< 6 June	8 June >

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kasalavu Nesam[edit]

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

It's a review of a movie (or, is it a play? Hard to tell.) Might be a candidate for speedy delete, but I don't think it fits in any of the categories. JoelWhy (talk) 12:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This was apparently a Tamil television series that aired in the late 1990s or early 2000s.[1] Not completely unsourcable... so I made the article prettier[2] in anticipation that someone better able to research Tamil television might come along and fix it up. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sounds good.JoelWhy (talk) 12:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can KEEP but wiki needs at least some verifiable and trusted source. Kindly provide some source to keep it. --Bharathiya 03:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bharathiya (talk • contribs)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 23:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The evidence presented appears to indicate that there may be multiple institutions with the name "Durham" and it is not clear that we have sufficient sources to establish the notability of the specific institution named in the article. If need be, a new article can be created using a name in common usage among multiple reliable sources. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Durham College of San Antonio[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No sources cited here. Sources I found were on corporationwiki.com and on some sites about closed schools; my Google Fu has failed. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I suspect that the Google hits for a Texas "Durham College" are referring to Durham's Business College, for which Google turns up numerous listings and references to alumni at various branches around Texas[3][4] and one interesting advertisement from a 1942 newspaper[5] that describes the school as "Texas' Largest Chain of Schools" with branches in "Austin - Houston - San Antonio - Ft. Worth - Harlingen". Unfortunately I haven't been able to turn up anything to verify anything about the school other than its existence and the ~~fact that it had~~ identities of a lot of graduates--not even its opening date or closing date. As was noted at the first AfD, much of the original version of this article seems to have been cribbed from Santa Fe University of Art and Design and those details seem likely to be a hoax: I also find no verification for any relationship to St. Mary's University, Texas as is claimed in a later part of the original article. This may be the odd case where we have a subject that's real and clearly notable, but we are unable to write an article (even a stub) that passes WP:V.--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seeing this second nomination makes me realise that I was too quick to close the first one. I think Arxiloxos said it very well - it is hard to tell what "Durham College" exactly most of the sources are talking about, and I don't think we should be basing an encyclopaedia article on such flimsy evidence. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 06:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - existence is not notability. Bearian (talk) 22:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~I agree with Arxiloxos that the corporate name of the school is "Durham Business College".~~ Also, all of the "Durham Business College"s in Texas seem to be part of one organization. This school has left a long trail, an 1859 origin date would be markedly notable, and there is no doubt that the school dates back to 1942. There is an appeal's court case from 1973, evidence that the Texas Education ~~Association~~Agency was legally involved in 1991, and a current record that the business still legally exists although not in good standing. The 1973 court case tells about the school's business practice at that time, ref. Here is a newspaper article about the school from a 1963 ref. Unscintillating (talk) 02:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep
- Patterson's American Education (1979), "Durham Business College. Austin, El Paso. Houston. San Antonio".
- Thirteen passing mentions from three different newspapers with dates between 1939 and 1942 ref. These mentions are evidence that the school existed at least as far back as 1939, with an alternate name of "Durham's Business College".
- Post-secondary education planning in Texas: techniques for policy ..., Regarding Durham Business College Austin, the school opened in 1936 and "The college's approximately 300 students are primarily from Austin and its immediate vicinity."
- Book searches and one of the legal documents show that other branches were at Waco, Ft. Worth, Harlingen, and Phoenix over the years.
- Keypunch taught in 1967.
- This ref shows that there was legally a Durham College of San Antonio in 1985.
- Here, Durham College of San Antonio loses their certificate to operate a school on 17 January 1992.
- This ref shows a current corporate name of "Durham College of San Antonio Inc".

Notable school, in part due to its longevity of more than 50 years. Lots of info, and as per WP:NRVE there is evidence that there will be more in the libraries in about eight cities in Texas and Phoenix. It has never been our policy to delete articles because they were not perfected. Unscintillating (talk) 05:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm puzzled why the 1973 legal matter has the name "Durham Business College of San Antonio" and the 1985 legal matter has the name of "Durham College of San Antonio". I suppose the corporation could have changed their name, possibly the word "business" was out of vogue, and/or they had a broader curriculum. One of the books mentions that their 1974 catalog for the Austin school had ten courses of study. Unscintillating (talk) 05:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing all that research - that obviously took a long time. I agree with you that the Durham Business College looks notable, and I did notice this when I was searching for sources the previous time. Your research also shows that the Durham College of San Antonio definitely existed, at least as far back as 1984, according to the Texas courts. There doesn't look to be enough material there to make anything but the shortest of stubs about the latter, though. Do we have any evidence that Durham Business College and the Durham College of San Antonio are connected? For example, a street address being the same or something like that? I would be more willing to recommend the article be kept if we could connect the two concretely. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the research efforts are appreciated. The references confirm there was one (or more than one?) institution of higher education, and if we had some verifiable information about it, it would deserve an article. However, we don't appear to have any clear, firm information; as noted above and in the first AfD, the 1859 date is part of an apparently bogus history probably copied from Santa Fe University of Art and Design [6]. WP:FRANKENSTEIN is also instructive here. Consistent with WP:V, could we do much more than say something like, Durham's Business College was a school of higher education located in a number of cities, mostly in Texas? --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Hue Sat Lum 21:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dong Phuong Oriental Bakery[edit]

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

Notability not established, fails WP:CORP. The only "independent" reference source is a couple of brief food reviews in a local newspaper. WWGB (talk) 22:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The New York Times is not local to the location of the restaurant. [7]. Infrogmation (talk) 00:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. However, trivial mentions such as that don't count for the purposes of WP:CORP and WP:SIGCOV. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It doesn't meet the Notability guidelines and therefore should be deleted. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to write about your local bakery. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 23:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While certainly of note in greater New Orleans area, I make no vote as to if it falls within Wikipedia notability guidelines. I post to mention that there are variations on the restaurant name in use, so searching for the combination of phrases "Dong Phuong" "New Orleans" will return very significantly more results than the phrase "Dong Phuong Oriental Bakery". -- Infrogmation (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 22:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 22:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This subect is manifestly notable. It's far from being a local bakery. It's a historic location that is significant culturally and culinarily. There are oodles of additional sources that can be used [8]. I'm not sure what the bias on Wikipedia is against notable independent businesses and notable small businesses, but a subject doesn't have to be a chain or a giant corporation to be influential, important, historic, significant and worth including. This business easily meets all of those criteria. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Google hits showing various travel guides are sources? These are directories, not actual coverage. You are the author; what sources can you offer to prove that this establishments meets the criteria in WP:CORP? There is no "bias" here as you perceive, just people knowledgeable about our inclusion criteria. A small business can be notable, but it needs significant coverage in multiple reliable sources (not telephone books and travel directories), and that coverage must be more than local. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:24, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are not "Google hits", they are the results of a Google Books search showing coverage in a variety of sources on New Orleans history, cuisine, and culture. None of the books I saw listed were direectories. There is additional coverage from the NYT that I haven't had a chance to add. Lots of sources, including the major regional paper and sources outside the area, discuss this as a special and unique business that supplies its bread wholesale to many of the area restaurants and the sources also discuss in some detail its significance within the Vietnamese community as well as the expanding influence it has in the region more generally as Vietnamese cuisine catches on and its products have been discovered over the decades of its existence. It is a wholesale bakery, a popular retail bakery, and a restaurant. It's noted for its banh mi in major papers, it's noted for its baked goods, it's noted for its bread that is used by other businesses, and it sells its products in other areas of the country including here in Florida where I live. This is anything but "your local bakery". Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, please list specific examples, or better yet, but them in the article. Glancing over the Google books results reveals books like travel guidebooks pointing out restaurants in the area the book is about. That isn't exactly the "coverage" Wikipedia has in mind in WP:CORP. And dhe NYT item mentioned above is a trivial mention only. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added several since the beginning of this discussion and will be adding several more as I have time. Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are also additional articles about the eatery and bakery here [9].Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see the problem here. Let me try to explain what "significant coverage" means in the context of Wikipedia. That particular link isn't coverage. It's a New Orleans local site, all about local places, and each article on there are associated with that site.

WP:SIGCOV: Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. The reviews on that site are not independent of that site. And furthermore...

WP:CORP: Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary. Also, trivial mentions don't count as "attention" by media. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added citations to a New York Times article that says of Dong Phuong: "If you’ve had a banh mi in New Orleans, chances are the bread came from Dong Phuong, on an undistinguished stretch of Chef Menteur Highway east of the city, near the church of Mary Queen of Vietnam. The bakery is on the right, a related restaurant on the left.

A banh mi from the bakery — meatballs with pâté and vegetables, and plenty of hot peppers — makes a parking-lot lunch at Dong Phuong one of the signal pleasures of the American South.

In the dining room, which draws a crowd from 11 a.m. on, there isn’t much of note, aesthetically. But the food is worth driving for: dark, peppery, shaking beef with onions and rice, say, or pork over vermicelli and a cold duck salad to eat with sweet tea." [10]

I also added a New York Times Magazine article that says: "Some of the best Vietnamese sandwiches in America can be found in the South. In New Orleans it’s called a “Vietnamese Po Boy,” and most of the best spots can be found clustered east of Downtown on Chef Menteur Highway. Of these, the most unique experience is arguably Dong Phuong Oriental Bakery, where the banh mi seeker is shepherded around to the back of the bakery, past the brightly colored sweets and cakes, to be greeted by pork floss and chicken in a sliced baguette, made onsite and dressed with a butter-based aioli spread.[11]. Again, there are lots and lots and lots of sources covering this subject including major regional papers such as the Times-Picayune, many books, internet publications, magazines, etc. etc. etc. It meets all the notability criteria because it's significant historically, culinarily, and culturally. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable not just in culinary terms but as a important institution within New Orleans' Vietnamese-American community, and it has received substantial coverage from sources outside New Orleans.--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sufficient sources found to establish notability. Article still needs work for bare-url refs and peacock phrasing, but AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to .mm. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

.bu[edit]

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

As the article correctly states, there was once an ISO 3166-1 code BU for Burma. But the topic of the article is the top-level domain .bu, which could have been derived from the ISO 3166-1 code - this apparently never happened, however. At the talk page, user Zundark wrote in 2006: "It's a bit strange to have an article on a ccTLD that never existed, but I decided against listing it for deletion as the ISO 3166-1 code BU existed for a few years after the DNS was introduced - so .bu did briefly have the potential of being assigned, and maybe merits an article because of that." I think that the mere "potential of being assigned" isn't quite enough for an article, if it can't be shown that there were at least plans of introducing a .bu domain. This makes the article different from the other five under "Retired / deleted" in the ccTLD navbox: .cs, .um, .yu and .zr were actually in use, .dd was at least used internally at the universities of Jena and Dresden. In contrast, .bu is a completely hypothetical TLD. Note: As an admin in the German Wikipedia, I deleted the .bu article there as the outcome of a deletion request, that's what made me aware of the issue. Gestumblindi (talk) 22:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge/Redirect~~Delete per nom, there isn't much else to say about .bu besides "there was once an iso code for it, but it was never put to use". ~~Merge that info into an appropriate article and redirect .bu to it. I'm afraid it's a bit out of my area to know where to merge it to though I'm sure somebody knows~~.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 00:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure there's anything to merge, as the article gives no evidence that it was even considered to create a .bu domain based on the ISO 3166-1 code BU - all we know for sure is that there was an ISO 3166-1 code and that ccTLDs are usually based on these codes. But the ISO code BU and the hypothetical .bu TLD are not the same thing. In the German Wikipedia's deletion discussion, a user even went to the length of sending an enquiry to the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), and their answer (quoted there, in English) was basically that they have no information on .bu whatsoever. Gestumblindi (talk) 01:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've convinced me. As I said this is a bit out of my knowledge area; thanks for pointing out the difference between an ISO code for a TLD and the TLD itself, I was conflating the two. Accordingly, I've decided deleting would be the best option.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 02:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to .mm. Since .bu never existed, and there's no evidence that Burma ever requested its assignment, I agree with Gestumblindi that it cannot merit an article. But I think that people are likely to search for .bu (e.g., because there are inaccurate TLD lists that include it), so it's best to redirect it to .mm, which mentions in its first paragraph that .bu never existed. --Zundark (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good solution to me. By the way, for the sake of completeness: Today, a user over in the German Wikipedia added some links to the (technically closed) deletion discussion, pointing to a mildly amusing, but, I think, irrelevant event in 2007: Apparently, there's a "micronation" called "Independent Long Island" run by a single person who declared himself its "Governor pro tempore". In 2007, after the disappearence of the .mm TLD from the global DNS, he "re-baptized the country of Myanmar with the new name of Burma", created a .bu domain on his personal root server, which of course is of no consequence for the real DNS, and declared war on Myanmar. A non-notable story, I think - an article for "Independent Long Island" was even deleted from the Micronations Wiki. Gestumblindi (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to .mm per Zundark. Doesn't seem to be notable but could be a useful redirect. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 06:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Buddy Holly (disk jockey)[edit]

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

Article has been de-speedied numerous times by a serious of SPA editors. All of the references are from sites that are not reliable sources. I have done searches to find mention of either the DJ or the company in reliable sources and have come up empty. Since the article regularly is having maintenance tags removed, it appears that we need to go to AfD to get a final decision. It appears that this artist is a case of WP:TOOSOON, as there are currently simply not significant reliable sources to establish notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. For now the subject of the article fails every point of WP:BAND and there seems to be no independent reliable sources--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 00:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:MUSBIO. ukexpat (talk) 00:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable; "Interscope Digital" is not a label per se, as the entry seems to suggest. Hairhorn (talk) 00:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and all of the above. GregJackP Boomer! 01:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - closing admin, please also take a look at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/DJ_Buddy_Holly_(David_Charles_Kramer) as that likely needs to be noted with the result of this AfD. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 23:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it is eligible A7 but. It fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSBIO. →TSU ^tp* 17:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete by User:Tonywalton under criteria G3 - "Pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes". (non-admin closure) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2016 FIFA World Cup[edit]

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

Per WP: Crystal Ball GouramiWatcher ^(Gulp) 22:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as patent nonsense (madeup). --AJHingston (talk) 22:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One Infinite Loop[edit]

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

Article was nominated for A7 deletion by Overmage but was removed by one-edit SPA, 24.216.248.28 (talk · contribs). Article was then PRODed by Semitransgenic but the PROD was removed by another one-edit SPA, 24.216.247.40 (talk · contribs). Both IPs are from the same city and use the same ISP ([12][13])Probable socking aside, I believe that the subject of the article, a composer, fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:ARTIST, and WP:MUSIC.

Article has four references. One is to Discogs.com, a source that I do not feel can be used to establish notability. The second and third are primary sources, lists of bands playing at a seemingly non-notable festival called Norcal Noisefest. As they're primary and do not constitute independent or significant coverage, they can't be used to establish notability. The fourth is a website called Bandcamp.com that seems to be selling the subject's product (I'm having trouble even pulling it up). A retailer isn't independent and there's no significant coverage on the page. In short, in my opinion, none of the current references on in the article can be used to establish notability.

A Google News search that excludes any reference to Apple (the street its HQ is located), returns no results. A similar Google News Archive search also produces no hits for the subject in the first three pages of results. A Google News search and Google News Archive search for the subject of the article's real name, also provide no coverage of the subject of this article.

All external links are not independent and cannot be used to establish notability. Author of the page, Pinecone23777 (talk · contribs) in an SPA whose edits suggest that they're attempting to promote the subject of the article on Wikipedia wherever possible. I can find no connection between the author and the subject of this article. OlYeller21^Talktome 21:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable.Hairhorn (talk) 23:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, fails WP:ARTIST and WP:MUSIC

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - no in-depth coverage found in independent, reliable sources for this project; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow ^Talk 06:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per WP: A7. The CSD tag should have been reinstated, as there was no reason to remove the CSD tag. I am sure that this is some sort of sockpuppeting case. I will warn both IPs with level 1 warning for removing speedy deletion tags. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 17:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to try to stop you but a connection hasn't been proven. Even if it had, the user seems intent on creating a page and they (if socking was proven), have shown that they're willing to subvert our policies. I brought the subject to AfD so that the issue would be settled. I can't fault anyone for calling duck, though. OlYeller21^Talktome 18:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. It has no coverage in WP:RS and thus fails WP:GNG and also WP:MUSBIO. →TSU ^tp* 17:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 'Merge and/or redirect to auction. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery auction[edit]

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

Unsourced article of dubious notability. Contested PROD Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Auction like Silent auction. It is a type of auction that is fairly common, not just online, but doesn't deserve it's own article.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 00:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Auction, or possibly a merge if anyone wants to take the time to source the content. I see enough mentions in sources[14][15] that I could even be persuaded to keep this if someone were to improve it, but in general I think it makes more sense to mention it in the context of the Auction article. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 06:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Auction. Easily sourcable, it is actually brief enough to be merged to its parent article, with no prejudice for a future expansion. No need to delete it. Cavarrone (talk) 07:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete G12. Deleted by The JPS (non-admin closure). — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Navaladi Karuppannaswami Temple[edit]

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

Unsourced article, notability is questionable, reads like an advert, much of the article is close paraphrasing or direct copy of this Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete or Delete, without prejudice to re-creation Appears to be a copyvio of [16].

Deletion is also because of WP:NOTTRAVEL, WP:NOTPROMOTION, and WP:V. The "General information" section falls into the WP:NOTTRAVEL category. Just in general there is a lack of information, for example, being told "It is also said..." without a source is a rumor. The statement, "The Chellandiamman shrine is very popular" is unsourced and vague (not quantified). The "History" section has no dates.

