a touchy subject, I myself wish more academics would explore the motives for the killings (and create thirdparty), but as can be seen by the comments here, this subject raises uncomfortable questions, with few even more uncomfortable answers that few academics would be thanked for exploring. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 13:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(this belongs above temperamental1 above)The year 722 was written inside the oldest Hadith found which contained the caligrophy of the year. Not ever Hadith had this feature, so until the next Hadith is found with a lower year, 722 is the guess of the revisionist movement. The vast majority of historians and scholars reject this number. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 12:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meishern, the quotes above are about Ibn Ishaq the person, not the raw/edited/translated material cited in the article. Another important point is that Ibn Ishaq expressed caution or skepticism about some of the stories he collected (See Guillaume's introduction, p. xix and later). One example mentioned by Guillaume is the killing of al-Ḥārith ibn Suwayd, currently being reported as fact in the article despite that Ibn Ishaq was more skeptical of it. This is an example of how ignoring reliable sources would lead to articles that are bound to misrepresent the primary sources. We should avoid turning what is said to be alleged, disputed, rumored in the primary sources into a quantitative list of facts here on Wikipedia. Given that hadith is no less problematic than sīra, the same concerns apply to most of the names and events mentioned in the article. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 13:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note Meishern has a self-admitted anti-Muslim bias, and has demonstrated more interest in POV pushing that building a neutral encyclopedia. He loses the entitlement of a good faith assumption by accusing all "delete" !voters of trying to "censor" Wikipedia to advance their "agenda and political philosophy". He ignores that most of us are fine with Military career of Muhammad being presented in its full context, whereas an austere "list of killings" will be inherently an WP:ATTACK WP:POVFORK. He will likely accuse anyone he disagrees with as being a POV warrior, but Meishern's record shows the exact opposite is true. Dzlife (talk) 14:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you lost your good faith assumption in me DZlife. Three edits in thousands in 3 years is all you found to make you lose faith? Let me earn it back.

It would have been easier to link User talk:meishern, where I answered and apologized for my 1 post last year. I appologized on the complete voting thread, where I also apologized [Apologized]. Not as if I am hiding anything.

Two days before September 11, 2010, I was remembering my two very good friends who were working in Tower 1 on 9/11 with a large bottle of vodka. I got roaring drunk. On Wikipedia I wrote a short ugly comment about the Koran and Muslims for the Deletion !vote of the Burn Koran Day article. I apologized on Wikipedia delete section and on my talk page when I sobered up. Got death threats. It's all there on my User talk:meishern. Good work Dzlife! The rest of what you wrote, not so good.

Just look at the [complete meishern edits that DZlife doesn't want you to see] and my explanation of the edits on [article talk page]. They unknowingly were using a photo of captured SS members (and accidentaly released) grinning at the camera to demonstrate happy returning German POWs. Thanks to my change of the photo caption, that page stoped using that photo now which embarrased it when former SS comander of Sobibor Camp 3 Kurt Bolender (page I created on Wikipedia) accused of killing 88,000 civilians released by mistake is used as an example of German POW repatriation. Is that disruptive? POV warrior? Also, I created a comparison between the treatment of POWs in the same war by both sides, so I added information (backed by 3 different references) showing the total of German POW captured and released alive, and total of Russian POWs captured and released alive. Is that POV pushing? One editor thought it was POV, so he removed the part about Russian POWs, now unbalanced and one sided. No edit wars, no accusations, no reverts by me. No Accusations. Sorry to disapoint you DZlife, I made article neutral and when overruled, didn't whine, accuse, or search for dirt in editing histories.

As it regards to this article, I would be fine with showing the total number of assassinations comitted by Buddha, Moses, Jesus and Mohamed. I am against censorship and witholding notable information across the board. Thats why I don't delete anything from my talk page like some editors. I support people's rights to burn flags or books or their bras. I dislike censorship in the name of some greater abstract good which for some reason is important to you.