This source asserts that the temple is 2000 years old, people come from all over the world to visit, and "The temple is noted for its architectural and sculptural beauty," where these statements are indications of notability, and if they can be sourced in reliable secondary sources re-creation of this article is to be encouraged, so the Delete should be marked as without prejudice to recreation. I found this link to be relevant. Unscintillating (talk) 07:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G12 as a word-for-word copy of this source already mentioned by Ryan Vesey and Unscintillating. The temple looks otherwise notable, so I agree with Unscintillating that there should be no prejudice against recreation. I've tagged the page for speedy deletion. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 07:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ravidassia gotras[edit]

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

The article has only one source, and its information relates on a series of single names of some of the prominent Gotras in Ravidasia. (It may appear it has 5 sources, but they're all the same. I think it was a trick by the creator to disguise the article as a well-sourced one.) --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 21:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per WP:PROMOTION article is promoting a group of community with unreliable single source and many of these gotras are wrong and bluffed. Dr meetsingh Talk 20:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete (non-admin technical closure). Ymblanter (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

13 Haunted[edit]

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

I declined speedy deletion of this, which was claimed to be a fake film. I can't find any sources for it, but if it's Tamil there might be non-English sources. Best bring it here for discussion, I thought. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If no results come up, odds are it either doesn't exist (G3) or isn't Notable enough (A7), and should be deleted either way. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 23:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I even searched using the names of listed cast and director and found nothing about this film. Most likely a WP:HOAX.
Delete: The cast and crew of this purported 2013 film are stars of contemporary Indian cinema. Due diligence:

and so on. --Shirt58 (talk) 13:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this user after being has re-emerged under a new sockpuppet and hos continued his unnecessary additions. In his previous form, he made up imaginary films casting mainstream actors - and now surprisingly he is also adding himself to the cast list. Is there no way for a proper block? This is his previous name - User: Natpuillai, who had been banned. Editor 2050 (talk) 14:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also on a side note - another one of his fake film articles titled Kallori Kathai (College Love) cast himself in the leading role opposite recently deceased child actress Taruni Sachdev - shows how sickening and disrespectful this guy's edits are. Editor 2050 (talk) 14:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) →TSU ^tp* 06:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tejn (artist)[edit]

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

Per WP:BIO, no significant third-party coverage from reliable sources, just blogs and such. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - you obviously aren't looking at the same article. There are clearly two non-blog, news sources cited in the article, so it meets the minimum notability requirements of WP:GNG. Considering the nature of street art - unofficial, sometimes illegal, not supported by big business or news interests - this almost respresents the height of fame! Sionk (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic passes WP:BASIC and WP:GNG per:

(in Dutch) "Want to see street art, then take to ... Køge". Ibyen. May 7, 2011. Retrieved June 7, 2012.
(in Dutch) Damsgaard, Marie (March 31, 2011). "Street art without hand sweat". KBH Magazine. Retrieved June 7, 2012.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The news sources in the article look like enough to satisfy WP:BASIC. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 07:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Government Cheese[edit]

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

No indication of WP:notability. Only sources are primary. Has existed over two years without anything substantial. Google searches do not reveal anything. noq (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:[reply]

Delete. Doesn't appear to me to meet WP:BAND in any of the 12 criteria listed. The book about the band was (i) written by a member of the group and (ii) indicates in the sub-title that the reader has never heard of the band. (It's strange that a band could possibly be notable for not being notable, but it had to be considered.) There are no other non-trivial published sources I found, AFAIK, and hence it doesn't seem to me to meet #1. I don't see that the band's label meets criterion #5, the band's members don't seem to meet #6, and nothing else seems to apply. Ubelowme (talk) 19:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if this is found to be non-notable, it would be a good idea to create a redirect to Government cheese in its space. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both of them. I found a few local news sources,[17][18][19][20] but not really the level of coverage that we need to write an encyclopaedia article. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 07:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I actually did hear of them, but I'm not sure how much touring they did. Bearian (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've seen Tommy play at shows in Louisville in the last few years, so it seems to be a question of how active he is. I'd like to ask for a stay of execution for both articles until the end of the month. He's busier than a lot of the C-list actors that have articles on WP, if that carries any ice. LibertyHiller (talk) 05:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A very merry weak keep - I have found some evidence of touring - they played in New York, New Mexico, in Kentucky for their reunion, but I can't find very reliable sources. I also note that they could have played SXSW but didn't. Now, as of 1999 they had lots of Ghits. Is that proof of notability? Maybe. Bearian (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The only potential thing for supporting notability there is the dailynews link but even that I don't think passes muster. Myspace and straightdope are not reliable sources, and the coyotecommunications link about sxsw is a very dodgy claim - a band member saying we didn't because of a dodgy manager? noq (talk) 00:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Author agrees to deletion; WP:TOOSOON. To the author: Notability is explained in the General Notability Guideline. It's when your product is noticed and written about by reliable, independent sources. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Astral Wizards Collectible Card Game[edit]

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

A completely unnotable, unreleased card game. The article could already probably be deleted based entirely on WP:TOOSOON as it does not even have a clear release date, however, more obvious is its complete lack of notability. There are absolutely no sources mentioning this game except for the games official website, and upon looking at that, you will see that the company that is making this game, "Hexplay", has not made anything else at all. So, what we have here is an unnotable game, made by an unnotable company, that isn't even planned on being released for some time. Additionally, the page creator is also named "Hexplay", making this a pretty clear case of WP:COI. I would have just speedied this, but there is no clear criteria that it falls under. The PROD was removed by the page creator, so I brought it here. Rorshacma (talk) 17:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rorshacma! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hexplay (talk • contribs) 18:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC) I apologize this is my first article here. I'm game developer from indie game developer company HEXPLAY. Currently we work on Astral Wizards our first online CCG game for tablets(ipad&android). We are not noobs ;) We have work for decade in gamedev also i'm founder of aigrind(warspear online) and herocraft. So Astral Wizards will be done in this year. Should we need to wait for it?? As indie i am very appreciate wiki help to make announce the game now. Thanks! Hexplay (talk) 18:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, definitely WP:CRYSTAL. To Hexplay, wikipedia is not an advertising site, your products need to be notable first then may deserve an article, not the other way round. NtheP (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Delete it i don't want to be like spammer. And please tell me what is mean "notable first"? Is't release or make 10k+ online players or what? Hexplay (talk) 18:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted per WP:CSD#G7. Jenks24 (talk) 21:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andre Wagener[edit]

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

"Why I removed the PROD tag? It is because that a captain of a national cricket team is definitely notable." Wagener plays for Belgium, a team outside of the World Cricket League structure. At present, WP:CRIN states a player is deemed notable if they have played in World Cricket League Division 5 or higher. Obviously Wagener doesn't have the instant qualifier of notability that is having played major cricket in the form of first-class, List A or Twenty20. On the articles talk page, three links have been provided - none of which establish notability. Simply being the captain of a low-ranking international team doesn't mean notability is a guarantee. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wang Lei (Chinese cricketer) (2nd nomination) for an example of an AfD of a captain of a minor international team. In short, this cricketer falls quite wide of the mark of WP:CRIN and WP:ATH and by extension WP:GNG. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 22:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:CRIN. He has not played any international mathces taht might be considered notable. The Determinator p t c 15:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Hue Sat Lum 17:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marc_Drillech[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Marc Drillech

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

Basic VP of what looks like a holding company. Not particularly notable. Article is a CV/vanity page. Fails WP:BIO McSly (talk) 17:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep. This article has just been approved by KTC. It has been approved at 16:22 and you propose the article for deletion 1 hour after. Is it against me or agains KTC? Marc Drillech is Vice-President of the first private group for higher education in France, Vice-President of 18 privates universities and has written books. The Wikipedia's academic notability guideline is very clear: "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society", which is completely the case here. 80.13.85.217 (talk) 17:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He is a basic VP of a holding company managing private schools. WP:ACADEMIC doesn't apply here and even if it did, since he is not the president, it would fail that policy too. He is not notable the same way we don't list every (or any) VP from American Express for example. He is a non notable exec from a mid size company.--McSly (talk) 17:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He is head of 18 privates universities. So he clearly meets academic notability : "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society"80.13.85.217 (talk) 18:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's not the head since he is only a VP. There are also not universities, they are private schools. Please be more careful before mis-characterizing your own article.--McSly (talk) 18:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This another discussion, it is more about source quality. Please have a look on the sources, with are secondaries and qualities (an example) (and if you look on Google, you will also see movies with personalities such as Richard Descoings) . But as previously says, this is something else that keep or delete. Moreover, the article just has been approved by ~~KFC~~ KTC, so it takes time for other contributors to improve it. And again, he is managing 18 private universities in France on the first group for private education. So he clearly meets the academic notability : "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society". 80.13.85.217 (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My username is "KTC" not "KFC". ;-) KTC (talk) 19:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected. ;-) 80.13.85.217 (talk) 19:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC) [reply]

~~Keep~~ [!vote retracted, I think Drillech may well be notable but I think that the best thing to do is to delete the article and let it be recreated when there are more and better sources] Easily meets GNG. Lots of sources such as interviews and comments/ reviews on his books seem to be available in French.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

really? a Google search returns first his linkedin profile (which is already a bad sign), then his blog (even worse), then a short article in the business section just mentioning his move from an ad agency to this private group. Also, writing a book is not by itself a sufficient criteria for notability.--McSly (talk) 18:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well obviosuly I don't know what Google shows you but I find this: [21][22][23](discussing his theory of the significance of the Boycott in marketing on page 259)[24][25].·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure CapCampus is a reliable source. The rest are blog postings and none are in-depth coverage of the subject. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fypeditions is not a blog, neither is the book on marketing. The claim that capcampus is not an RS is irrelevant since reliability of sources is determined in relation to a specific claim, what is relevant is whether it is independent of the subject and whether it constitutes significant coverage. The fact that Drillecg is being interviewed and quote in reliable sources and blogs about marketing is a good indication that some people, independent of him and his company, consider him notable.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not sources are reliable is absolutely important in determining notability. Being mentioned in blogs does not contribute to notability, except if it is a notable blog that is regarded to be a reliable source. An in-passing mention in a book does not contribute to notability, either. Fypeditions hardly gives any info on Drillech and is not independent either, being the publisher of the book. As far as I see, these sources do not establish notability. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing the question of reliability and notability. You are right that a notable blog mentions builds notability - a non notable blog doesn't. Neither of them would be reliable sources for claims about anything other than the opinion of the author.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The topic passes WP:BASIC AND WP:GNG:

(in French) "Marc Drillech, president of Publicis Star: "The French are reluctant to boycott." LSA Magazine.
(in French) "Marc Drillech resumes studies." Strategies Magazine.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply not notable enough. He is one of 2 VPs of IONIS Education Group which seems to have been doing some promotion here recently. The president/chancellor Marc Sellam has an article, probably fair enough. The other VP Fabrice Bardeche is also up as AfD. These are management positions, not academic appointments. Mcewan (talk) 05:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever one's view on the subject notability, the assertion that the article is a result of the subject doing self promotion simply have no basis in reality. The articles were created by 80.13.85.217 through WP:AFC. A quick look on User talk:80.13.85.217 will show you that 80.13.85.217 is static IP editor who is simply a very keen editor on French educational / aerospace topics. The over 60 articles submitted covers a wide variety of establishments and people, and it was reviewed by a similarly large number of AFC volunteers. We should be encouraging and helping someone like 80.13.85.217 who contribute lots of new articles and contents to the Wikipedia, in topics where Wikipedia doesn't do so well in due to its systemic bias. Please assume some good faith and not bite the newcomers by automatically assuming IPs are here to do advertisment and self promotion. The same should be extended to the volunteers at AFC who helps in what is a very backlogged area of Wikipedia. -- KTC (talk) 08:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(For the record as the original AFC reviewer) - Keep. I'll agree that it might be borderline and not necessarily so easy to judge given all the potential sources seems to be in French, but it seems there are just enough independent sources combined to satisfy WP:GNG / WP:BASIC. -- KTC (talk) 09:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources could be better/upgraded, but no attempt has been made to fix the article (nor to allow others to do so). This was created through AfC, discounting an argument of self-promotion. --Nouniquenames (talk) 15:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SoundsXP[edit]

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

I found no coverage in multiple searches for this music webzine. Fails WP:WEB. SL93 (talk) 18:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Hue Sat Lum 17:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rani Agrawal[edit]

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

Non-notable actress, fails WP:NACTOR. ukexpat (talk) 20:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - fails WP:NACTOR. Not notable enough to be in wiki. --Bharathiya 03:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bharathiya (talk • contribs)

Comment – Some sources refer to this person as "Rani Agrawal" (example link) and also as "Rani Agarwal" (example link). Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Person notable to many may be non-notable to few. "Rani Agrawal" is a famous bollywood actress who has acted in various television serials and has appeared on several commercials j.shrey^(talk) 8:57 PM Thursday, May 31, 2012(UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Hue Sat Lum 17:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete (G11: Blatantly promotional) by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs)))

Ashfaque Hussain Memon[edit]

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

Minor government functionary who manages to get his name in a lot of news reports as a source, but not as the primary topic of the article. Fails WP:BIO, WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nominator fails to advance a policy-based argument for deletion; Not a snowball's chance of deletion. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2010 in Argentina[edit]

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

Unimportant and unnecessary Calu2000 (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Hue Sat Lum 16:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. —Hue Sat Lum 16:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A whole year in a country of 40 million people was "unimportant". I realize that the nominator probably intended the article (although 'importance' is a characteristic of topics, not articles) but a more detailed rationale would be helpful.
In any case, this article is part of a series (see Template:Years in Argentina) that currently includes 44 other articles. Most of them have almost no content, so either a massive expansion project is called for or the whole series should be merged to Timeline of Argentine history. Either way, a wider discussion outside of WP:AFD is needed (perhaps at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Argentina) since it won't do to delete just this article and leave the rest. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No policy based rationale from the nominator. This is part of bigger scheme/series and issues of expansion/sourcing should be address via WP:ARGENTINA, as per Black Falcon. Lugnuts (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts, this kind of article is something you would expect to see in an encyclopedia. The nominators rationale strikes me as WP:WEDONTNEEDIT, an argument to avoid. A list of events in a particular year in a particular country clearly meets WP:SALAT as being neither too general nor too specific. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 21:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep – No policy-based reason for deletion has been presented, per WP:DEL-REASON. Also, this is part of a series of Years in Argentina articles. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a standard topic. KTC (talk) 00:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Please don't move articles during an AfD, it makes life painful for the closing admin. Thanks.) The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Man from UNCLE: The Vulcan Affair[edit]

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

An article on the pilot episode of the series The Man From U.N.C.L.E. which fails to demonstrate why this individual episode has any independent notability that would justify having an article seperate from the main series article. The article is currently unsourced, consisting mainly of just an overly detailed plot synopsis, and I can find no sources that talk about this particular episode in detail. The episode does get plenty of hits in searches, but these consist entirely of just episode listings or brief plot synopsises, and are not reliable sources that establish notability. The importance of the pilot's production in relation to the series itself is already covered at the main series page here: The_Man_From_U.N.C.L.E.#The_Pilot and a brief synopsis of the episode is already at List_of_The_Man_from_U.N.C.L.E._episodes#Season_1_.281964.E2.80.9365.29. So, to sum it up, the episode may be important to the series, and as such it has a signifigant section dedicated to it in the series' article. However, there is nothing to demonstrate it has independent notability to exist as its own article. This was a contested prod, so I brought it here for consensus. Rorshacma (talk) 16:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This has a complex history, being first the pilot under the name Solo, then this episode, The Vulcan Affair, and then the theatrical release, To Trap a Spy. The nomination makes it clear that we can and do cover this history and so provides no proper reason to delete, contrary to our editing policy. The current draft seems easy to improve and it is our editing policy to do so. Warden (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the film that was created from this episode may be notable, but notability is not inherited, and as I mentioned, there are no sources to support that the episode has any independent notability outside of its connection to the film. Pretty much all the sources out there on the subject are either just brief, standard episode summaries, or mentions that To Trap a Spy was derived from its footage. Having a complex history does not automatically confer notability without the sources to demonstrate why this is notable. On another note, since the To Trap a Spy article already exists, I don't really see how having a seperate article on this episode wouldn't be superflous. Both articles would have an almost identical plot summary, an almost identical credits list, and have the same information about both of them being derived from the same footage. We would essentially have two articles with the same information, just under different names. Rorshacma (talk) 17:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What does or will the article say about production or reception (i.e. real-world information as per WP:WAF) that can't as well be said in the main article or the episode list? Looking at the year, I'd say pretty much nothing except plot. Because of WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:AVOIDSPLIT, a redirect or deletion will do, or maybe smerge to the LoE. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Couple of Notes First, I see that Warden has been busy expanding the article and adding references. While I applaud the effort, I have to point out that many of the newly referenced sections are things that are relevent to the entire series, rather than showing any individual notability to this particular episode. IE, Sam Rolfe writing the background info for the series, Jerry Goldsmith composing, etc. These are things that are true for the series as a whole, so of course they would also be true for any episode of the series. Thus, it would be more appropriate to add this information to the series' main article rather than using it to justify having this as a seperate article, per Sgeureka's mention of WP:AVOIDSPLIT. In addition, some of the other references, while interesting, don't really do much for notabilities' sake, like the obituary giving a brief mention that someone once played a very minor bit role in the episode. Interesting factoid, yes. Notable, not so much. On another note, I don't think turning this page into a redirect would be appropriate, since the way that the article's title is structured, it makes it not a very likely search term. In fact, even if the article winds up as being kept, I would still suggest that the article be renamed to a more standard format. At the very least, we should make sure that "U.N.C.L.E." is written correctly in it.:) Rorshacma (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The personnel involved in making The Man from U.N.C.L.E. varied from episode to episode and season to season. For example, Sam Rolfe only wrote the script for this episode in the first season. And even for this particular episode, the casting varied between versions - the transition from Will Kuluva to Leo G. Carroll, for example. The claim that all such details are unimportant or generic is therefore false. Warden (talk) 16:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for Sam Rolfe, I specifically mentioned that him being the creator of the series' background information is what was true for the whole series, not him writing this episode. But more importantly, all of this may be true but that doesn't make it notable. Every episode of every series is going to have a team of people in front of and behind the cameras working on it, and there's more than likely going to be sources backing this up. But there's a reason why Wikipedia doesn't have an article on every episode of every TV series, despite it being most likely possible to write something with backed up facts about who worked on what in each one. That is especially true for this particular episode, when it already has several other places where information like this would be appropriate, and there is a seperate article about a movie that uses almost the same cast, crew, footage, and plot. Rorshacma (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Rolfe left the show after the first season and there were subsequently five more different people in that script supervisory role. As for other articles, we have lots of them. See 1964 television episodes, for example. For consistency, I have normalised the title now it's in that category too. Warden (talk) 18:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at that category, I'm seeing a bunch of other articles that need to be seriously looked at to see if they have any reliable sources to establish any sort of independent notability themselves... But that is neither here nor there. Thanks for doing the renaming work. I would have done it myself but I wasn't quite sure what the policy was on doing a move while an active AFD discussion was going on. Rorshacma (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1964 is nothing. See 2011 television episodes for ten times as many. That's WP:RECENTISM at work. The Man from U.N.C.L.E. was huge in its day and the idea that its first episode is not notable is just nonsense. Warden (talk) 18:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its the pilot episode, the one that started a notable series. It was notable enough to be made into a film. Most newspapers and magazines that far back are not archived on the internet. I find it unlikely that this didn't receive coverage back then. Dream Focus 11:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What going on here, clearly meets the WP:GNG, just look at the sources listed. VER Tott 10:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mustaq Aksari[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. For being notable, the article should have secondary references with in-depth coverage of the topic. Most of the sources just quote him as a spokesperson of a jihad group. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 15:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough coverage. Maybe a line or two on Al-Badr. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DℬigXray 17:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- for several reasons, including:

His comment "Islam must rule the world and until Islam does rule the world we will continue to sacrifice our lives." is the canonical statement of the views of the most radical and dangerous splinters of Islam, and has been widely quoted. A merge to Al Badr (India) would be of negative value to those who want to read about him to find out what is known about the author of his widely quoted creed. It would be completely appropriate for an editor of that article to remove coverage of this important statement from Al Badr (India) as being off-topic.
He lead a significant militant group -- one with hundreds of active fighters, and his leadership role is documented through references over a span of close to a decade.
Yes, almost all of us are unsympathetic to his extreme views. But we don`t delete coverage of notable topics simply because we don`t like them. Geo Swan (talk) 19:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

please see Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Personal_point_of_view it would be useful if you can give third party sources that claim notability, just saying WP:ILIKEIT is not enough--DℬigXray 12:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I already provided references that describe him as the leader of a group which fielded hundreds of fighters. It is my position that leaders of militant groups which field hundreds of fighters, are notable, particularly when coverage of them spans close to a decade. Geo Swan (talk) 14:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination: being quoted on a few occasions obviously isn't the level of coverage needed to meet WP:BIO. Nick-D (talk) 01:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and Nick-D, The subject fails wp:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV sources only take the name, which is mentioned in the Al Badr article. --DℬigXray 08:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Obviously fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. This person has done nothing notable, but only quoted few times on behalf of some thing and this doesn't establish notability. →TSU ^tp* 15:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide Six[edit]

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

non notable ski resort, enitre article unsourced advert Gaijin42 (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources can be found to establish notability. I declined a g11 that was placed in good faith by Gaijin42 as a result of recent promotional edits, once I backed those edits out. Syrthiss (talk) 16:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The resort is notable because of its early history in Vermont's downhill skiing. Several good sources are available through a Google Books search with search term: "suicide six" vermont. I would add them myself, but am now editing using a mobile phone. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cullen328 is correct: GBooks and GNews reveal plentiful potential sources about this early ski resort. I've added 2 to start. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable ski resort that passes WP:GNG. For starters, see: [26], [27], [28]. Also, the article has sources in it at this time. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as promotional edits can simply be reverted. If the Smithsonian writes about a ski resort, and it was once owned by a Rockefeller, I'd venture that there's reason to keep it. -- Zanimum (talk) 12:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. enough coverage in reliable sources exist to pass WP:GNG, as Zanimum says, promotional content can be removed, we shouldn't delete articles which can be fixed by editing. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 19:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the resort is obviously notable. It has good coverage in sources. →TSU ^tp* 17:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 09:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cigar guy[edit]

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

It seems that all sources for this one-off event happened within a few days of when the photo was taken almost two years ago. So was the previous AfD. I can find no evidence that this has any lasting significance. We don't need articles on everything that hits the magazine and blogsphere for a few days. To clarify, this is basically a WP:NOTNEWS nomination, except that I'm not sure it even rises to the level of "news". LadyofShalott 15:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - the first deletion discussion is located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Ryder Cup photograph. LadyofShalott 15:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 15:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 15:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There was lots of international coverage for this and notability does not expire. Per our editing policy, there are better alternatives than deletion such as merger with 2010 Ryder Cup, Miguel Ángel Jiménez and/or List of Internet phenomena and so the matter is best handled by ordinary editing. Warden (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge. As the nominator stated, this was a brief, one off event that garnered a sudden spike of interest immediately following its occurance, and then quickly faded into obscurity. While the article is technically supposed to be about the individual, I would say that Wikpedia's policy on WP:NEVENTS is more applicable here since the article and its sources are mainly about the phenemenon that surrounded the taking of the photo. And that policy states that one-off events like this need to demonstrate lasting signifigance and a duration of the sources, both of which this article fails. I would not be opposed to having this merged to List of Internet phenomena, but not kept as its own article. Rorshacma (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge There are enough articles to make an argument for notability, but the "Cigar Guy" clearly seems to be a historical footnote within the context of the 2010 Ryder Cup. "Cigar Guy" should be merged with that article, or it can be deleted since it already is listed in List of Internet phenomena, and it doesn't warrant more of a paragraph of coverage (as with all internet memes). Father McKenzie (talk) 19:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Father McKenzie. I won't begrudge the topic its coverage on the list, but it doesn't deserve more. Keeping this article creates a ridiculous precedent (though I'd be the first to recreate Juggernaut Bitch if we really want to elevate memes so). --BDD (talk) 19:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, thanks for mentioning Juggernaut Bitch, that's a fascinating little bit of Wikipedia history there, well before my time. The first AfD was in April 2006, when Wikipedia was a much wilder and busier place, with "policy" being window-dressing in most AfDs. But even this still survives at Juggernaut_(comics)#Internet_parody.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no evidence that this has had any lasting effect. Merging to list of internet phenomena would be acceptable. AniMate 21:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments in the prior AfD, and so as to not destroy my beautiful link farm in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orville (cat) which no doubt drew attention to this article. No worries, there are many more articles just like this that no one active at AfD ever notices. But if for some reason the consensus is to delete, we should merge and trim the content and put into the currently insufferably boring 2010 Ryder Cup article, with a mention at List of Internet phenomena.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Kinda straightforward, textbook WP:BLP1E, really. Coverage only in the context of the event? Check. Low-profile individual? Another set of criteria to note at WP:LOWPROFILE, basically noting whether the person is actively self-promoting or seeking attention for the event, none of which apply to this person. (One segment on "Today" doesn't cut it). 3rd criteria of BLP1E is the significance of the event itself and the person's place at/in it. A guy who happened to be in the right place at the right time for a photo of something else just doesn't curt it. Reminds me a bit of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Audrey Tomason, a person briefly virally "famous" for a single event. At best, I could see this as a redirect to a photobomb, with an appropriate mention, if such an article could be justified. Note that BLP1E invalidates "notability is not temporary"-style arguments. Tarc (talk) 18:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as mentioned a poster-child WP:BLP1E. Mentions in other articles as Milowent suggests would be fine, but there's no need for a redirect from here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment BLP1E does indeed describe this perfectly. I don't know why I didn't think of it when I made the nomination for deletion. LadyofShalott 18:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a BLP1E in the usual sense I've seen it used, because the picture is what got famous, the guys name is barely known, and no one cares about that even though the article mentions his name. Cigar Guy is the same thing as Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. EXACTLY. haha. I say that just to elicit a facepalm from Tarc.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John_Lavelle_(actor)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/John Lavelle (actor)

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

Non-Notable WP:BIO Heavytundra (talk) 15:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This article is about a stage actor, one who acts in plays. Going by WP:NACTOR. He had the lead role in a production of The Graduate on Broadway. Starred in a productions of The Merchant of Venice and The Jew of Malta on Broadway. NY Times. Roodog2k (talk) 15:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An actor with lead roles on Broadway can be presumed notable, and it would take a far more persuasive argument than the one advanced by the nominator to convince me otherwise. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a bit oversold -- he played the lead in The Graduate for about three months and I think much of his other stage work was specifically off-Broadway, according to my reading of the cites. But he's had what I think of as "roles with names" (not just "Bartender" or "Boy") in network TV programmes and enough in the way of reliable sources to meet the relevant guideline. (I don't regard network TV as the be-all and end-all of acting success, but his career has successfully spanned theatre and TV.) Ubelowme (talk) 18:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment IMHO, Broadway is pretty much the be-all and end-all for stage actors, at least American stage actors. Off-Broadway means something very specific, BTW. So does Off-Off-Broadway. The fact that he is/was a Broadway actor proper is significant and notable in itself. Roodog2k (talk) 19:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided. He was a replacement on The Graduate, and that's his only Broadway credit.[29] Still, it was the starring role. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Parker Training Institute (PPTI)[edit]

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

Not enough secondary sources to establish notability; fails WP:GNG. Little more than a puffed-up promotion piece. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 15:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although institutions of higher learning are generally considered "universally notable", it is not clear that this organization can legitimately be categorized as an institution for higher learning. Rather, it is a for-profit training institute teaching a very specific hypnotherapy technique. Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources? Even academia is only notable if it's a sourced, accredited body, not just a self-affixed brass plate. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam. This is not a regular academic institution, and it fails WP:CORP for lack of sources. I note that we have an article about this practitioner's apparently self-invented and self-accredited "therapy", The Lightning Process, and we might want to take a look at it as well. --MelanieN (talk) 18:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just took my own advice and analyzed the sources at The Lightning Process. They appear to demonstrate sufficient notability for an alternative (i.e., unproven) therapy like this. There does not appear to be any scientific evidence for it - just credulous case-reports-cum-testimonials in the popular press, mostly written by freelancers rather than staff writers, plus some celebrity endorsements - but there seem to be enough of them to qualify the process for an article. And now I see that it earlier survived AfD after some improvements. I'll watch it to keep it neutral. I suppose the current subject could be redirected to The Lightning Process but I would still prefer a delete. --MelanieN (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation if the V/N/RS holy trinity can be satisfied. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mîralay Seîd Simbélreş[edit]

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

This person is not notable. I couldn find no source to establish his notability. Moreover, this article was created by the method of copy and paste from the article Veysel Özgür. Many datum belongs to him. Takabeg (talk) 13:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A10—duplicate article (I already tagged the article) ChromaNebula (talk) 14:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't think it's a duplicate - it's meant to be about a different person, and has been copied but not fully changed, so I've declined the speedy. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not duplicate, this article is fake. Takabeg (talk) 21:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Unfortunately the only source is in Turkish, so most of us can't verify if he existed. But if he did, then as a general officer the article should be kept under WP:SOLDIER and WP:COMMONSENSE. Anyone able to verify his existence? -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the Turkish Wikipedia article is undergoing a deletion discussion where several editors, including our nominator, have cast doubt on the authenticity of the article, being unable to find any reliable sources for his existence. The German article has two further claimed book sources, but there doesn't appear to have been any discussion as to their authenticy either on the talk page or in a deletion discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've controlled two sources that the user added to the article de:Miralay Seid Simbélreş in German Wikipedia. Both sources don't mention to this name. The user added these two sources with copy & paste method from the article de:Cibranlı Halit Bey. Takabeg (talk) 12:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The evidence presented here by Takabeg and by others who know Turkish in the Turkish Wikipedia deletion disussion is pretty conclusive that this person did not exist. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think we can go as far as to say Mîralay Seîd Simbélreş did not exist, but the unverifiable nature of the article's content and the seeming copypasting from another article (including an exact duplication of the commands held and decorations awarded), makes the article too unreliable to continue to exist. Meowy 12:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The content on the Turkish Wikipedia article does suggest he was a real person (there is even a link to what is claimed to be a photo of him in the deletion discussion). So, probably whoever created this English Wikipeda article has created it to be a stub for now, but has done it incorrectly by copypasting into it not only the formatting but the content from an existing article. Given that it was created almost 2 months ago that seems to me to be enough time for proper content to have been added, so I still think it is right to delete it, but it should be done without excluding the option for the article to be recreated at a future date if suitable and verifiable content is found. Meowy 15:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Everything is saying that either this person doesn't exist, or maybe exists but isn't notable - and in any case, the article contents are faked and unreliable. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs). See deletion log for full explanation. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Call for Arms, One RUC Officers story[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not for publishing personal essays. GouramiWatcher ^(Gulp) 12:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Might have been worth salvaging if the events reported were noteworthy, but I can find no record of it anywhere except this page (doesn't help that Patrick Doherty is an incredibly common name...). A personal essay on a non-notable topic, needs to be removed. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as copyvio; replaced with clean rewrite from Uncle G. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick William Sanderson[edit]

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

Plagiarized text from 'The Joy of Living Dangerously', an essay in 'A Devil's Chaplain' by Richard Dawkins. Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is indeed as Jimbo says a grossly plagiarized text, in places merely closely paraphrased, but much a word-for-word copy of Dawkins. We have the choice of deleting the article or of removing the plagiarized "Biography" and "How Sanderson worked with the boys of Oundle" sections to leave a stub (lead-in, after Sanderson's death, references) of this great schoolmaster. Most likely (much of) the history will have to be removed: the plagiarism dates from the first version of the article (11 Sept 2006). The citations establish notability beyond doubt and will enable a reworked article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SNOW, leaving a stub. I'm dealing with the copyvios per guidance at WP:CSD#G12. To aid further discussions, here's the nominated version. -- Trevj (talk) 15:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and recreate~~Keep~~ ~~per Trevj,~~ via CSD of copyvio sections to leave notable stub. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no such thing as "speedy deletion of sections". Speedy deletion is deletion, with the deletion tool. It isn't done with the edit tool. Read Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion all of the way through, from the top. Uncle G (talk) 16:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that Trevj's grasp of copyright policy and deletion policy is highly flawed. The copyright infringement here goes back to the very first revision (I've checked it independently: which now makes at least four of us, including Jimbo and the people who pointed this out on the talk page in 2007.) and remains here even now. The entire edit history is thus a derivative work, and must be deleted per policy. If there's a snowball keep to not delete a copyright violation, then what we gain is a list of people who need serious education in deletion and copyright policies, for the safety of the project. We have to start again entirely from scratch. ~~I'll have a go in a little while.~~ I've started User:Uncle G/Frederick William Sanderson from scratch. Uncle G (talk) 16:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, so we just go along with the speedy delete and then you recreate the article from your /FWS article, that's fine. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't know how relevant the talk page discussion was, considering it's now at AfD. If it must be deleted, then it's G12, isn't it? That's what I thought initially (although I'm not very experienced in such matters) but on reading the notes there, it seemed that some content can be kept. I agree with Chiswick Chap regarding the retention of stub material. How do we know that's a derivative work? -- Trevj (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - There's an explanation at derivative work. Uncle G (talk) 18:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Are the remaining sections a DW per Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Derivative works? -- Trevj (talk) 13:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and create new article if subject is notable Copyvio (isn't this a G12?) I have no problem, though, recreating the article if the subject should prove notable. ChromaNebula (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- He has a fairly long entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography and has a biography written by H.G. Wells. And that's far from everything. There's zero doubt as to notability. This is a documented historical person. Uncle G (talk) 18:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright problems are being handled at WP:CP, therefore this AFD should be closed. MER-C 12:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per the copyvio guidance, shouldn't User:Uncle G/Frederick William Sanderson be moved to Talk:Frederick William Sanderson/Temp (via "Can you help resolve this issue? -> Otherwise, you may write a new article without copyright-infringing material" in ((Copyvio)) substituted into the article)? -- Trevj (talk) 13:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It could be. I'm just doing the same as at User:Uncle G/Grace Sherwood, which was in response to another fairly high profile plagiarism problem. For the record: I have no objection to anyone who wants to collaboratively and properly expand User:Uncle G/Frederick William Sanderson as if it were already in article space. After all, the intention is that the edit history end up in article space. Now that I've got a quick stub for monodominance out of the way, I might work on it a bit more myself. Uncle G (talk) 17:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Matrix.h[edit]

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

Not a C standard header and highly doubtful it ever would beome one, anyway Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Only sources are ones written by the author of the article Dmcq (talk) 12:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Dmcq (talk) 12:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be notable. According to the refs, it is already a standard header. Compiler vendors are not required to implement it until 2013. No WP:CRYSTAL issue as far as I can tell. --Kvng (talk) 17:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They were all written by Susmit Sarkar who also wrote the article. There is no such matrix.h going into ANSI C which isn't due for a new standard for many years yet anyway. Dmcq (talk) 23:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of notability in reliable and independent references. --Kvng (talk) 20:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems extremely unlikely to be notable. As Dmcq notes, all sources and external links are web sites self-published by the author of the article. The entire notability of the article rests on the exceptional claim that the header has been accepted by ANSI, for which there is nowhere near the required quantity and quality of sources. Chrisjohnson (talk) 00:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The whole basis of the article's claim of notability appears to be the ANSI claim for which there is no verifiable sources either in the article or through Google search. ANSI has since the 99 version adopted the ISO standard instead of developing its own. A look at the ISO C working group website for the only meeting this year so far has no mention of it either in the pre-meeting or post-meeting mailings. KTC (talk) 00:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Suspect there are no independent sources, from standards organisations or otherwise. Vadmium (talk, contribs) 06:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. This has not been proposed to ANSI/ISO, let alone accepted. See the links posted by KTC. AnthonyWilliams 08:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Seems extremely unlikely to be notable. Not recognised by any C standards committee members. No non-circular references. Paul A Bristow (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is discussing a library written by a person sharing the same name as somebody at Cambridge University who proposed something similar for the C/C++ Standard. Wikipedia articles are not the place for people to write documentation for the software they write. If the article is about a library in the C/C++ Standard it should limit itself to discussing that library. Derek farn (talk) 11:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No such header has been accepted by the ISO C working group, there is not going to be a new C standard on 2012 or 2013 so it would not be possible for it to be part of it. Article is inaccurate and poorly-written, appears to be self-promotion. No independent or verifiable sources. JonathanWakely (talk) 13:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:HOAX/WP:SOAP —Ruud 18:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no mention of such header on C committee own site or its mailings. Bronek (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a C standard header. David Keaton, Chair of PL22.11 (The "ANSI C Committee"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.201.27.164 (talk) 20:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:CSD#G7. Jenks24 (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Report of the commission of malta[edit]