The forces of censorship are mobilizing and calling on reinforcements as they are starting to smell defeat in their quest for censorship! Thanks Dzlife, a C+ for effort of unmasking this professional POV pushing warrior bigot. Don't worry I wont dig into your history, no skeletons in your closet. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 17:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Strong Keep. And DYK as well. Deletion would constitute censorship.--Galassi (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- - I shall content myself by noting, as perhaps illustrative of this user's lack of policy comprehension with regard to project pages such as AFD, that the article is ineligible for DYK. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps the economic history of the Jews referenced from Werner Sombart and similar scholars now seen as Torah caricaturists should not have been deleted either but "DYK as well" in the name of fighting censorship?! It is sometimes the case that the first Western scholars to tackle a field—like Muir has been for Islam and Sombart for the economic history of the Jews—are no longer considered particularly authoritative. (It's amusing what kind of historians one finds referenced in the ArbCom pages, by the way.) Have mörser, will travel (talk) 20:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is a case of systemic bias, and a POV-fork. If this article remains, I'm going start a list of killings by Moses, with special emphasis on those ordered by God. It's actually a rather long list. I trust nobody will object. Noloop (talk) 02:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it is ani-muslim — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.249.37.156 (talk) 02:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC) — 188.249.37.156 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Not a deletion rationale in and of itself. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. List is a notable topic as attested by the sources within the article. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you meant "by reliable sources." Which sources would these be? Please name some of them. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another randomly chosen example of why this a POVFORK: read the description of Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf in that article, and compare it with his description in this table. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 05:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list is notable. Over 100 sources support the list. Amatulic's point is extremely compelling: "Lists are by their nature are collections of items that share a common characteristic." – Lionel ^(talk) 09:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per dzlife. See also my comment above and at the DRV about the reliability of the sources. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 13:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete feels like a WP:OR WP:COATRACK attack on a religion. No reliable source that discusses the issue in any kind of detail has been provided. I feel pages like this _can_ exist (it's not inherently POV), the sourcing standards I'd want go up however. Find a mainstream academic publication that largely covers the topic (killing Muhammad is responsible for) and I'd likely change to neutral. Find two, and I might change to keep. As it is it feels very patched together (OR) and seems to me to have the purpose of attacking the religion. Hobit (talk) 13:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hobit, please take a look at the books below with some quotes:

1) "...assassination was becoming Muhammad's primary tool of influencing events..."...""Weakened militarily, Muhammad shifted the struggle to political grounds using assassination as a means to inflict violence." Gabriel, Richard A (2007). Muhammad: Islam's First Great General. University of Oklahoma Press. p. 126. ISBN 978-0-8061-3860-2.

2) William Muir sources discuss specific assassinations in great detail. William Muir (1861), The life of Mahomet, Smith, Elder and co, p. 130

3) "In this sense, the use of assassinations by Muhammad went outside the experience of his opponents", Rodgers, Russ (2008). Fundamentals of Islamic Asymmetric Warfare: A Documentary Analysis of the Principles of Muhammad. Mellen Edwin Press. p. 154. ISBN 978-0-7734-4988-6. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 10:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By my count, there are 5 assassinations in the article. There are 38 non-assassinations (including non-killings). Unflavoured (talk) 12:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Edwin Mellen Press is not a reliable source (they're recognized throughout academic as a vanity press), so what a book published by them says is irrelevant. Muir's discussion of specific assassinations in detail is also meaningless, regardless of whether we accept Muir as a reliable source - if he doesn't discuss killings of Muhammad as a topic, the amount of detail he gives on individual incidents only serves to write about those incidents. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a reason to delete. A list article need not have the sources discussing the topic of the list. Our featured lists have a number of articles like that. Whether this article should be a list is another question, however. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"We don't need sources discussing the topic" is fine - it's an argument with which I disagree, but it's fine. I responded because Meishern seemed to be arguing, in response to Hobit, that the Muir source did discuss the topic. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did look over the sources. We've got 3 books, none of which look or feel like realistic academic sources. One is written by a reasonable military historian who seems to have an axe to grind. One is _really_ old and doesn't feel like an academic work to me. The last I can't see. I'd like to see some scholorship by someone who studies the subject and doesn't seem to have a axe to grind. Even then, the sources don't discuss the list as a topic. Given the nature of the list (pejorative toward a religion) I'd want solid and better sources. Hobit (talk) 02:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per WP:OR WP:COATRACK. Sole Soul (talk) 06:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POVFORK. It's not exactly standard Wikipedia practice to have a "List of killings by" page for other historical religious, military, or political figures, so the fact that Muhammad is singled out for a page like this seems like pretty clear POV axe-grinding. There are a ton of historical figures who have killed lots of people, but there's no List of Killings of Augustus Caesar, or Belisarius, or whoever. Notable, sourced mentions of deaths caused or ordered by historical figures certainly have a place in their associated articles, but just dumping a big list like this as its own page is pretty inappropriate. Lost tiree, lost dutch :O (talk) 21:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Merging with Criticism of Muhammad or Criticism of Islam might be reasonable, but these articles are already too big. Hence it makes more sense keeping this supplementary list separately per readability reasons. The list is notable as it is about a founder of religion that was claimed as promoting violence or promoting peace, depending on the source. Such lists would not be justified for other historical personalities. "of" should be replaced by "by".Biophys (talk) 22:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This page has 122 web sources and 10 further book sources. Political correctness and censorship are not reasons to delete articles. Ever. Toa Nidhiki05 16:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Then it's a good thing that that's not why people are arguing for deletion, isn't it? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep. The only ones invoking the ol' "political correctness" and "censorship" trope are the keeps. A weak straw man to avoid the WP:POVFORK issue. Dzlife (talk) 18:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually the deletion proponents have been arguing "NPOV violation" since the first AfD, and as was pointed out by others in the deletion review, that isn't grounds for deletion. There isn't a POV fork issue. Any POV issues can be fixed without deleting (renaming the article would be a good start). The topic of political assassination in Arabian history, and also by Muhammad's involvement, is not controversial. Sources have been presented in the article and the last two debates that discuss neutrally both the topic and individual assassinations. The fact that biased sources also discuss it seems to be the main reason the deletion proponents keep screaming "POV fork!" — but it's an irrelevant point. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an anti-Muslim POV page. One would never write such things about the Jewish religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.52.59.2 (talk) 20:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC) — 108.52.59.2 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie S. Tolan[edit]