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

Original research. Can't find any sources which even use the term "commission of Malta" and therefore fails WP:GNG. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 10:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Already deleted. Speedied by User:Jimfbleak (non-admin closure) Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 12:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Menecracy[edit]

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

Neologism. Only used in the book outlined in the article. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 10:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SunnComm[edit]

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

No reliable sources (none at all) appears to be in defense and/or favor of SunnComm and an advertisement page for the company.Tyros1972 (talk) 10:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The company's key product is already well covered at MediaMax CD-3. Notability is not inherited and I'm not seeing anything substantial here about the company in its own right. (This unreferenced article doesn't cover the subsequent rename from SunnComm to Amergence Group.) AllyD (talk) 18:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article DR. FERNANDO TUGAY OMADTO[edit]

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

Borderline nonsense; non-notable person and also seems to be advertising its subject. The article name is also hardly appropiate. CyanGardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 10:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article title is not a reason for deletion, as that's fixable with the page rename tool that everyone with an account possesses; and the prose is not nonsense but simply the product of poor grammar. But it's fairly obvious that article creator Dr. fernando t. omadto (talk · contribs) is the article's subject, writing xyr curriculum vitae into Wikipedia. Since it contains unencyclopaedic prose such as "Gifted of brilliant character" and "milestone in the life journey of Omadto", I didn't bother fixing the title. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Aside from the WP:PROMO aspects (I nearly tagged it with G11 but the content is arguably not exclusively promotional), Omadto appears not to meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. -- Trevj (talk) 15:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, biospam. Hairhorn (talk) 17:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sure whether it's CV, autobio, promo or what we are told not to call vanity. Whichever, it's definitely not encyclopaedic, and in three readings I couldn't find anything passing WP:BIO. He's been busy, and to be that busy, must be fairly good at it, but that doesn't make for an article. I say 'he' as I judge that he is, being called Fernando. Saying non-notable is NOT saying no good - there are very many non-notable people who keep the wheels turning in many fields. (I love mixing metaphors...). And there there are many notable people you wouldn't really want to have dealings with - Al Capone and Harold Shipman for two. BTW My thanks to the tidiers up. Peridon (talk) 17:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The promotional nature of the subject caused me to forget this point. I've previously stated "notwithstanding his/her achievements" in such discussions. -- Trevj (talk) 18:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. First of all, I can't understand what this article is supposed to be about. Is it supposed to be a CV or autobiography? Either way, I failed to find anything that would establish notability. It's possible we can speedy this though, but not as patent nonsense. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as self-promo and notability issues.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Vorbeck[edit]

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

There is no evidence that Gabriel Vorbeck ever plaed in a fully professional league, therefore does not pass WP:NFOOTY Ymblanter (talk) 09:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete because this is a youth player, not even old enough to be offered profesional terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seasider91 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - very clearly fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. →TSU ^tp* 17:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Janie Settles Johnson[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO, no indication of notability by Wikipedia standards, article is supported only by a single, local obituary. WWGB (talk) 08:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 08:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 08:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's nothing out there about the late Ms. Settles other than the obituary, especially nothing to verify the claims that she's the first African-American chief in the USA or North Carolina other than the obituary, which was written by one of her family members. This is ultimately little more than a memorial page for a person who, while certainly an amazing person, does not pass the notability guidelines here on Wikipedia. This could probably be speedied, to be honest.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No Not Delete. There is proof; there is an article in the local North Topsail Beach newspaper from 1984. This has been verified at the North Carolina State Library in microfilm. This article is valid! Tiparrish (talk) 10:07, 7 June 2012 (EST)
Delete I'm sorry, Tiparrish, I wish we could have an article about her, but Wikipedia has standards for inclusion which require that the person has received significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources. Despite her distinguished career, it doesn't appear that she received that kind of coverage. The only thing I could find was the obituary in a small hyperlocal paper, obviously written by family members - coverage which is not independent and not enough. I could find nothing else at Google News or Google Books. It sounds like there was also an article in 1984, when she became head of the department, but again it is in a very small local paper; it doesn't sound as if her "first" status was noted statewide or even regionally. The article is well written and I would suggest you submit it to local historical societies. --MelanieN (talk) 14:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~No Not Delete~~. There is proof; there is an article in the local North Topsail Beach newspapers from 1984 (The Jacksonville Daily New and the Wilmington Star News papers from 1984). This has been verified at the North Carolina State Library in microfilm. This article is valid! A Copy of the article from one of the above papers will be posted within the next 24 hours.Tiparrish (talk) 11:47, 7 June 2012 (EST)

I'll look forward to seeing that, Tiparrish, especially the items from the not-just-local papers. Meanwhile I am striking out your "no not delete" comment at the beginning of the above paragraph, because you already said it once and you only get to make one boldface "vote". You are welcome to keep posting and commenting here, as much and as often as you like - just don't start your comment with a "vote". --MelanieN (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you MelanieN. Regarding your statement about not-just-local papers; Jacksonville or Wilmington papers are outside of Topsail Beach North Carolina, but they are still papers local to North Carolina. Either one of these publications should validate the article, agreed ?Tiparrish (talk) 13:28, 7 June 2012 (EST)

They would certainly help. I can't say for sure until I see them. (If you aren't able to actually post them you could just quote what they say - actual quote, not summary.) --MelanieN (talk) 17:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am fairly sure I can get a digital copy of the article. But if not I will share the actual quote. Tiparrish (talk) 13:48, 7 June 2012 (EST)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not saying whether to keep or not at this moment, feel that it does have possibility to be kept, just needs better sourcing. However, for notability, I think it has potential. I corrected the NCpedia article that was referred to under the "Also see" section. Unfortunately I found that this article had pretty much been copied word-for-word from that article. Even though it is published by the State of North Carolina (or one of its departments), I don't think that is public domain. Marked as copyvio for now. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 03:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the person who wrote the NCpedia article might be the same Tiparrish who wrote this article. Don't know what that does for the copyright or which came first. Anyway, still needs better sourcing. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 03:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's been edits from two users with different names, Tiparish and Randy.geer. I noticed that all of Randy.geer's comments have been signed with Tiparish's name, so I'm just voicing a concern. I've noticed on another AfD for an article by Tiparish Randy.geer has voiced an opinion, so I want to state this on both AfDs since I'm not sure which one he'll check first: please use caution when creating new accounts. There's nothing wrong with having multiple accounts as long as you are open and honest about the fact that you are using multiple accounts and as long as you don't use them to vote on different AfDs without being open about the fact that these are your accounts. (It's best to vote with ONE account since it'll keep it from looking like you're ballot stuffing.) If Randy.geer is not Tiparrish and is a friend of his, then this sort of relationship needs to be voiced as well since it is still a conflict of interest and could be seen as meat puppetry.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as papers go, it'd be better if we could see the entire article. Brief mentions and/or quotes are not enough to show notability. You need more than just a paragraph or 1-2 sentences to show notability. I'm just concerned since I'm not sure that you're aware of what is needed for a source to be considered an in-depth and reliable source. Brief mentions and small paragraphs or quotes can really only be considered a trivial source than anything else.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See latest updated and posting of an article from the Jacksonville Daily News. Johnson is notable in the State of North Carolina and possibly the US as to date no records show any African American female fire chief existed before 1984. The updates to this article should be enough to retain its published status, though not enough to argue Johnson's status as the first African American female fire chief. The article clearly states "possibly" the first African American female fire chief. And as far as the earlier copyright issue. Tiparrish and Thomas Parrish, IV are one in the same. NCPedia.Org is a public government website and as such all posting are public record. Tiparrish (talk) 11:18, 8 June 2012 (EST)

Well, I see nothing in that Jacksonville article other than a dedicated employee, which does not equate to notability. WWGB (talk) 15:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read the 3rd paragraph, it clearly states "Johnson, 56, also serves as the chief firefighter and paramedic" Tiparrish (talk) 11:33, 8 June 2012 (EST)

No-one doubts that, it's just not that big a deal. WWGB (talk) 15:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can reference a number of Wikipedia articles that appear to be no big deal. However, for African Americans in the US and particularly in North Carolina, historical figures even from local sources are big deals. I'm not arguing your interpretation of what is a big deal, but to millions of African Americans particularly female this is significant from a historical perceptive and therefore should be noted on Wikipedia. Tiparrish (talk) 11:54, 8 June 2012 (pEST)

Comment I haven't seen anything to change my !vote from "delete". Mr. Parrish, I can tell you feel passionately about this, but Wikipedia is not a place for memorials even though the person was beloved and worthy. I'm glad you were able to get your article published at NCPedia and I would encourage you to pursue other, similar venues to continue to memorialize her. She sounds like a strong and important woman but we just aren't seeing the significant coverage from independent reliable sources that Wikipedia requires. I know that can be a bummer, but Wikipedia has to have standards (otherwise it would lose its value as an international encyclopedia) and those are the standards that have been developed by consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 03:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Melanie, I respect your opinion, but respectfully disagree. A memorial this is not, passionate am I, yes. I do strongly believe this should be apart of the wiki library. Fire and rescue careers during the 1960s, 70s and 80s were not chosen professions for African American women. Administrative staff and leaders in this field during that time period were extremely rare. As I expained earlier, the uncommon nature of this profession for African American women 30 years ago should be more than enough to justify the Johnson article. The article should remain published as it is significant for African American women and should remain so until such time someone can show that an African American female fire/resue chief existed prior to Johnson in North Carolina. Now regarding your standards concern, I am in agreement. As a frequent visitor to wikipedia, I want to ensure it remains a valuable resource. The Johnson article in my opinion has more reason to be apart of the Wikipedia library than 100s of articles I've reviewed from the site over the years. Here are just 4 examples I found in as many minutes; Dale Diog, Thomas Ashby, Ian Learmonth, Marty Etler. These articles have been on the site for some time now. How are they more in line with the standards than the Johnson article. Tiparrish (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2012 (EST)

Dale Doig and Thomas Ashby (mayor) were the mayors of large cities. Ian Learmonth is the chief of 6600 police in Kent. I agree that Marty Etler is not notable, and have started an AfD discussion. Besides, other stuff exists is not an argument to keep a disputed article. WWGB (talk) 02:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will not debate what is considered a large city; my point here is there are many articles that exist within the Wikipedia library that have been resources (some of which are useful) for years that appear far less significant, far less notable than Johnson's and yet exist without challenge. The "argument" here is one of consistency. Tiparrish (talk) 23:12, 9 June 2012 (EST)

Comment:I think this is a wonderful article. It's not often you here about ordinary people doing great things but we glorify stars and their indiscretions in such ways. Just because it's small town news does it make it less worthy? I am from a small town and find comments like this belittling. Also her accomplishments were done prior to the time of the Internet so it makes since that you can't Google her name or find more information and seemingly the areas she lived in are small towns. Either way my vote is to not DELETE memorial or not I think more people should write about ordinary people doing great things for their community, maybe it will inspire people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kork73 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
— Kork73 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Well put Kork73, well put. Tiparrish (talk) 23:13, 9 June 2012 (EST)

Delete - Unfortunatly, although she was a very fine person and someone who can help rekindle flagging hope for humanity, she isn't notable. The article referencing the "first female, African American fire chief" claim states that she was the first...in the community, and the article later says she was "arguably the first African American fire/rescue chief in North Carolina" (emphasis added). If she had been the first in the country and there was inarguable evidence of that, she would be notable with flying colors. As it is, though, it's regrettable that she does not cross the bar for inclusion, WP:WAX arguments about WP:OTHERSTUFF aside, and as Wikipedia is not a memorial, the article should be deleted. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Very good comments on both side of this argument. I did find the article was well written, a bit WP:memorial like, maybe. Johnson's accomplishments derive from small town USA with the claim of "arguably" being the 1st black female fire/rescue in North Carolina. If Johnson is the 1st black female to become a fire/rescue chief this would be worth of notability. The significant discovery here is being the 1st to do so. Wikipedia is in the business of capturing 1sts. I say keep the article until such time someone can show that a fire/rescue black female existed prior to Johnson. My 2 cents. - Oracle1968 —Preceding undated comment added 14:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
— Oracle1968 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment I smell sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. --MelanieN (talk) 16:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have opened a Sock puppet investigation case for User:Tiparrish.See this link for more information.Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tiparrish Max Viwe | Viwe The Max 19:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Notability as a politican clearly established; Phil will be getting cold feet before this gets deleted. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P Sankaran[edit]

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

1) Notability not established. 2) neither any references nor any third party references/sources. 3) fails to meet wiki: notability guidelines for people --Bharathiya 08:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. P. Sankaran passes WP:POLITICIAN as a former MLA and state level minister. The reference already in the article establishes that. A Google News search yields several confirming hits. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve – Topic passes criteria #1 of WP:POLITICIAN, this person is a former Health and Tourism Minister of India. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Additional sources:

(Staff reporter) (March 25, 2012). "P. Sankaran, 28 others convicted". The Hindu. Retrieved June 7, 2012. ((cite web)): Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
"Kerala: P Sankaran to join Congress". Press Trust of India. September 13, 2006. Retrieved June 7, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)
"KPCC recast, new chiefs for DCCs". The Hindu. February 4, 2007. Retrieved June 7, 2012. ((cite web)): Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:POLITICIAN as pointed out by User:Northamerica1000. Salih (talk) 04:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a state legislator and state health minister he meets WP:POLITICIAN. Valenciano (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carpe Tenebrum[edit]

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

Article about a band with very little to attest to notability. Article at AllMusic is too short to count towards the first inclusion criterion of WP:BAND. Article was prodded by me and then unprodded citing releases, however it is not clear either that these labels are associated with the band, nor is it clear that these labels are in themselves notable. meco (talk) 22:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. meco (talk) 22:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. meco (talk) 22:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. meco (talk) 22:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two albums on Hammerheart and another on Head Not Found meets WP:MUSIC's requirements; AMG verifies the Hammerheart releases (and yes, the biography does count as a reliable source). Being composed of two notable members of other bands meets another bullet of WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 23:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Astennu (musician) or Dimmu Borgir. I don't see a good reason to remove it from the encyclopedia altogether. --Michig (talk) 07:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU ^tp* 07:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above; meets WP:MUSIC, as already mentioned. A merge to Astennu (musician) wouldn't be the worst thing, since he seems to be the main figure in the Carpe Tenebrum. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WITHDRAWN Already been here before as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC on FOX 4 (NAC) . Mt king ^(edits) 07:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC on Fox: Shogun vs. Vera[edit]

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

Routine sports event not due to happen for two months, no claim to enduring notability, not even a title fight. Covered by MMA centric websources and the promotions own website. Fails WP:NOT and WP:BALL along with a whole lot more. Mt king ^(edits) 07:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep - in view of unanimous positive consensus and no calls for deletion outside of the nominator. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ravi Belagere[edit]

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

Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)
Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons Bharathiya 17:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as per this. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 07:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1) fails to meet the relevant notability guidelines as per Wikipedia standards. 2) breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. Not enough credible references. So I strongly recommend to delete this article from immediate effect. Bharathiya 16:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bharathiya (talk • contribs)
(You said it once) §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 19:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keepsarvajna (talk) 08:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU ^tp* 07:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic is meeting WP:BASIC and WP:GNG per:

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies WP:GNG. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indie Recordings[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No references to attest to notability, that is, there are two dead links, but even if archive copies of these can be retrieved their titles suggest they won't carry much weight for establishing notability. This deficiency should have been cleared up since the first nomination three years ago. meco (talk) 16:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. meco (talk) 16:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. meco (talk) 16:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. meco (talk) 16:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:MUSIC defines "the more important indie labels" as "an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable". (bullet 5). By this guideline, Indie Recordings well passes; it's a somewhat newer label, granted, but it's attracted a large roster of well-known Scandinavian metal acts. Since it's part of a field of labels founded by the same cluster of folks, I could understand a merge of some sort, if someone with expert knowledge in the subject made a claim that they could be considered all of a piece in some way, but the label has enough clout to stand on its own at this point. Chubbles (talk) 23:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU ^tp* 07:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Nick Jonas. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Jonas Promotional Concerts[edit]

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

A list of random performances to promote an album. It's presented as being a tour but it pretty clearly was not a tour, just normal promotion. Ridernyc (talk) 13:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU ^tp* 07:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge some of it to Nick Jonas. Doesn't seem to deserve its own article, and could be covered under Jonas's article or an article on all his live shows. The setlists seem excessive detail - imagine if Wikipedia has setlists for every concert by every notable artist/band - so cut them. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Colapeninsula. --BDD (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. (WP:NAC) Mark Arsten (talk) 19:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tegler Building[edit]

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

Unremarkable building that may or may not have been briefly a landmark prior to demolition. Unremarkable architect, unremarkable art in it. Unremarkable owner. Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's had a great deal of in-depth significant coverage by reliable sources, the very definition of WP:NOTABILITY and its WP:GNG. [30][31][32] Nominating an article that claims significance within 7 hours of its creation [33] is generally ill-advised.--Oakshade (talk) 15:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The referenced fact that it was the largest building in western Canada when built establishes notability. Notability is not temporary. Additional sources discovered by Oakshade reinforce notability - thanks, Oakshade. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Withdraw nomination Thank you to Oakshade for vetting this article. I nominated it hoping it would draw some attention from an editor with some interest in Canada architecture, and by golly, it worked. Gtwfan52 (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that AfD is not a method for article improvement. If you come across an article of an notable topic that needs attention, then an improvement tag is appropriate and also notifying the relevant community project. In this case the Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture or Wikipedia:WikiProject Alberta would've been good places to start.--Oakshade (talk) 19:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

By request of DRV, an extended closing statement is provided at /Extended close

The result was Keep, without prejudice to any further discussion on scope of content, renaming, or relationship to other articles. I declared below that I would not detail my reasoning, but I will make one single point. I have recognised in this assessment that, in the context of politics, the term British Isles can be interpreted with the POV of pro-British, or even anti-Irish. I have seen no evidence that the article was written with this POV, nor was it the intention of the author, although several contributors to this debate on both sides clearly did have a POV regarding this. It is hard to hold it against KarlB for using this term when there is no widely recognised neutral alternative (I had not even heard of Atlantic Archipelago until today): at least, none has been suggested during this discussion. I also apologise for being British - I had not realised that this could be an issue when I began this close and have made every effort not to allow my nationality to sway my judgement. Spinning Spark 18:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This debate is taking some time to close. It will be a lengthy process to read all the material on this page and referenced debates and give them due consideration. It may take up to 24 hours to close. Spinning Spark 01:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is my normal practice on closing controversial debates to give details of my reasoning and assessment of the arguments. I have been keeping copious notes for that purpose. I have just made the decision not to give any such assessment in this case: to do so would invite wall-of-text disputation on my talk page, and, judging by the previous close, accusations of super-voting. The close is merely going to give the result after my assessment is complete. Spinning Spark 10:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Politics in the British Isles[edit]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) (another term used to describe the same)

Conflation of geographic term (British Isles) with politics. Politics occurs in the sovereign states as in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland or the Republic of Ireland. It does not occur within a geographic area like the British Isles. For example, we do not have a Politics in the Levant article. Multiple OR issues. Snappy (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Snappy (talk) 22:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Snappy (talk) 22:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete This is pure OR and another of Karl's pointless cats/articles. BTW I do not need Karl commenting on my input. And can I also request that he keeps his input to the absolute minimum here (and for that matter at other delete discussions). Thanks. Bjmullan (talk) 22:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep Politics in the British Isles is the subject of endless streams of ink. Given the shared history (see History of the British Isles and recent creation of multi-lateral bodies whose scope is the whole of the British isles, a survey article like this one is completely reasonable, not OR, and obviously notable. If your general argument is with the intersection of politics and regions, well, we also have Water politics in the Middle East, Water politics in the Nile Basin, Politics of the Caribbean, Politics of the European Union, Politics of Europe, for starters; but I suppose you might respond that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS? If you can point out the OR, you are of course welcome to improve the article. I'm just not sure why you are saying this article is OR, or which parts are OR? Also, this is not WP:SYN, because no additional conclusions are being drawn about politics in the british isles that isn't supported by references. Nice to see you too BJ. --KarlB (talk) 22:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment here is a recent book source, which uses a similar title to that of this article:
- Nicholas Aylott; Iain Ogilvie; John Barry (2003). The Politics of the British Isles: A Comparative Introduction. Sage Pubs. ISBN 978-0761969600. --KarlB (talk) 22:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK, this is getting tedious. I think we have a problem here and would direct Karl to examine the Wikipedia:General sanctions with regard to the term "British Isles". While Karl's exact behavior is not typical of the sort we have seen before on this issue it is touching on disruptive and is certainly tendentious. --RA (talk) 22:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. Thanks RA for your suggestion; I have read about the general sanctions, but in this case I don't think there is a violation; in fact the discussions on the CfD have brought to light lots of interesting material about politics within and between these countries. While the category is fine, an article is also of value here. If we end up renaming the category, then the article could be renamed too, but I don't see that as a reason to delete. I welcome your continued contributions to improve the encyclopedia. --KarlB (talk) 22:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment for another reference, attesting notibility, see this recent book: The Atlantic Archipelago A Political History of the British Isles "Presents a comprehensive political history of what are usually known as the British Isles without taking an Anglocentric point of view."] If you are searching for sources, I'd suggest looking under 'Atlantic archipelago' as well, as many sources are now using this term. If wikipedia moves to this term as well, then of course this article should be renamed. But I'd ask all those voting to please consider this is a deletion discussion, not a renaming discussion, so the title is not at issue - what is at issue is whether the contents are notable and sourced.--KarlB (talk) 23:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The following editors have been canvassed for their participation: [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42]. --RA (talk) 08:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RA, are you suggesting that Karl should not have carried out this "canvassing" ? Van Speijk (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I thank RA for notifying this discussion, something I should have done myself. I believe the notifications were fair; they were not done with any knowledge of political positions (they were just people who recently edited the related article History of the British Isles).--KarlB (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At best, this is excessive cross-posting, per WP:CANVASS#Spamming_and_excessive_cross-posting. The notification of a group of no less than 9 individual editors is quite excessive. It may have been relevant to place a link to this CfD at Talk:History of the British Isles, but the notification of individual editors looks to me like an attempt to select a particular group. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There is a common political system - with variations - in most of the area and a different system in the Irish state. This article is the equivalent of a basket of apples with one pear. The same is not true of Europe, the EU, the Middle East etc. An article on bilateral relations between the UK and Ireland makes sense. This does not. Scolaire (talk) 09:00, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a ~~POV fork~~ redundant content fork. There are only two sovereign states in the archipelago. The politics of the archipelago is thus more than sufficiently met by Ireland-United Kingdom relations and the main British Isles article. The mere existence of a particular string of words in a published source (in this case "politics of the British Isles", or just, as easily, "British-Irish politics", or "Anglo-Irish politics", etc.) does not, in itself, merit a separate article. --RA (talk) 09:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks like Karl is now looking to canvas: [43],[44],[45],[46],[47],[48], [49] and [50]. Bjmullan (talk) 09:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, what I did was notify the editors who had recently editied 'History of the British Isles' as this article is clearly related. I notified them in a neutral fashion and did not base the notification on any particular pov. So, the notification was within the bounds. Thanks for your efforts to improve the encyclopedia.--KarlB (talk) 13:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can understand why we do need an article called "Politic in the British Isles" that is separate from "Politics in the United Kingdom". The British Isles would include the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, both of which are outside the United Kingdom. Since they have their own parliaments (and different tax rates to the United Kingdom, at least in the case of the Isle of Man) it would make sense to keep this article. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 15:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how that is a rationale for this article existing. You are saying that because the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are separate and distinct politically from both the UK and Ireland, as well as each other, it somehow makes sense to group them all together although you haven't shown why this is the case, you have merely stated that it is. Also note that you have inserted your new comment into the old AfD section and not where the latest comments go IRWolfie- (talk) 15:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The claim of the nomination - that politics "does not occur within a geographic area like the British Isles" - is obviously false and seems quite tendentious. There seem to be plenty of sources which frame the topic in this way and here's another one: The Political Development of the British Isles. Warden (talk) 10:53, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not occur within geographic areas, it occurs within nation states, and what goes on between is covered in bilateral relations, e.g. Ireland-United Kingdom relations. As RA has pointed out, this article is large duplicate and pov fork of Ireland-United Kingdom relations. I also am concerned that KarlB's canvassing has turned into campaigning, in an effort to stack the !vote. Snappy (talk) 11:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, so your claim is that politics cannot occur between nation states? Or politics can *only* be bilateral? You seem to forget the multi-lateral relations in the isles, which are well documented in the article. Perhaps you'd care to read it? --KarlB (talk) 13:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also Snappy, I appreciate your unfounded concern; it was not canvassing, as explained above. I do note however that you added this to the list of 'Ireland'-related discussions, but you neglected to add it to any other countries (like, say, the UK). I wonder who is trying to stack the vote now? Please don't throw petty rocks when you're smack dab in the middle of a glass house. I know you're an honorable person, so I'll give you a chance to fix this, and notify all of the other concerned countries (UK, Wales, Isle of Man, etc etc etc - you know the drill)--KarlB (talk) 14:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Warden, I'm sure you chose that book quite by random and it is merely an unfortunate choice. However, in citing it, you neglected a part of the title that refers to the period it covers: 1100-1400. Like many of the books that Karl is citing, it's a history book. We already have History of the British Isles. We don't need a second one. Neither do we need a second article dealing with the contemporary politics of the region. --RA (talk) 12:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunate because it rebuts the argument of the nomination? As for the history of the British Isles, that's a broad subject which has many subdivisions: geological history; economic history; military history; religious history. The political history of the region is quite valid as a topic. Warden (talk) 13:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate because the topic under discussion is the contemporary politics of the archipelago and you cited a book on the politics of the archipelago almost a millennium ago. It gives the impression that you didn't read the title fully, let alone the contents of the book. --RA (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources:

A source that tackles the issue from a modern light, see here: The British-Irish Council: Nordic Lessons for the Council of the Isles. This is an excellent paper, which analyzes the British irish council and other multilateral bodies, and compares them with the nordic council; it also looks at the history of bilateralism and multilaterlism, including a useful table on citizens rights for voting, residency, tax, social security, etc
Academic research center Atlantic Archipelagos Research Project (AARP) - whose purpose is to take an interdisciplinary view on how Britain’s post-devolution state inflects the formation of post-split Welsh, Scottish and English identities in the context of Ireland’s own experience of partition and self-rule. Consider the significance of this island grouping to the understanding of a Europe that exists in a range of configurations; from large scale political union, to provinces, dependencies, and micro-nationalist regions (such as Cornwall), each with their contribution and presence. Reconsider relations across our island grouping in light of issues regarding the management and use of the environment.

This all demonstrates that there is more to the story than just a simple bilateral relationship. RA, I appreciate your comments, but you seem to be making the point that people have done historical analysis of the politics of the Isles - that's ok; and you seem to agree that there are bilateral relations in the isles - between the UK and Ireland - ok (which you will note is not really repeated in the article at all) But, you are completely ignoring the devolved countries of the isles (which are now empowered to act on their on behalf in certain areas), and the crown dependencies, and the multilateral bodies, and the various bilaterla/multilateral political arrangements - none of this material is covered well in a survey form anywhere - you have to go the individual articles or categories. I note that we have a whole template devoted to this, and a whole section of the British Isles article is devoted to governance - so the question is, if we have a template, and a category, and books and articles written about this, what is the wikipedia-policy based argument for delete - besides the fact that people don't like the name? Would you accept this if it was called "Political economy of the atlantic archipelago"? --KarlB (talk) 13:59, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Strong, as strong as an ox, keep, keep, keep (bullshit of course, we should either say keep or delete) For the reasons outlined by Warden. There's a book on the subject for heaven's sake. What more justification could there be for keeping such as article about a very real subject - historical or otherwise. Van Speijk (talk) 14:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Van Spike and Karl, the book Warden cites is about the politics of the Isles between the 12th and 15th century. We already have History of the British Isles.

@Karl:

"...the devolved countries of the isles..." — Ah, all parts of the UK. See, Ireland-UK relations.
"…and the crown dependencies.." — Ah, dependencies of the UK. See, Ireland-UK relations
"...and the multilateral bodies…" — Ah, compose of Ireland and different parts/depedencies of the UK. See, Ireland-UK relations.
"…the various bilateral/multilateral political arrangements…" — Ah, between Ireland and different parts/dependencies of the UK. See, Ireland-UK relations.

Karl, you can cite as many sources as you like. An article on this topic already exists. See Ireland-UK relations. --RA (talk) 16:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks RA, I appreciate your comments; I hope you will take time to read and understand what those sources suggest; almost all of the sources I've cited are modern. I simply will note that, as you well know, the crown dependencies are not dependencies of the UK, they are dependencies of the British Crown. While I appreciate that some believe that "politics" only happens between sovereign nations, I think the evidence shows otherwise. As long as the crown dependencies are not part of the UK, political arrangements involving them should not be considered under Ireland-UK relations - especially in cases like Sellafield controversy, where Ireland and the Isle of Man are working together to pressure the UK government. That hardly sounds like a bilateral relationship to me.--KarlB (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've added effectively all of this article to Ireland-United Kingdom relations. All of it is good stuff IMO and is a great addition to that article. However, doing so only underlines that this is a POV fork of that article. --RA (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So you've taken material from this article, added it to another, and then claim this article is a POV fork of that other article? (further)Words fail me! BTW, could you answer my question about canvassing above. Thanks, Van Speijk (talk) 16:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted RA's change to Ireland-United Kingdom relations. I appreciate his good faith efforts to improve the wiki; just in this case it is best to complete this AfD before copying 12000k of text from one article to another and thus creating a fork of the content (that would then be edited in two places - ugh). I'm sure if a merge is proposed, then this content can be merged over. Thanks again for the kind words about the content RA.--KarlB (talk) 17:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are political organisations that operate in both countries of the British Isles, that alone I think would justify this article. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 16:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Van, yes. This article is a redundent a content fork. I've included the material form the fork in the original now. It is an enhancement. Just because something is a fork doesn't mean it's wrong or that it's text is bad. It's just, we can't have two articles on the same subject.

Regarding your question on Karls' canvassing, acceptable and unacceptable forms of canvassing are described in WP:CANVASS. It is not immediately obvious to me why Karl chose to notify those specific editors. They do not appear to be people "who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics), who are known for expertise in the field, or who have asked to be kept informed"

OK, thanks for the clarification. Van Speijk (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@CoE - "...that operate in both countries of the British Isles..." Both countries. Ireland and the United Kingdom. I'll point again to UK-Ireland relations. An article on this topic already exists. --RA (talk) 17:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Why is there a culture section on what is supposed to be a politics article? We already have a British Isles article. Snappy (talk) 16:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; its a good question; and certainly could be debated; I linked out to the main culture section in the British Isles article; I just thought it might be useful to have a stub here, as shared culture is an important part of politics and identity formation, and of course sports are an important proxy for politics, but it should remain short given more content elsewhere. Thanks for your comment, and I hope you'll consider improving the article itself rather than focusing on deleting it.--KarlB (talk) 17:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point Snappy, we could remove that section. Maybe have a 'See also' or something. Van Speijk (talk) 17:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment oh dear. [51]. RA, as the one who made the first edit, would you mind asking Snappy and others to stop the forking? There is no need to maintain two copies of this article while it is under discussion. As soon as the discussion is finished, if the decision is merge, we will do so - but it is silly and even disruptive to do so in advance.--KarlB (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one who created the fork in the first place, so don't throw stones when you're in a glass house yourself. Snappy (talk) 17:08, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this is not a fork; it is mostly new material. The fork is when you copy 12k and paste it into another article. I've gone ahead and reverted, so that when you make constructive edits, they will all be centralized here; then of course if a merge happens, all the better.--KarlB (talk) 17:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Karl, see Wikipedia:Content forking:

A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject. Content forks that are created unintentionally result in redundant or conflicting articles and are to be avoided.

We can't have two articles on the same thing. --RA (talk) 17:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It should be known by now that the Republic of Ireland is an independent country. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:42, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is known. What has that got to do with anything? Van Speijk (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Night of the Big Wind. I want to thank you for your comment. I think you have a good point - we need to be very clear in this article that Ireland (RoI) is not a subservient state of the United Kingdom. If you look at the article, you will note that the first sentence in the history section says that there are two sovereign nations in the British isles (RoI and UK). I've also, as a result of your comment, added a hatnote to the top of the page, which attempts to explain the purpose of this page, and to distinguish it from Ireland-United Kingdom relations, so thanks for inspiring me to clarify further.

In terms of the scope of this article, for example, a discussion about a joint arrangement between Isle of Man, Ireland, and Scotland around the Irish Sea would fit better here than in Ireland-United Kingdom relations, since the Isle of Man is not part of the UK.

In short, I welcome your further thoughts on the issues, and if you have other suggestions on how to improve either the content, or even the name of the page so as to not give a mistaken impression, they would be appreciated.

I realize this name can cause some consternation, but unfortunately there doesn't seem to be another good name in common use, but I suppose we could use the academic sounding 'atlantic archipelago'. In any case, I do hope that we can differentiate between whether the content is useful and encyclopedic, and ~~our own personal feelings~~ debates about the title (an article can always be renamed). Thanks again.--KarlB (talk) 23:56, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Back up the truck. Karl, you wrote below that you wanted to have a "reasoned discussion", but what you write here shows the opposite. Dismissing another editor's reasoned concerns as "personal feelings" is a form of words which has the effect of devaluing their contribution to the discussion, and your repeated use of that sort of response looks like trolling. Please stop it.

There are plenty of reasons why "British Isles" may be contested as a term, and they are not simply "personal feelings"; they are longstanding policy of the government of Ireland. You may choose to ignore that factor, but please have the manners not to dismiss it as "personal feelings".

Secondly, there is the question of whether the geographical area referred to by some POVs as the "British Isles" is the appropriate scope for an article politics. If you do actually want a "reasoned discussion", don't dismiss that as "personal feelings". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is now worringly tenditious, especially as a quick look at Karl's recent creation history demonstrates an unwillingness on his part to accept a single objection raised by any editor, and the fact that this is now the 3rd or 4th open discussion involving one of Karl's creations. I've seen objections raised on one discussion totally ignored and the same points raised on the next discussion. Is this not precisely the behaviour that WP:GS/BI was set up to deal with? --HighKing (talk) 12:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
HighKing is right. Karl's tendentiousness here is becoming extremely disruptive, and the fact that all of his recent creations in this are have been opposed by a significant number of editors would give a reasonable editor pause for thought. Instead of stepping back and seeking consensus, KarlB continues to create more of these pointy pages, and engages in a verbose battleground response when challenged. WP:GS/BI will be needed soon. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, if you have ideas on how to rename or reframe the contents they would be most welcome. I appreciate your continued contributions to improve the encyclopedia.--KarlB (talk) 13:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Karl, first of all drop the "I appreciate your continued contributions" pasting. It is superfluous, and since most of editors with whom you are interacting have a much longer contribution history than you, it comes across as a form of sneering.

Secondly, if you want suggestions on how to reframe or reuse the contents, then I offer you one simple solution: start by deleting this page. Keep a copy in userspace, and take the time to have a long discussion with other editors on how to approach these complex topics. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This piece is yet another WP:POINTy creation by KarlB, a synthesis of disparate topics created in furtherance of his campaign to construct the notion of a common polity across the so-called British Isles, and designed to serve as a head article for his self-created Category:Politics of the British Isles. The topics covered are primarily a hybrid of 1) A fork of Ireland–United Kingdom relations, and 2) a description of government structures and international relations in the islands. Neither aspect is best described as "politics".
There may be some content in here which could be re-used in neutrally-focused articles, so I would be happy for the page to be userified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per BHG above and also NPOV. In a strictly political sense use of the term 'British Isles' is seen by the Irish Government as politically unacceptable and very deliberately not used, which appears not to upset the other parties in the least. Best to leave political negotiations over political terminology to the politicians and not force on Wikipedia phrasing that is eschewed by the parties concerned. Editor's are free to think what they like of the respective governments' positions, but it is as it is. RashersTierney (talk) 14:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - the argument for deletion seems to be based solely on the notion that politics is something wholly independent of geography, which is sheer nonsense. Other editors have provided reference material that shows the subject is notable in its own right. The article itself could do with some work, but having read through the discussion on this page I can see no good reason why there shouldn't be an article on this subject on Wikipedia. waggers (talk) 11:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is an article on this subject on Wikipedia: Ireland-United Kingdom relations. There is nothing substantively different about this article, nor can there be: there are only two sovereign states in the archipelago. --RA (talk) 13:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks RA. However, it seems the crux of your argument is that politics can *only* be between sovereign states, or that all politics, if it happens between non-sovereign entities, is somehow subservient to the sovereign states. I suggest you do a bit of research on international relations. It will help you understand what sovereignty is, and what it isn't. You can have politics of Chicago, you can have mid-west politics, you can have middle-east politics, you can have politics of identity, you can have inter-state politics, you can have provincial politics, etc. Politics is *not* solely between sovereign states, and in fact there is a whole field of study looking at non-state actors in international relations. This paper may be a good start: [52].--KarlB (talk) 13:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Karl, I suggest that you stop trying to patronise RA; it is ugly behaviour, and does not assist the discussion. The article does not identify non-state actors, so your comments are irrelevant.