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

Not a notable person. The page doesn't contain anything about her life. Mike 2 8 9(click on 9)! 20:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral It would seem to me that winning a Newberry Honor is a pretty significant achievement--analogus to being nominated for an Academy Award in the motion picture industry. However, this article needs work. Blueboy 96 22:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As an author of children's literature, a Newbury Honour is a definite indication of notability. Surviving the Applewhites has had many reviews in a multidude of soruces (e.g. [59], [60]), and the fact that she won the honour has also been reported. Her other books have also receicved reviews (e.g., [61]), and her work has also been adapted for television. -- Whpq (talk) 16:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. The subject didn't win a Newbury Honor, a book of hers (Surviving the Applewhites) did. The book that own is unquestionably notable, but that notability is not automatically inheritable. Also, remember Newbury Honor =/= Newbury Medal. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Saying the book won the honour, and not the author is really splitting hairs; that is especially so given WP:AUTHOR point 3 which indicates that a person can be notable for creating a significant or well-known work, or body of work. Reviews of her books, and a Newbury Honour fill that criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 13:05, 26 September 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I'm quite convinced the Newberry is notable, but I'm not convinced each and every recipient merits a stand-alone article in an encyclopedia. Single-time nominees for anything don't even pass WP:PORNSTAR on the basis of the nomination. The subject is not notable per unambiguous guidelines (e.g. WP:BIO). And for full disclosure, I'm from the same place as the subject. JFHJr (㊟) 05:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The argument for keeping this article isn't based solely on the Newbury Honour. It's a Newbury Honour in conjunction with coverage about her books that merits a keep based on WP:AUTHOR. -- Whpq (talk) 13:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Whpq, and also because additional sources clearly exist (albeit behind pay walls), e.g. [62][63][64][65][66]--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Whpq and Arxiloxas. Simple GBooks search demonstrates far more than enough coverage. Moreover, a book that receives a Newbery honor is certain to have been reviewed/covered in many reliable sources, and WP:NOTINHERITED points out that notability is generally shared by creators and their creative work. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator complains the article doesn't contain anything about the author's life. That is not a reason to delete something. You don't need to know their personal business anyway. The author has published notable books, and won a notable award for at least one of them, so its therefore notable. You just authors by their works. Google news archive search gives ample results, but everything I click on is hidden behind a paywall. Dream Focus 09:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aric Evans[edit]