As to your comments about sovereignty ... once again, please note that the British Crown says "The United Kingdom government is responsible for the defence and international relations of the Islands". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BHG, thanks for your comment. I hope you won't take this the wrong way, but I'm afraid it is your comment which is irrelevant. If you care to read the article above, you will understand what (non-state actor) means - this includes IGOs for example, which are non-state actors (eg: British-Irish council, or Irish Sea Platform, etc). The article also mentions entities like the Celtic league, which is a political actor, but not a state actor. Best regards!--KarlB (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Karl, that is pointless and tedious pedantry. The British–Irish Council is an intergovernmental organisation, and your claim that its existence is an example of non-state actors is just word-playing. It's like saying that if I place a bag of stones on top of a pile of stones, I no longer have a pile which consist only of stones. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it's easier for you to think of stones and bags, how about this - we have several stones, including 2 big sovereign stones, several bags (into which we put different subsets of these stones), and some of the stones are connected to other stones, either constitutionally, culturally, historically, or through other means. Your claim is that the only relationships and politics that matter here are the relationships between the two biggest stones; everything else is just part of that broader relationship. I disagree.--KarlB (talk) 15:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, Karl. You need to listen and to repsond to what others write. The crux of my argument is that these two articles are about the same topic form different perspectives (i.e. a WP:POVFORK).

As you say, politics does not merely exist between sovereign states. Thus, Ireland-United Kingdom relations encompasses the totality of the relations that exist in the archipelago. Including, relations between Ireland and sub-national- and dependent-territories of the United Kingdom in the region. Consequently, these two articles are about substantively the same thing and merely differ on perspective. We can't have that. --RA (talk) 14:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree. Your position is clear- MERGE to Ireland-United Kingdom relations. Thus, you should just make that clearly your 'vote', instead of 'delete', and then revert the pre-emptive merge and wait to see if consensus agrees with you. Enacting *your* solution before consensus has been formed is disruptive.--KarlB (talk) 14:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[@RA,] While Guernesy, Jersey and the Isle of Man are constitutionally linked to the UK they are still states in their own right, and there are most definitely politics between these entities that fall outside of pure UK politics, are bigger than crown dependency politics, and are nothing to do with UK-Ireland relations. waggers (talk) 09:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In theory, from one perspective, OK (because, as you say, the CDs are separate states). In theory, from another perspective, no (because the United Kingdom is responsible for the external relations of the Crown Dependencies). In practice, ultimately, the two topics are identical for practical reasons.

This is borne out by looking at the content of the two articles. What we have are two articles that are 99% identical with scope for 1% difference (specifically intra-Crown dependency relations, which would only involved the UK, as the party with responsibility for their external relations, and not Ireland, which would be uninvolved in that case). — Rannpháirtí anaithnid 11:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC) — continues after insertion below[reply]
Facepalm. The reason they are identical, RA, is that you have continually copy/pasted content between them to make them so. --KarlB (talk) 12:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Supreme facepalm of destiny ...which further illustrates that they treat the same subject. --RA (talk) 13:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much meal is made of, for example, the multilateral nature of the British-Irish Council, without considering that the only signatories to the Agreement Establishing a British-Irish Council are Ireland and the United Kingdom. The latter point underlines the reality that UK-Ireland politics is, in reality, the politics of the archipelago as a whole. Those two political entities hold responsibility for political relations of the archipelago as a whole.

A better name for the article may be British-Irish relations or British-Irish politics (or even Politics of the British Islses, though that would be undesirable for other reasons). However, that is a seperate discussion. In the mean time, having two articles on substantively the same thing is a big problem. --RA (talk) 11:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The latter point underlines the reality that UK-Ireland politics is, in reality, the politics of the archipelago as a whole" ^{[citation needed]} Wow. I want to print that one out and frame it, and send it to the heads of all of the governments in the British Isles. I bet the parliament of the Isle of Man, which has existed for 1000 years, had no idea that their politics and relations with other entities was just, "in reality", part of UK-Ireland politics! We should let them know at once... --KarlB (talk) 13:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the most part I think you're right - the focus of the article at present is wrong and needs to be changed. But that's a content issue, which can be resolved through editing. Certainly much of what goes in this article can be, and is, covered elsewhere, and I don't think the article should be a content fork. Instead this article should stick strictly to summary style, summarising and linking to the Anglo-Irish and Crown Dependency articles where appropriate.

The question then becomes whether Politics in the BI is a sufficiently notable topic in its own right, even it that's as a summary of other more specific politics articles. Based on the fact that several books have been written on the subject, my conclusion is that the topic is indeed sufficiently notable to have a WP article. waggers (talk) 11:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is potential for a sort of political history/landscape type article discussing trends and themes outside of institutional politics and international relations (e.g. summarising the political history for the Isles and trends/themes like migration/colonialism/emigration/immigration, nationalism/unionism, devolution/separatism/independence, monarchism/republicanism, religion, identity, the political entities and their structures, etc.). These cut across the different places in the archipelago and are neither fully common or unique to any part.

That would be potentially very interesting. However, the current article, focusing as it does on institutional politics and international relations, is just duplication of the Ireland-United Kingdom relations. I'd be potentially supportive of a complete re-write with a wholly different starting point and focus, but I'd like to see a list of headers first. --RA (talk) 12:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Content forks[edit]

Well the bold move by RA has caused a bit of a mess. We now have massive duplication of content across two articles. I've tried reverting, but I've hit my limit; so if other eds want to help, it would be appreciated; I can't participate in an edit war. Snappy is almost out of reverts too by the way. Again, I call on everyone to stop the content forking; keep the content in this article without forking it to another article, and await the outcome of the AfD. Otherwise it's just making a WP:POINT, e.g disrupting wikipedia to make a point.--KarlB (talk) 17:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I've tried reverting, but I've hit my limit; so if other eds want to help, it would be appreciated..." — Karl inviting tag teaming is not a good road to go down.

"I can't participate in an edit war. Snappy is almost out of reverts too by the way." — And neither is blatant battlefield-ism.

This is an area in which community sanctions and related ArbCom rulings exist. You would be well-advised to be very careful how you thread. --RA (talk) 17:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thanks again for the warning. I would appreciate it if you would try to see my side, as I've tried to see yours. I think we have room to have a reasoned discussion here, especially since you seem to agree that the content itself is useful. Given that, pre-emptively merging, before consensus has been reached here, impedes full consensus formation and leads to duplicate maintenance of a lot of new content (as has already started happening). I also feel like you're angry, and lashing out.

RA, there isn't a rush, and if a merge is the consensus outcome, then all of that content will be moved over in due time. I'd thus like to kindly ask you to consider reverting your edits to the Ireland-UK relations article. If you want to show people what it *could* be like, then just point them to an old diff. As you can see passions are rising here, and I appeal to the levelheaded logic that you have showed in other threads, to bring this back to a reasonable conversation, rather than wikitricks like:

Ed1: Article A is a POV fork of Article B

Ed2: where's the proof?

Ed1: watch - I just copied everything from A into B - see - now A is a POV fork of B!!'

This kind of sneakiness is not becoming of you. I know you are an honorable editor, and I have faith that your better judgement will prevail; I agree content forks are bad, so why create one 7 days before the AfD is closed?

Also, I grow rather tired of pointing out that the crown dependencies are not part of the UK, so I'm not sure why *anything* about them belongs in the Ireland-UK article. My friends in the channel islands would be quite miffed by this assertion that they are just 'dependencies of the UK'. They're not.--KarlB (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Karl, there is a pattern here.

You create content which reflects your view of a highly contentious issue. Many people object, and you edit-war, reply at huge length, all the while claiming that you want a "reasoned discussion". However, you are so verbose that reasoned discussion becomes impossible in the limited format of a talk page, and your style of participation is always to defend your initial position against all opposition. This is classic WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, uncannily like the view parodied in WP:TRUTH.

WP:GS/BI may soon be brought into play. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I welcome your suggestions on how to improve this article, or even rename it. What if we did a rename to Multilateral relations between Ireland, UK, devolved governments of the UK, and the Channel islands? or something less wordy? While I appreciate your POV, it's a bit like the pot calling the kettle black to say I edit war - because you were edit warring just the other day if I recall correctly - you made 3 reverts to a page [53] [54] [55]. You also have a tendency to reply at huge length. In any case, let's just have a cup of tea, and focus on improving the encyclopedia; the content is not OR (it is well sourced), and it is not SYN either, because there aren't conclusions being drawn that aren't present in the sources; and it's not just my POV - an archipelagic 'outlook' is a perspective held by many scholars and historians; there is even a literary journal devoted to literature and writing from the archipelago: [56] and a research center devoted to this topic [57]. So I'd simply ask that you overlook for now the title of the article, and focus on the content - how could we improve the content, and how might the article be renamed?--KarlB (talk) 14:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"What if we did a rename to Multilateral relations between Ireland, UK, devolved governments of the UK, and ~~the Channel islands~~ [the Crown Dependencies of the UK]?" — Then we would still have two articles on the same subject. We already have an article on Ireland-United Kingdom relations. All of the sources you cite describe just that. All of the institutions you list are ones created by Ireland and the UK as part of their relations. --RA (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really quite confused RA. Why do you continue to insist that the crown dependencies belong to the UK, or are part of it? --KarlB (talk) 15:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Karl, have you actually read what I wrote above? Your reply gives little impression that you have done so.

The fundamental problem with this article is its scope, which seeks to conflate the politics of two independent nation-states and the dependencies of one of those states. This is not a historical article -- we already have History of the British Isles for that -- it sets out to be a political article. And in the study of comparative politics, authors may select geographical or other groupings as the basis of their comparison -- but that alone does not make for either a neutral or a notable topic.

Renaming it will not solve those problems.

There is a secondary problem of content, in that the article is a strange hybrid of governmental structure and international relations; very odd. There is a third problem, of naming, in that the use of the POV term "British Isles", which colors the readers perception of the international relations involved.

As to the edit-warring response, you have a lot to learn. When a contribution of yours is reverted, and you continue to restore it despite repeated requests to discuss it, you clearly have not read WP:BRD. This section opens with a request by your for other editors to join you in a tag-team edit war, so you clearly have not changed your behaviour. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The crown dependencies are not dependencies of the united kingdom.[58]. I appreciate you disagree with the scope; do you discount the multiple sources I've provided that use a similar scope for politics and political history? --KarlB (talk) 15:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Karl, you are either playing silly games, or posing refs without reading them (just you did in another discussion). The link you posted above (to the Queen's own website at http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/QueenandCrowndependencies/ChannelIslands.aspx) says quite clearly "The United Kingdom government is responsible for the defence and international relations of the Islands, and the Crown is ultimately responsible for their good government". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, I've read those articles a lot. One of the first things they always say is "The crown dependencies are not part of the UK". That much is clear. And, they can act independently, even internationally, in some cases; for example, signing of tax ~~treaties~~ agreements. They have special membership rights within the european union; in short, while they are not sovereign nations, they are not just part of the UK, and thus in an article on Ireland-UK relations, they don't belong.--KarlB (talk) 15:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Karl, I hope nobody disagrees with your second statement., viz, that "The crown dependencies are not part of the UK".

However, in the post to which i was replying, you wrote something different: that "the crown dependencies are not dependencies of the united kingdom". That is a very important distinction.

The dependencies are dependencies of the crown, but since the crown acts solely on the advice of its ministers, the distinction is one of constitutional labelling rather than practice. The actual practice is that the crown's relationship with the Channel islands is handled through government departments in Whitehall, by ministers of the crown and their civil servants.

As to the rest of what you write, you seem to be saying that you know better than the Crown itself, which says "The United Kingdom government is responsible for the defence and international relations of the Islands". So let's have a one-word answer from you: is that statement on the Crown's website True or False? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The Isle of Man has not signed any tax treaties, or treaties in any field for that matter. It has several agreements with states relating to taxation matters, which are referred to as such because it does not have such capacity in law. This is not a minor point wrt an apparent misunderstanding you have regarding competencies in the field of foreign relations. RashersTierney (talk) 16:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Karl, please don't play word games. Next you'll be telling us that the United Kingdom doesn't have a government — "Her Majesty" does. FYI the UK Ministry of Justice is the department with responsibility for the three Crown Dependencies.

The key point is that there is no substantive difference between this article and Ireland-United Kingdom relations. There are only two sovereign states in the region: Ireland and the United Kingdom. All other polities in the region are either part of the UK or a dependency of it. And the institutions you list are UK-Ireland institutions. That is what makes this article a content fork. Its about the same topic, just from a different point-of-view (POV). --RA (talk) 18:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restart[edit]

Note - the below should be construed as my opinion, and not a statement of fact about other's positions

I think we've made a lot of progress in this discussion thus far. I think I've learned several things:

Some editors think the content is POV, WP:OR, and WP:SYN, and should be summarily deleted
Other editors strongly support this article, and appreciate its contents
A small minority - RA and Snappy - seem to believe that the content in this article is extremely valuable; so much so that Snappy has edit-warred [59], [60] to keep the (copied) content safe in Ireland-United Kingdom relations; and RA is spending precious time copying over fresh content from Politics in the British Isles to Ireland-United Kingdom relations (ex: [61]) (sadly losing some other editors edits in the process), so he's effectively helping maintain two copies of the content on the wiki. I can only suppose he thinks this content is so good, it's worth maintaining two copies for now (instead of waiting for the outcome of this discussion) - and who am I to judge?

Thus to me it seems there are 3 main points of view - two strands that agree with the content, and one strand which does not. It's a most fascinating discussion.

At present, the discussion seems to have tumbled into a deep hole of legal logic - and arguments are being brought forth to establish whether Isle of Man/Jersey/Guernsey are in fact dependencies of the United Kingdom, or are they dependencies of the British Crown, and does it matter? In any case, while there is no agreement on *that* point, there is agreement on the following:

The crown dependencies are not part of the United Kingdom and
There are two sovereign states in the British Isles

So, at this point, at least for those who agree on the content, the question is a rather simple one - where should the content go? Is it reasonable to have an article covering the numerous multilateral relationships between Ireland, United Kingdom, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, England, Isle of Man, Jersey, Guernsey, and to treat these arrangements separately from the direct bi-lateral relationships between the central Irish state and the government of the UK? To see why "bilateral" relations does not capture the complexity here, see [62]; the relationships engendered by the British-Irish council are almost always described as multilateral. As another example, we have the Sellafield controversy, where Irish and Isle of Man governments are working together to pressure the UK government to shut down a reactor. Multilateralism at its finest!

As for those who think the content is rubbish, you may want to have a look here Ireland-United_Kingdom_relations#Co-operation, as the same content was copy/pasted, and now has multiplied and is producing offspring (e.g. *new* content). So if this content is *really* bad, you may want to have a word with RA.

In any case, I propose a compromise, and a way forward:

Rename the article to Multilateral relations and politics between Ireland, devolved governments of the UK and the Crown dependencies. This avoids the term 'British isles'. We would then keep Ireland-United Kingdom relations focused on the bilateral relations (and entities) between the countries, which are significant (and worth much more work), and keep this article linked from that one. In addition, instead of a heated discussion here, we could spend time working together on improving the article.--KarlB (talk) 23:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, Karl's comment is far too verbose. It should simply have consisted of the final paragraph, which is his concrete proposal to rename the article as Multilateral relations and politics between Ireland, devolved governments of the UK and the Crown dependencies.

That title is incredibly long, and its sheer length is reminiscent of an essay rather than encyclopedic title. The only reason for the proposal of such a verbose title is Karl's determination to pursue his POV that there is a "politics of the British Isles", which he is now prepared to accommodate by dropping the contested labels.

There is no need for this page, which remains a POV split from Ireland-United Kingdom relations. The material in this article can all be accommodated in Ireland-United Kingdom relations, without making it unduly long, and RA acted quite properly in copying the relevant material there so that it can be reworked as appropriate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So just to be clear, you're suggesting that a merge of an article, in advance of consensus at AfD, when a merge is one of the proposed outcomes of the AfD, is a *good* idea and RA should be commended for doing so (rather than waiting until the AfD was complete)? I always thought encouraging the creation of content forks and pre-empting consensus was not supported by admins...--KarlB (talk) 03:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

also, please note, I've always been willing to accommodate a title change, and have suggested the same several times. I do wish, given that now you seem to be in the camp that supports the content (and not the title/location), that you would help come up with a better title... --KarlB (talk) 03:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No new title is needed, and I don't "support the content". I support the coverage of some of these issues, in the appropriate place, which is at Ireland-United Kingdom relations. The content of this article should be merged there, and revised to eliminate problems such as disagrecefully-biased "scholarly perspectives" section. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I always thought encouraging the creation of content forks and pre-empting consensus was not supported by admins..." - Karl, the redundant article is Politics in the British Isles, which you (in good faith) created.

There is a reasonable argument that the Crown Dependencies are not (strictly speaking) a part of the UK. However, given their constitutional relationship with the the UK and their minor role in the politics of the archipelago, any article on Ireland-United Kingdom relations, or Politics of the British Isles, or any other combination of words, is going to be substantively the same. That is a real cause for concern. We cannot have two articles on the substantively the same topic but written from different points of view (POVs).

Now, this does raise questions about the title of Ireland-United Kingdom relations. A discussion on that may be merited. Alternatively, we could simply add a note to the introduction explaining that, for the purposes of the article (and given the subject matter), we are including the Crown Dependencies in discussion of the topic (but explain that, strictly speaking, they are not part of the UK). Individual articles, such as Ireland-Isle of Man relations, are still helpful IMO. --RA (talk) 10:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks RA. I appreciate your response. I do wish you would reconsider, and remove the fork until this discussion is finished. it is causing no end of trouble; for example, duplicate maintenance on different parts of the content.