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

No evidence of meeting WP:ATHLETE, can't find any notable college accoplishments neither other than trivial passing game mentions Delete Secret ^account 04:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While college football players can meet WP:GNG if they have had significant non-trivial coverage in the mainstream news media, I am not finding such coverage on Evans after searching in Google News, Google News Archive, NewsLibrary, and newspaperarchive.com. The only mentions I am finding in the mainstream media are routine, passing references in game coverage, as opposed to articles in which Evans is a main subject of coverage. The only article I found which comes remotely close is an October 5, 2008 game account from the Bristol Herald Courier titled, "Evans TD Reception Gives UVa.-Wise Road Win." Also, the sources presently included with the article are either trivial or consist of routine roster listings, a school-published (i.e., not independent) web bio, stat listings, or UIFL-published (i.e., not independent) stories. I am also influenced by the fact that his college career was with a fourth or fifth-tier collegiate program. UVA at Wise is not even part of the NCAA (which has four tiers of college athletics) but is instead a member of the NAIA. Absent a stronger showing of non-trivial coverage in mainstream, and independent, media outlets, there's not enough here to pass WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 20:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with Cbl's thorough analysis. Does not meet WP:NSPORTS and I can't find any evidence that he meets WP:GNG (and none of the references currently in the article prove that, either). Jenks24 (talk) 22:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy Delete per criterion G7. Already deleted, housekeeping closure. VQuakr (talk) 05:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Colin Macdonald[edit]

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

Conflict of interest, lack of notability, poor references, poor tone. Contested PROD and G7. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Studio Ghibli short films[edit]

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

Procedural nomination for User:Sin_dash_x - see Talk:Studio Ghibli short films. "This is a pointless article, information is already available on other pages notable the main Studio Ghibli page - which clearly lists in chronological and categorical order the short films that the studio has produced. The list on the main Studio Ghibli page links directly to pages for specific films. This page however is poorly written, incomplete and completely disorganised (why info boxes? why "see also") - its is missing many films listed on main Studio Ghibli page, those that are listed are summarised and then linked to their own more detailed existing pages. Studio Ghibli's advertising and commercial work is mixed in with short films on this page. Image on page is of a compilation dvd entitled "Ghibli Ga Ippai", yet page does not cover films that appear on that release. Page has been left without any update since 2010. Sin dash x (talk) 14:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)" — Sin dash x (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Malkinann (talk) 03:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Speedy Keep. That some of the information is available on other pages is not a reason for deletion. The short films page offers quite a bit more than a simple listing of the films, and includes brief synopses of every film listed there. It is not poorly written, it is not completely disorganized (they are in chronological order). The "See also" section is a link (currently just one) to a more comprehensive list of short films; this kind of link is not unusual for such articles. As the article only covers "commercials, films,...music videos, and works released directly to video", it's not surprising it doesn't list many of the films listed on the main Studio Ghibli article: this article covers only short works. The links to the main articles for some of the works listed in the article is because those articles exist. The advertising and commercial works are included as the article covers commercials (very clearly spelled out in the very first sentence). The image is included because, as noted by the caption for the image, it "contains many of the studio's short films". The fact the article has not been updated since 2010 is not a valid reason for deletion. The article has many references as well. This nomination was not thought out and is completely without any valid basis. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I should note that I removed the talk page nomination by Sin dash x as that was the wrong venue and it was pretty much moved here by Malkinann. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The gist of the talk-page argument seems to be that the page is a mess. AfD is not for cleanup. Nihonjoe makes other points much better than I could. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If this page does not meet the criteria for deletion (which I believe it does), it is still a very poor page and needs serious work- The page is called 'Studio Ghibli short films' but whoever wrote it decided to add other works by Studio Ghibli including commercials and music videos THESE ARE NOT SHORT FILMS - so shouldn't the page name be changed to 'Studio Ghibli non feature works' or 'Studio Ghibli other animated works' (or something in that vein) instead of 'Studio Ghibli short films' as it is currently. To use the term 'short films' in the page title is a very clear misnomer.

In addition to the information on the page is horrendously incomplete - Studio Ghibli has produced (as of fall 2011) a total of 14 short films, 6 music videos, at least 17 commercials, and 11 documentaries, the 'short films' page covers 10 short films, 1 music video, and 1 commercial. And all the information thats is present is very poorly laid out: of the 12 works listed, only 4 of them have a corresponding 'info box' on the right of the page which details director, running, release date etc. And I still can't see the point of the page - is this 'Studio Ghibli short films' page meant to cover all non-feature works by the studio?, or is it meant to cover works that appeared on the dvd compilation entitled 'Ghibli Ga Ippai Special Short Short' that was released in 2005? or is it meant to cover just short films? and why have this page when there is so much clear information on the main Studio Ghibli page?

So I will defend point that this page is extremely poorly conceived - at the minimum there needs to be a serious discussion about whether the page name should be changed - but I still maintain that because the CONTENT of the page is a mess or redundant and that the INTENT of the page is confused and ill-defined, a discussion of deletion for this page should continue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sin dash x (talk • contribs) 14:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC) — Sin dash x (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Sometimes you do have to blow it up and start over, but the fact remains that AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim of commercials and music videos not being "short films" is merely semantics. I'm fine if the page is moved to something like Studio Ghibli short works instead since you seem to be so caught up on that tiny point. Regarding the "horrendous incompleteness" of the page, I would point you to WP:SOFIXIT. This is a collaborative project, and in the time you've spent here you could have at least made the article more complete than it is now. Regarding the infobox, only those entries which don't have a separate page are listed there, and this is commonly done in cases where the infobox would end up being many times taller than the page if every entry had a corresponding infobox. Also, any which don't have a full infobox segment are listed at the bottom with links to the individual pages. The page is not poorly conceived, and it does exactly what it was intended to do, albeit somewhat incompletely as you have pointed out. So I reiterate: join the collaboration and fix it rather than making this discussion your only substantial contribution to the encyclopedia. You apparently know a fair bit about this topic, so put that knowledge to good use and improve the article rather than trying to remove it. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most of the listed work of this studio has its own articles. Its a fine list article. Dream Focus 02:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per The Bushranger and Nihonjoe, an arguement for improvement is not a reason for a delete here, this should be taken to the talk page not here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not everything there has an article, and even if they did, it would still be a perfectly sensible list to make given how many shorts Ghibli has made. --Gwern (contribs) 18:21 2 October 2011 (GMT)

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reentry Anonymous[edit]

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

No independent third party sources provided to verify that the organization is notable. Only third party source is just directory information. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While this is certainly a laudable cause, I can't find any reliable secondary sources either. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There aren't many third-party notable sources aside from that Florida department source, nothing on Google News. SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Jenkin[edit]

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

Delete

Clearly this page violates several rules and has misused purpose. The content for biography of living person is poorly sourced, where this single source points to single event. Data cannot be verify due to the lack of information about different point of view and the only single source does not conclude anything regarding this person, simply stating his name. So widespread definition simply forms a gossip WP:BLPGOSSIP.

On the other hand, the presence of repeated vandalism of the page shows that it's used primary for personal battlefield. The presence of personal conflict also violates the rules WP:BATTLEGROUND and creates event which later others can quote Wikipedia. To hold somebody a grudges is not a reason for creating biography page in Wikipedia and use it's influence as encyclopedical content back against the person.

Person is relatively unknown and the one single source, which can be misread, can affect a person's reputation, future personal and business life WP:NPF. Page is also to be considered as long-term abuse and attack to individual based on personal grudges. Perfectford (talk) 19:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 02:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking clearly sourced claims of notability. This is exactly the sort of character assassination our BLP policies are supposed to prevent. Mangoe (talk) 03:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin I was contacted on IRC to help User:Perfectford list this AFD in the log. It appears I listed it in the wrong log and that has caused some confusion. I relisted the debate so it can run it's full course. Admin User:King of Hearts closed the debate after seeing it relisted and seeing consensus to delete. Not his fault, but the debate had not run it's full course. I undid the closure, left a note on his talk page, and undeleted the article. Please don't close debate until after 1 October at 19:54 GMT.--v/r - T P 14:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Totally fails WP:GNG. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. - DonCalo (talk) 19:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poke (gesture)[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Even the disambiguation page poke recognizes that this is a subject best suited for a dictionary, not an encyclopedia (note that the first link on that page is to Wiktionary). There's no evidence that there is anything encyclopedic to say about the act of poking. Powers ^T 22:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 02:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary, the page is a definition. Q.E.D. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely untrue; WP:OR; WP:SYN. Doesn't even qualify as a dictionary definition as it is not a gesture and simply an act that does not causally relate to the information in the article.Curb Chain (talk) 11:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was soft delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Hudson (British actor)[edit]

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

I've had a request from the subject of the article and am nominating on his behalf. I've not done much research (yet), but from a quick Google it's barely notable. It has been PROD'd once before and the tag was removed after 6.5 days, and one measly reference added. At the moment it's a long list of unreferenced performances. Alex Muller 10:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An article that falls under WP:BLP? And doesn't look like many references... I can't seem to locate any on google either.... ^Jguy_Talk^Done 23:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—This article may be conflated with John Joseph (actor). I say this because they have different birth years yet they list common TV roles. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for noticing that RJH - this does look weird. I asked John Hudson and got this reply:

> This is not me, although Equity confused us a couple of years ago. While a child actor and not a member of Equity, he was known as John Hudson (his real name), now an adult actor he has changed his name. There is also an opera singer named John Hudson who is also not a member of Equity.