The question now seems to be about whether the content is best served in one article, or in two. Every single XX-XX relations article I've seen is about bi-lateral relations. And, as you've pointed out, the crown dependencies are not only *not* part of the UK, they're not even *technically* part of the UK. They have no representation in parliament,and they have authority to negotiate tax agreements, they have 'special' position within the EU, and if Isle of Man and Ireland are both pressuring UK to do something, how can that be captured as a bi-lateral relationship? Ireland regularly indulges in bi-lateral relations with the UK, and has bi-lateral bodies like the British–Irish Intergovernmental Conference, and they have Ango-Irish summits. There is so *much* content that could be written just on bi-lateral relations, and that's where it belongs. But this content is different, is it looking at an all-islands perspective; I think it deserves it's own article.--KarlB (talk) 13:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Same topic, different perspective = POV fork. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is so sad to see such a great admin as BHG sink to such low depths. This was a quote from a few days ago: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_May_24#Category:Nobility_of_Great_Britain_and_Ireland

Karl, you created the categories under discussion at CfD May 21. There are are several possible outcomes to that discussion, deletion of the categories, merger, or renaming to one of several possible targets. What you have done, however, is to pre-empt the outcome of that CfD by unilaterally creating a category which reflects one possible outcome of the CfD. This is blatantly disruptive, because it either creates a fait accompli or it splits the discussion into two, by having 2 separate discussions on related categories. If you do not agree to its prompt deletion pending the outcome of the other discussion, then I will take this up elsewhere to seek admin intervention against this disruptive editing.

Now, I conceded the point, and deleted the offending category, and we moved on. But now, 2 days later, RA does basically the same thing, doing a full-copy paste of an article under discussion, where one of the proposed outcomes is MERGE, thus impeding consensus formation by creating a content fork, and attempting to establish facts on the ground in advance of a full discussion, and resulting in dual maintenance of tons of duplicated content at Politics in the British Isles and Ireland-United Kingdom relations, and meanwhile you sit idly by and encourage it, because it fits *your* particular POV. If you had any honor at all, you would hang up your admin powers for the rest of this discussion, you have not shown yourself deserving of them.--KarlB (talk) 13:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"...it is causing no end of trouble; for example, duplicate maintenance on different parts of the content. ... resulting in dual maintenance of tons of duplicated content at Politics in the British Isles and Ireland-United Kingdom relations" - That's the problem with a fork. Forks are not about duplicate content, they are about duplicated topics. The existence of two articles on the same subject then leads to duplication of content and, as you say, "no end of trouble". That's why we delete one topic. --RA (talk) 14:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

YOU forked the content RA. Don't be daft. At least we agree it shouldn't be in two places - so why not wait till the AfD is finished? You're impeding consensus formation. --KarlB (talk) 14:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, You forked the content KarlB, Ireland–United Kingdom relations existed for 6 years before this article. The correct procedure should have been to expand the existing article first. Unfortunately, you choose to create (a gf) fork. This is what we are trying to remedy now. Snappy (talk) 16:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A fork is a copy of the original. RA copied the original. If he wanted to merge, the correct action would be to delete all of the content in Politics in the British Isles and set it as a redirect. But that would be inappropriate at this moment, since the article in question is under discussion as AfD. instead, Snappy, RA, and BHG are working in concert to maintain a duplicate content fork while the article in question is still under discussion at AfD. This is disruptive behavior, and I'm going to ask for admin intervention. --KarlB (talk) 00:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Content forking: "A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sigh. Content forking is not inherently bad. see Wikipedia:Content_forking#Articles_whose_subject_is_a_POV "Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally, and each article cross-references articles on other appropriate points of view."

There are plenty of sources, referenced here and elsewhere, that suggest a multi-lateral, multi-actor, archipelago wide perspective is a valid one to take, vs just considering that all politics in the British isles boils down to Irish-British bilateral relations, as you guys seem to.

If, as you and others are arguing, the new article is a 'redundant content fork', then the proper procedure is a merge - which you're not performing here. The article was proposed for deletion, one outcome may indeed be merge, but by merging *before* consensus is reached, you are muddying the waters for other uninvolved editors. I do ask again that you all stop this silliness, but I know you're not going to, because you obviously believe it bolsters your argument at this AfD. --KarlB (talk) 13:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Karl, there is a big difference between writing an article about a POV and writing an article from a POV.

To write seperate articles about different perspectives on British-Irish politics

To write seperate articles from different perspectives on British-Irish politics

--RA (talk) 13:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RA, there is a big difference between helping the wiki, and disrupting it:

Allowing consensus to form before unilaterally enacting the results of an AfD

Unilaterally enacting your preferred outcome of an AfD before consensus is formed.

--KarlB (talk) 13:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to other editors[edit]

New editors coming to this AfD may be confused by the fact that much of the content in Politics in the British Isles seems to be replicated in Ireland-United Kingdom relations. The reason this is so is that several editors who want to delete this: Politics in the British Isles (including the AfD nominator Snappy) have unilaterally and continually copy/pasted [63],[64],[65] any and all new and revised content from Politics in the British Isles and pasted it into Ireland-United Kingdom relations, thus creating facts on the ground in this debate. This duplication of content is then used to argue that the two articles are substantially similar. I can assure you that if I write two good paragraphs about multilateralism between the states in the archipelago at 9am and place it in Politics in the British Isles, by noon that content will have been copied over to the Ireland-United Kingdom relations article. Hopefully, this note will help you in making a judgement; do not be deceived by appearance of duplication, which is a disruptive and time-wasting duplication in advance of consensus by RA and Snappy. --KarlB (talk) 13:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrt to the question of whether the two articles duplicate each other, the main issue is the scope of the topics, not the current content of either article. See Wikipedia:Content forking.

So please just drop the drama, and use this AFD to discuss whether or not the topic "Politics in the British Isles" duplicates the topic "Ireland-United Kingdom relations". What issues can be covered under one title but not under the other? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to leave this here again, since BHG had no defense for the hypocrisy it implies, and let other editors interpret its meaning: from Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_May_24#Category:Nobility_of_Great_Britain_and_Ireland

"Karl, you created the categories under discussion at CfD May 21. There are are several possible outcomes to that discussion, deletion of the categories, merger, or renaming to one of several possible targets. What you have done, however, is to pre-empt the outcome of that CfD by unilaterally creating a category which reflects one possible outcome of the CfD. This is blatantly disruptive, because it either creates a fait accompli or it splits the discussion into two, by having 2 separate discussions on related categories. If you do not agree to its prompt deletion pending the outcome of the other discussion, then I will take this up elsewhere to seek admin intervention against this disruptive editing." (written by BrownHairedGirl a few days ago)

--KarlB (talk) 14:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence that Ireland-UK relations is not sufficient to capture all politics in the Isles[edit]

Recent news article: AHERN UPBEAT ON LINKS TO ISLAND; Isle of Man Today; 23 April 2003. "He said that despite issues raised in Irish tribunals on the subject of some Irish nationals using the Isle of Man to avoid tax in their own country, the situation had 'moved on from that position'. The two countries were working closely together on a range of tax matters and progress had been made on a draft tax information exchange agreement." "The British Irish Council had facilitated meetings between the Irish premier and Chief Minister Richard Corkill and presented an opportunity for the two countries to discuss a whole range of issues, of which regulatory and associated economic measures were key, together with 'common concerns' such as Sellafield and the transportation of nuclear cargoes in the Irish Sea. 'The British Irish Council,' he said, 'brings us (Ireland and the Isle of Man) closer than ever before.'" "Mr Ahern continued: 'I am aware that, as an internally self-governing dependent territory of the Crown — and, as you underline, not a part of the United Kingdom — you guard your fiscal independence. However, this independence has not been at the expense of cooperation with the international community.". So I guess someone needs to tell Bertie Ahern that, according to experts BrownHairedGirl and RA, the relations between Ireland and Isle of Man are really just a part of the bilateral relationship between Ireland and the UK. I'm sure this knowledge will be of use to him. --KarlB (talk) 14:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or another one: "Governors discuss our relationship with UK": "THE Crown Dependencies’ relationship with the UK was on the agenda as their Lt-Governors met yesterday." "‘We discussed issues of common interest, such as the relationship with the UK: are we pursuing the same line?,’ said Sir Fabian. It was useful to find out what was happening in the other jurisdictions, he added." [66]. Gosh, that sounds, well, *nothing* like Ireland-UK politics to me...

Here's more: "Ahern foresees closer links with devolved Scotland"; The Herald - Glasgow (UK); Oct 30, 1998; "Mr Ahern said he looked forward to bilateral exchanges between Ireland and Scotland on economic and EU issues in the British-Irish council. He foresaw closer links in tourism, fisheries and transport and said: "I would certainly like to encourage more people from the Republic to visit Scotland and, equally, more Scottish people to visit Ireland because I am certain we both feel at home in each other's countries." Somebody needs to tell Ahern that Ireland-Scotland can't have bilateral relations! He seems to have forgotten that Scotland isn't sovereign, so any relationship with Ireland is really just part of Ireland relationship with the UK. Shall we draft a letter to the Irish government to inform them of their error? --KarlB (talk) 15:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Early closure[edit]

While this debate is certainly interesting I think all the arguments for and against deletion are already covered here, and we're beginning to see accusations of gaming and edit warring flying around. I've therefore asked at WP:AN/I that an early closure is considered. Clearly this is an emotive subject for some and I'd hate to see good editors losing their rag over it and then being blocked/banned/whatever. WaggersTALK 15:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting following DRV[edit]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A "delete" closure of this discussion was appealed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 May 30, and the result of the review discussion was to relist this deletion discussion. I ask all who have already participated in the debate above, especially those who have done so at great length, to refrain from continuing to do so, so as to allow others to offer their opinion. Sandstein 06:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article seems to cover a proper subject, the overarching political relations between the countries and dependencies in what is termed the British Isles. This includes relations like the British–Irish Council and other related international organizations involved in the region. The sources clearly discuss this topic and indicate that it is notable, so I am not seeing any OR issues or SYNTH issues. If the issue is the use of the controversial term British Isles, which does seem to be influencing a fair amount of the Delete voters above, I propose the article is renamed to Politics of the Atlantic Archipelago, with Atlantic Archipelago being another, perhaps more neutral, term for the region in question. The article was also named this at one point, so it seems a proper suggestion to go back to this title. Silver seren^C 06:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should also add that delete suggestions above saying this article should not exist and should just be redirected to the article on British-Irish relations, I point out that this article is not discussing that. That article is certainly a subsection of this topic, but this article is discussing something far more expansive than just the politics between the UK and Ireland. Silver seren^C 06:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"This includes relations like the British–Irish Council and other related international organizations involved in the region." - All of which are institutions of British-Irish relations, established by treaties with two signatories: the United Kingdom and Ireland (example). These are and listed by the British and Irish governments as being bilateral (bilateral) between those two states. The topic is deal already with on British-Irish relations.
"The sources clearly discuss this topic and indicate that it is notable, ..." - Yes. And all of the source deal with the same topic that is already treated in British-Irish relations.
"If the issue is the use of the controversial term British Isles,..." - That's not the issue. The substantive problem is the existence of two articles on the same topic but merely approaching it from different POVs. This is a POV fork.
"...perhaps more neutral, term for the region in question." - British-Irish relations, perhaps? As already exists :-) --RA (talk) 08:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"That article is certainly a subsection of this topic, but this article is discussing something far more expansive than just the politics between the UK and Ireland." - Like what? Relations between parts of the UK and Ireland? Relations between dependencies of the UK and Ireland? Institutions set-up by the UK and Ireland in bilateral agreements that involve the participation of parts/dependencies of the UK and Ireland? If we strip out everything that is already covered by Ireland-United Kingdom relations, what's left? --RA (talk) 08:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of how they were established, the British–Irish Council is a International governmental organization (IGO) that is meant to represent more than just Ireland and the UK, which is clear to see from the mere fact that the devolved administrations and the crown dependencies are all considered separate within the Council. It should only be shallowly dealt with in British-Irish relations (since that should focus on just Britain and Ireland for the most part, since the crown dependencies are not constitutionally a part of these relations).
The sources are a non-starter, since you copied over the content during the course of the AfD, as I outline in a reply below.
So you're saying that British Isles is not the issue, but then saying the article is POV? Isn't said POV applying to the term British Isles?
I've already explained how the British Isles (Atlantic Archipelago) is larger than what you consider to be the UK and Ireland. Silver seren^C 09:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, different parts of the UK are represented on the British-Irish Council. That doesn't mean it is not a part of British-Irish relations. Perhaps you could indicate a signatory to the establishing agreement that is not either Ireland or the United Kingdom?
Sources that purportedly deal with the politics of the British Isles were forwarded as part the arguemnt for keeping this article. However, whether those sources deal with the politics of the British Isles or British-Irish relations is only a matter of perspective and choice of vocabulary. Yes, sources exist to support the inclusion of an article on this topic. And that topic already exists: British-Irish relations.
I don't know what you mean by the last sentence. The POV behind the POV fork in this case is one to do with international relations theory. Karl wants to write about British-Irish relations from an "archipelagist" perspective and complains that the current article leans/leaned too much on the realist school of international relations theory. That's fine. And he has/had a point. But we should do so by improving the existing article so that it is written from a neutral point of view and not by creating a second article on the same topic written from a different perspective. --RA (talk) 10:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the British Isles is larger than the UK and Ireland is one of perspective. The devolved administrations of the UK, are of course, unarguably, a part of the UK. Domestically, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are not part of the UK. Externally, they are the dependent possession of the it. See Bradley and Ewing (2007) below. Aside form the UK, there is only one other sovereign state in the archipelago: Ireland. Consequently, the politics of the entire archipelago are encompassed by Politics of the United Kingdom and Ireland-United Kingdom relations. --RA (talk) 11:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What original research looks like: Given accusations above that this article was WP:SYN, I thought it might be useful to show a real example of WP:SYN (i.e. coming to a conclusion never stated by any sources). RA has just provided a lovely example above. Watch carefully:
1. "Aside form the UK, there is only one other sovereign state in the archipelago: Ireland": Ok, this is pretty easy to source. No debates on that.
2. "Consequently, the politics of the entire archipelago are encompassed by Politics of the United Kingdom and Ireland-United Kingdom relations"
Whoah! That leap of logic could cross the Pacific ocean! How exactly did we jump from #1 to #2? In an amazing twist of logic, RA has turned years of international relations theory and political science on its head, and deftly concluded that politics is only between sovereign states, and everything else is simply encompassed by those relations. Unfortunately, RA will be unable to provide any sources that back this claim up, because no-one except him and a few other editors here actually believe that to be true. If you don't believe me, then please try and find a source: specifically, try to find a source that states that all politics (or perhaps, all international relations) in the British Isles is encompassed by UK politics or Ireland-UK relations. Best of luck! FWIW, as one small piece of evidence on the opposing side, here is [156 pages on Ireland/NI/Scotland cooperation (and including mentions of Isle of Man)]. Guess what word is never mentioned in this document? "London". But I'm sure all of those involved realized that all of this cooperation was just a subset of Dublin-London bilateral relations, right?--KarlB (talk) 16:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "British Isles" is a POV-laden phrasing, Anglo imperialist if you will. The first step to ending this circus is to come up with NPOV titling. Carrite (talk) 06:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said just above your comment, Atlantic Archipelago? It is a synonym for the region (indeed, it redirects to the British Isles article itself), but has little to none of the controversy. Silver seren^C 06:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think if this were titled Politics in Great Britain and Her Majesty's Enclave In Ulster and By the Way, Fuck You Ireland, the POV would be more apparent. That's pretty much what this title sounds like to an Irish patriot though. To end fisticuffs, get rid of the silly crap that starts fights. Why is this piece at AfD again???? Clearly a Keeper, topic-wise... Carrite (talk) 06:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and retitle, per the above. Carrite (talk) 06:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Content fork of Ireland-United Kingdom relations Mo ainm~Talk 07:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do note that the "duplicated content" was added into the relations article inappropriately after the start of this AfD in an attempt to then get this article deleted. For example, see one such inappropriate duplication here. Thus, this article is not so much a content fork as the content in this article was inappropriately forked out of it in a pointy manner. Silver seren^C 08:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate content does not make a content fork. A content fork is created when two articles are created on the same subject (not content). In this case, the two articles deal with the same subject: British-Irish relations. Naturally, they have the same content. Indeed, the duplication of content is a specific problem caused by the creation of content forks. See Wikipedia:Content fork. --RA (talk) 08:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the Ireland–United Kingdom relations was not about the dependencies or other government in the region besides being strictly about Ireland and the UK. That is, it was not about this subject before this article was created and you began trying to get it deleted by copying over out of scope information into the Ireland–United Kingdom relations article. For example, this is the Ireland–United Kingdom relations article before this Politics article was created. Then, after this AfD was started, Karl made this edit to link a related, though more expansive, article. The very next edit here is you copying over content from the Politics article while this AfD was ongoing. Then, Karl reverted the addition, explaining in the edit summary that this should not be added until the AfD is over. However, you and a number of other editors didn't listen, breaking policy numerous times and edit warring (and the fault of edit warring is on all of you and not Karl, because you were the ones trying to get this article deleted in an underhanded way of influencing the AfD). It's all very clear and obvious for everyone to see. Silver seren^C 08:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What information did I copy over that was out of scope? For example, Karl is pushing energy links between Ireland, Scotland and the Isle of Man. Closer inspection, however, reveals that this is in fact an agreement between Ireland and the United Kingdom.

There are only two sovereign states in the region. We do not, for example, fork Portugal–Spain relations in to Politics in Iberia merely because there exists in Spain several autonomous regions. --RA (talk) 08:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sidestepping the points I made above about trying to influence the AfD doesn't really put you in a good light. But, as for the hypothetical Politics in Iberia article, there probably should be one, considering that the Iberian Peninsula includes Andorra (a country) and Gibraltar (a British territory). Neither of those should be going under Portugal-Spain relations at all. Silver seren^C 09:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not side stepping anything. I included content from Politics in the British Isles that was directly relevant to British-Irish politics. As it happened that was effectively the entire article because ... they treat the same topic. What I am illustrating is that these two article deal with the same topic i.e. one is a content fork.