I've tried to make that more clear with this edit Alex Muller 13:19, 17 September 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, Cúchullain ^t/c 19:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 02:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Considering circumstances and weak case for notability, I don't oppose deletion of current rather poor article.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Evans[edit]

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neverfail[edit]

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

Contested speedy deletion, not mine. Article is about a back office software business apparently selling backup systems for online businesses. Unreferenced advertisement and solution-speak:

a global software company that specializes in continuous availability and disaster recovery solutions
Continuous Availability is an approach to computer system and application design that protects users against downtime, whatever the cause and ensures that users remain connected to their documents, data files and business applications.
The importance of Continuous Availability is growing, as the highly competitive nature of today's business environment means that any user or business application downtime can have a severe impact on business operations. Inevitably, such downtime can lead to loss of productivity, loss of revenue, customer dissatisfaction and ultimately can damage a companies reputation.

No independent references; list of external links are about the concept of "continuous availability" generally rather than this business specifically. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's possible notability might be established for their software product (c.f., [67]) but the company itself does not appear notable. As pointed out by the nom, the article reads like an advertisement and lacks sources to support any of it. Wikipedia is not for WP:PROMOTION. Msnicki (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 02:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:SPAM. - DonCalo (talk) 19:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - spam/promotional article created by an SPA. Dialectric (talk) 23:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Logitech G51[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable product. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Product reviewed by Maximum PC, HWM, in the book iMac Portable Genius, and on various web hardware review sites. Seems to be a popular brand with gamers. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - article is currently only supported by a primary citation and as such is clearly promo only. A run of the mill promo product review would not make it notable imo either. There are thousands of speakers available - a list of them might be worth it but the run of the mill ones do not assert any requirement for a stand alone wikipedia article , no sir. Off2riorob (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 02:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability of this product. Wikipedia is not a shopper's guide. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of wp:notability. The only source is the seller's web site. Wikipedia is not a Logitech catalog. North8000 (talk) 14:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable consumer product, and because Wikipedia is not a directory of every consumer product ever offered for sale. Edison (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a guide for prices and product's stats. Also, pointing out a price range for one territory will have impact on the market on other location which retail prices is different! Perfectford (talk) 09:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Adding official page of the product Logitech G51, to help debate. Perfectford (talk) 10:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Logitech X-540[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable product. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 02:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a shopper's guide. Non-notable product , no enduring value to the encylopedia of a roll-call of consumer goods. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of wp:notability. The only source is the seller's web site. Wikipedia is not a Logitech catalog. North8000 (talk) 14:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory, and this non-notable product seems to lack the type and quantity of coverage needed to establish notability. Edison (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a guide for prices and product's stats. Also, pointing out a price range for one territory will have impact on the market on other location which retail prices is different! Perfectford (talk) 09:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Adding official page of the product Logitech X-540, to help debate. Perfectford (talk) 10:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. No prejustice against recreation if they pass the notability threshold at a future date. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alakrity[edit]

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

I can't find any significant coverage for this band. The band was formed when they were in middle school and they have no albums released on a label. SL93 (talk) 21:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - They've received some coverage in their home town newspaper for winning a high school music, two years ina row, but that's not sufficient to establish them as a notable band. -- Whpq (talk) 14:58, 15 September 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, Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 04:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 02:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - subject does not appear to meet WP:BAND. My searches came up with the same articles as User:Whpq above; unable to find any further coverage. Gongshow ^Talk 15:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They've made just a faint impression on the edges of the blogosphere. Do seem to have an audience, but tiny, so far. Could make it past the threshhold, but not there yet. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carrie Lee Sze Kei[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO. created by a single purpose editor for obvious promotion. gets some very limited coverage for modelling. note i don't see her competition wins as major.[68]. as for acting career, imdb has no entry for her. nor can i even verify she acted in the TV series mentioned [69]. LibStar (talk) 03:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some major problems with someone's translation into English. Yikes. This will take a lot of digging. And while Carrie Lee Sze Kei is this woman's complete name, it seems she does do work simply as "Carrie Lee". And though Western sources are not plentiful, in-depth secondary coverage over a many-years period exist: Malaysia Star Asia One Malaysia Star New Straits Times Malaysia Star Malaysia Star Malaysia Star And while the "Miss Chinese Cosmos" pageant may not be as important to the United States as is "Miss America", it does seem to be notable and sourcable enough to eventually merit its own Wikipedia article,[70] for per WP:CSB, notable to China and/or the Philipines is fine for en.Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
almost all the coverage merely confirm one thing: she was a winner of Miss Chinese Cosmos. Is this a noteworthy title? LibStar (talk) 04:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Looking at the worldwide and years-long coverage for the Miss Chinese Cosmos event, I would say yes... and note that it even has coverage in the United States... though it appears far more notable outside this country.[71] for per WP:CSB, notable to China and/or the Philipines is fine for en.Wikipedia. From sources and coverage, the international competition Miss Chinese Cosmos is a redlink simply begging for an article. And toward WP:GNG, this person has coverage from 2004 through 2011, and the assertion of her entertainment work break this away from BLP1E. Again, we do have the translation problems inherent in the article which will require the assistance of the Philippines Wikipedians better able to source the film and television work. IMDB and other Western sources are inadequate for that purpose, as most Malaysian entertainment and stars do not make into the databases and other sources with which we in the West are more familar. Of course, the handicap of being unknown is the U.S. does not equate to be unknown elsewhere. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 02:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep between English and Chinese there's sufficient WP:RS coverage to squeak by WP:GNG, which I've added to the article (I highly doubt there's anything more in Tagalog; she's Malaysian Chinese and her only connection to the Philippines is allegedly acting in a joint venture soap opera with a Philippine TV station). She seems to have some limited notability, but don't overstate the case in the name of fighting alleged systemic bias: I'm Malaysian and speak Chinese fluently and I'd never heard of her before today. She's a winner of a second-tier beauty pageant who acted in a non-notable ([72][73]) television series on the outer fringes of the Chinese-language entertainment industry. cab (call) 03:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:GNG I Can't read Chinese, but does seems to gets significant coverage in reliable sources as shown in article. Rednevog (talk) 20:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Singular (Band)[edit]

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

Claims of millions of YouTube hits are made, of catapulting into heights, of all kinds of awards, but I don't see it. Delete. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - here's the video. Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 04:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh, where is the secondary sourcing that proves the video's popularity? And if that evidence exists, how does that prove the band is notable? Drmies (talk) 16:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

web.archive.org/web/20100722100723/http://hot.atimemedia.com/chart/; as set in WP:MUSIC, having a single or album on any country's national music chart can grant notability. This is a tough one. --Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 08:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What exactly is the reason for suggested deletion? Not sure whether it's WP:N or WP:BLP that's of issue here. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability, of course. Claims about popularity are made, which should substantiate a claim about notability per our standards. Drmies (talk) 16:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 02:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject of independent coverage by the Bangkok Post[74] and Student Weekly[75]. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is in terrible shape, but the Bangkok Post reference provided by Paul clearly shows significant coverage. As a side note, the article should be renamed to Singular (band). Jenks24 (talk) 14:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete as a copyvio. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DONNA & Steve O’MEARA-Volcano Researchers/Authors/National Geographic Contract Photographers[edit]

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

The notability of the subject is asserted and is probably not problematic. However, the tone of the article, including its title, is so utterly unencyclopedic that the article will need a rewrite from scratch. Much of the article is blatanly off-topic, and the article has also been tagged as a possible copyvio of printed material. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete; the only content relevant to the title is copyvio, the rest appears to be filler. Hairhorn (talk) 00:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Even if the subjects are notable, this is a pure rub-it-out-and-start again case. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Wrong venue. This is a 5-year-old redirect, and as such it will be listed at WP:RFD. Non-admin closure. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peaceful demonstration[edit]

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

It serves no purpose. It was only linked by two articles. I changed one to a pipe and the other will be piped or changed pending a discussion. Metallurgist (talk) 15:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fashion_entrepreneur