I do believe the fork was made in good faith. Karl is quite driven by the "archipelagist" perspecitive on British-Irish relations (one I happen to share to a great extent, for what it's worth). But, that doesn't redress the fact that they still treat the same subject, just from different perspectives. --RA (talk) 09:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Comment: In spite of Sandstein's suggestion, I'll restate that this article should be deleted as a content fork of British-Irish relations. The two articles deal with substantively the same topic, but merely approach it from two different perspectives: British-Irish relations is framed from the realist perspective of international relations (which appears to be an orthodox for titles on Wikipedia), whereas Politics of the British Isles being framed from an "archipelagist" perspective on the international relations of the two states (which is a trend in the topic).
There mere existence of two POVs on a the same topic however is not reason for the existence of two articles on the same topic. All articles should be written from a neutral POV and incorporate disparate POVs on the topic.
Substantial discussion with the creator of the article (here and on various talk pages) has borne this out as does the content of the two articles. Reliable sources of course exist, yes, and treat the same topic as is already described at British-Irish relations. --RA (talk) 08:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You already voted in the AfD prior in the above sections, so i'm striking this duplicate vote. Silver seren^C 08:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I wasn't sure of the process. --RA (talk) 09:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crown dependencies / Ireland-United Kingdom relations[edit]

In the previous listing, a point of argument was whether the Crown dependencies of the UK (the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man) were covered in the scope of the article Ireland-United Kingdom relations.

An argument put was that since there are only two sovereign states in the archipelago, the politics of the archipelago is already covered by Ireland-United Kingdom relations. The counter argument was that the Crown dependencies are not part of the UK and so are covered by Ireland-United Kingdom relations.

The following, I hope, will shed light on this question:

In law, the expression 'United Kingdom' refers to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; it does not include the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man. For the purposes of international relations, however, the Channel islands and the Isle of Man are represented by the UK government.
…
International law has the primary function of regulating the relations of independent, sovereign states with one another. For this purpose the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the state, with authority to act also for its dependent possessions, such as the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and its surviving overseas territories, such as Gibraltar, none of which is a state at international law. - Anthony Wilfred Bradley; Keith D. Ewing (2007), Constitutional and Administrative Law, vol. 1 (14 ed.), Harlow: Pearson Education, p. 33, 323, ISBN 1405812079

Another point that was raised was the existence of institutions such as the British-Irish Council. An argument was put that these are multi-lateral bodies and so outside of the scope of Ireland-United Kingdom relations. The counter argument was that these institutions were established through bilateral agreements between Ireland and the United Kingdom alone, as the sole sovereign states in the region.

I hope the following will shed some light on this issue. They are the establishing traties for these organisations. They are all described as being between the United Kingdom and Ireland and as being "bilateral":

--RA (talk) 08:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I await your response above. Silver seren^C 08:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, aren't you already violating what Sandstein asked above when reopening this AfD? Specifically, "I ask all who have already participated in the debate above, especially those who have done so at great length, to refrain from continuing to do so, so as to allow others to offer their opinion." Silver seren^C 08:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can hardly call for a response and then complain when you get it. RashersTierney (talk) 09:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article is an unnecessary POV content fork with liberal doses of synthesis. Despite the title most of the content attempts to describe relations between the UK, Crown dependencies, and the Republic of Ireland, which makes it a content fork of Ireland-United Kingdom relations. Yes there are parts of the British Isles which are not part of the UK or Ireland, but this is nothing more than a technicality in this context as their external relations are handled by the UK. While there are sources which cover things like UK-Ireland history from a "British Isles" perspective, this usage is POV and by no means universal, and as a result the article is forced to use quite a lot of synthesis in order to get the sources to fit the article purpose. Obviously we can cover this POV within Wikipedia, but we have to do so on an article about the POV itself rather than structuring all our content around it. Hut 8.5 09:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then please explain how the Irish Sea Region, the North-South Ministerial Council, and the Ireland Wales Programme are a part of Ireland-UK relations. The UK government is not even involved in those. Silver seren^C 09:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't mean we should group them all together as if they are all connected as is done so here. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make any sense. How should they be grouped then? They clearly do not fall under Ireland-UK relations, so how else would you deal with them? Silver seren^C 09:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
False dichotomy, Why do they need to be grouped together? These topics are notable on their own right. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because there needs to be an overarching summary article. While I have no problem with there also being a Ireland-Isle of Man relations article (using info such as taxation agreements for one) or articles for the rest of the groupings, there still needs to be an overarching article that discusses the region as a whole and summarizes each of the constituent articles. Silver seren^C 09:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable source summarizes these topics together in the way that is done. If there is no obvious connection, and no reliable source makes the connection between the topics then there should be no joint summary, it is not a requirement that the summary exist. By the same reasoning we could arbitrarily group any collection of nations and have an article summarizing unrelated treaties etc between them. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should check out The State of the Nations 2003 then. It has an entire chapter devoted to Intergovernmental relations of the region. Silver seren^C 10:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or to give the book it's full title, The State of the Nations 2003: The Third Year of Devolution in the United Kingdom (my emphasis). The "intergovernmental relations" it is referring to are those of between the devolved administrations of the UK and the UK itself. That touches on British-Irish relations, yes, through the participation of the devolved administrations of the UK in the British-Irish Council and the North/South Ministerial Council alongside the UK central government. However, it also demonstrates a particular problem with the framing the subject in this way. It conflates the internal politics of the UK and the international politics of Ireland-United Kingdom relations and encourages synthesis. --RA (talk) 10:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Ireland-Isle of Man relations is an example of the articles and categories Karl has been created to push this "archipelagist" POV. I don't necessarily mind it inclusion, but it needs to be noted that even in the case of the taxation agreement linked above, the Isle of Man was operating under a letter of endorsement from the UK. --RA (talk) 09:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Irish Sea Region doesn't exist as a programme of any sort from what I can determine. It's inclusion is purely a fiction, from what I can tell. The Ireland-Wales Programme is in fact an EU programme.

The North-South Ministerial Council was created by agreement between the UK and Irish governments (the British-Irish Agreement). It is concerned with relations between the UK and Ireland, specifically to do with issues arising Ireland's secession from the United Kingdom and the partition of Ireland. It is related to the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference, established at the same time, which also include participation of representatives from Northern Ireland (a part of the UK) from time to time.

In any case, all of these examples deal with the relations between (a part of) Ireland and (a part of) the UK.--RA (talk) 09:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Except Ireland-UK relations was specifically about the relationship between Ireland and the UK proper, not the administrations or the dependencies, before you changed it two weeks ago. This article is about the relations between all the parts of the regions. It is clearly a higher level, more expansive article than the Ireland-UK one, which is a subarticle. The most important subarticle, sure, but still on the same level as Ireland-Isle of Man relations. Silver seren^C 09:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Except Ireland-UK relations was specifically about the relationship between Ireland and the UK proper..." - Is it? OK, accepting that at face value, the article is about relations between the Government of Ireland and the Government of the United Kingdom? Well, as it happens, those are the two bodies between which all of these agreements (North/South Ministerial Council, British/Irish Council, Ireland-Isle of Man-Scotland pipeline, etc.) have been made.

The British-Irish relations article is improved by the new content. There's much in there now that was simply missing before. It should have been improved to begin with. We do not need a two articles on the same subject. --RA (talk) 09:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"X-Y relations" articles do not necessarily have to be solely about formal diplomatic relations between the national governments of X and Y. Take United Kingdom–United States relations, for instance: it covers trade relations, tourism, transport, relations between intelligence and law enforcement agencies, shared heritage and culture, and even relations involving the Scottish government (the al-Megrahi release) and the Bermudan government (Guantanamo Bay prisoners). Hut 8.5 09:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. --RA (talk) 10:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is a synthesis of disparate topics into a single article. The OR is integrated throughout the article, many of the references which look like they verify links across politics in the British Isles fail basic verification, they only partially verify. For example for the section Politics_in_the_British_Isles#Political_movements, there is no reliable source verifying all the content that treats politics in the whole of the british isles. Instead we have references that don't verify the content, e.g: Nationalism can take the form of Welsh nationalism, Cornish_nationalism, English nationalism, Scottish nationalism, Ulster nationalism, or independence movements in the Isle of Man or Channel Islands. is not verified by [67]. Also There are no major political parties that are present in all of the countries, but several Irish parties such as Sinn Fein and Fianna Fail have won elections in both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, and both of these parties have established offices in Britain in order to raise funds and win additional supporters is not verified by [68], the source does not say that no major political parties are present in all countries in the British Isles, instead it is inferred. This synthesis is true of almost every section: Government structure, Immigration and emigration,International relations etc etc. No reliable sources appear to connect these sources to the topic. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Now that content has been copied over to another article, is deleting this article an option? The edit history is required to provide attribution to the authors of the content, see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. I know RA listed the authors in the edit summary, but given that more than one editor edited the article, the history is needed to attribute specific content to its author. Maybe a redirect or userfying the history would be better alternatives to deletion should the consensus be decided in that way. Quasi human | Talk 12:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure of the specifics of how, but administrators can merge the history into another article and then delete this article. see WP:HISTMERGE. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the author of the material was acknowledged in the edit summary when the material was copied then there's no reason to keep this article's edit history around. History merges are not used for merges, only to fix cut-and-paste moves. Hut 8.5 12:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment Several new sources have come to light since this discussion was started. ~~The article is still protected so I can't add them there yet, but will list them here:~~ When I get some time, I will add these to the British Isles article.
- Political integration and disintegration in the British Isles; A. H. Birch. Allen & Unwin, 1977.
- Scotland, Ireland, and Northern Ireland: Time for Lateral Thinking; Scottish Affairs, no.24, summer 1998 (relevant quote: "Complementary to this is a need to build a relationship [of Scotland] with the Republic of Ireland, and here we come up against the issue of whether initiatives of this kind come within the terms of reference of the Scottish parliament. Probably not, but this has been overtaken by a more recent event, the Easter Agreement, which should facilitate new sets of relationships among the various countries of these Isles once the provisions under Strand Three are implemented. For the first time it will be legitimate for Scotland to deal directly with both Northern Ireland and Ireland without recourse to London. Although Ireland has had a special relationship with the UK since independence it has had no cause to deal separately with Scotland, until now."
- The United Kingdom now issues "Letters of Entrustment" to the Jersey government, which delegate power to Jersey to negotiate international agreements on its own behalf and sign treaties in Jersey's own name rather than through the United Kingdom. This development was "strongly supported" by the House of Commons Justice Committee in its March 2010 report on the Crown Dependencies.[69]"; Guernsey's international identity:[70]; framework for international identity of Jersey: [71]; BBC: International role for Guernsey, Jersey and Isle of Man
- The Impact of a Scottish Referendum on Ethnoregionalist Movements in the British Isles; Britt Cartrite; analyzes the impact of the Scottish national party's referendum on political movements in the Crown dependencies; thus this analysis is really about how "domestic" politics in one portion of the isles affects domestic politics in another portion of the isles (also handily defeating the argument of those who say that no-one outside of Karl has ever looked at politics across the isles)
- British Isles - Political Maps; Philip's Wall Maps Series; Octopus Publishing Group; 2006; the fact that a major map publisher has published a 'political map' of the British isles is worth noting
- The politics of identity in the British isles: Internal Colonialism: The Celtic Fringe in British National Development; Michael Hechter; Transaction Publishers, 1999: "This book presents the social basis of ethnic identity, and examines changes in the strength of ethnic solidarity in the United Kingdom in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. In addition to its value as a case study, the work also has important comparative implications, for it suggests that internal colonialism of the kind experienced in the British Isles has its analogues in the histories of other industrial societies. Hechter examines the unexpected persistence of ethnicity in the politics of industrial societies by focusing on the British Isles. Why do many of the inhabitants of Wales, Scotland, and Ireland continue to maintain an ethnic identity opposed to England?
- recent conference: Identity and the 'Other British Isles "As issues of nationalism, identity, and what it means to be ‘British’ continue to affect the cultural and political landscape of Britain itself, its impact on the islands that share (or have shared) a cultural heritage with the United Kingdom has become new ground for academics.
- The persistence of regionalism in the British Isles, 1885-1966; Michael Hechter; comparative politics looking at regionalism across the british isles
- Northern Ireland - A British Isles Security Complex Joanne Wright; Terrorism and Political Violence, Vol 5 No 4, 1993; "This article, drawing on the work of Barry Buzan, creates a British Isles security complex. Six patterns of enmity and amity are identified as making up this complex: Norther Ireland Protestants and Catholics; Northern Ireland Protestants and mainland Britain; Northern Ireland Catholics and mainland Britain; Northern Ireland Protestants and the republic of Ireland; Nothern Ireland Catholics and the republic of Ireland; mainland Britain and the republic of Ireland..."
- The Cornish paradox: ethnoregionalism in a hybrid territory; Deacon, Bernard; 2003 - makes comparisons between ethnic nationalism in Cornwall and that of "Isle of Man"
- Constitutional Practices and British Crown Dependencies: The Gap Between Theory and Practice. Common Law World Review: March 2012, Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 1-28. Outlines the difference between the official/legal/constitutional relationship between UK and the crown dependencies, and what actually happens in practice.
- A Short History of Parliament: England, Great Britain, the United Kingdom, Ireland and Scotland Clyve Jones "it covers the English parliament from its origins, the pre-1707 Scottish parliament and the pre-1800 Irish parliament, the parliament of Great Britain from 1707 and the parliament of the United Kingdom from 1801, together with sections on the post-devolution parliaments and assemblies set up in the 1990s and on parliaments in the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands and the Irish Republic."
- Finally, I'm not going to repeat fully citations from above, but I do think it is worth linking to this article: AHERN UPBEAT ON LINKS TO ISLAND Isle of Man Today; 23 April 2003. The two countries were working closely together on a range of tax matters and progress had been made on a draft tax information exchange agreement." "The British Irish Council had facilitated meetings between the Irish premier and Chief Minister Richard Corkill and presented an opportunity for the two countries to discuss a whole range of issues, of which regulatory and associated economic measures were key, together with 'common concerns' such as Sellafield and the transportation of nuclear cargoes in the Irish Sea. 'The British Irish Council,' he said, 'brings us (Ireland and the Isle of Man) closer than ever before.'" "Mr Ahern continued: 'I am aware that, as an internally self-governing dependent territory of the Crown — and, as you underline, not a part of the United Kingdom — you guard your fiscal independence. However, this independence has not been at the expense of cooperation with the international community." Note the wording; two countries working together and not a part of the United kingdom and common concerns - to me all of this is clear evidence that in spite of a constitutional relationship between the UK and Isle of Man, the realpolitik is that Isle of Man has an independent relationship with republic of ireland, and in some cases works on things that are contrary to the wishes of the UK government (ex: Sellafield controversy, regulations on transport of nuclear material, etc). See more from previous diffs [72] and [73].
I think the above is sufficient evidence that a *lot* more could be written, based on reliable sources, about the complex politics in the atlantic archipelago.
comment RENAME to Politics in the Atlantic archipelago because the name British Isles just seems to cause too much controversy; but the topic is clearly notable and different than Anglo-Irish relations, in spite of earlier attempts to mirror the articles. --KarlB (talk) 15:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, responding with 8000 words in an AfD is ridiculous. Please check your links before you dump a large amount of content here, it has dead links. Anyway, only one of these sources appears to explicitly deal with the Isle of Man, Channel Islands, UK and Ireland together and it's about the histories of parliaments. It only very briefly mentions modern parliaments in Wales, Scotland and the Oireachtas (review by David Lewis Jones). All these sources only deal with very specific subsets with no thought to treating the politics of the British isles as a single subject. Throwing all these subsets into a single article is what is the synthesis of topics and original research. For example the source A Short History of Parliament: England, Great Britain, the United Kingdom, Ireland and Scotland covers only historical issues with parliament. The definition of the article is: Politics in the British Isles describes the multilateral and bilateral relationships and the political, economic and cultural interchanges between the countries in the British Isles, where is the source that does anything close to covering that? Clearly by this very loose definition we could pick any number of countries, almost arbitrarily and group them together. I could very easily have an article on the "Politics of Spain, France and the UK" or any particular grouping I desired to push a POV. These topics are all covered individually by separate articles, there is no reason to link them all together into this giant synthesis. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which just sums up the WP:SYNTH concerns about this article. The above are a hodgepodge of references dealing with all sorts of matters to do with the politics of the United Kingdom, the politics of the Republic of Ireland and Ireland-United Kingdom relations ... with a random map thrown in to boot! A topic cannot simply be created by mish-mashing other topics together - even if there are references to be found that support statements to do with each of the mish-mashed topics individually. --RA (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You both have a very bizarre notion of what WP:SYN means. It seems that unless a given source deals with every single part of the British isles, it is not worthy of inclusion here. In other words, if I found a source that studied political movements in Scotland, England, Wales, Ireland, Northern Ireland, Isle of Man, and Jersey, you would claim it was 'synthesis' because that source did not cover Guernsey and Sark, and thus including it in an article on the British Isles is original research. We do not apply this standard to any other part of wikipedia, so your insistence on it here doesn't jibe with any practice or policy. Finally your assertion that this grouping of countries is arbitrary is easily defeated by looking at the list of countries who are part of the British-Irish council, which was not a body I created just to defend this article. The fact that these countries have created a common travel area, common parliamentary body, and common multilateral/intergovernmental forum is significant, and your wishing it wasn't so doesn't change things. The British-Irish council is not a POV, and the fact that they deal with issues related to all countries in the British Isles is also not a POV. If your issue is with sources, why don't you go attack Politics_of_Asia or Politics of the Caribbean (no sources)? I've given multiple sources, by the way, that look exactly at the relationships between the various countries in the isles, why don't you try to read the article and look at the sources at the bottom. --KarlB (talk) 17:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not about the British-Irish council, that article already exists, and yes a source should precisely go into the details of politics in the British isles, that is precisely what would help make the topic notable. You have shown multiple sources which you have synthesised into one topic. As the original creator of the article your ownship issue with the article prevents you from recoqnising the synthesis, I suggest you allow others, who aren't so closely connected (I note your usage of the word "attack"), to comment in the AfD, as indicated by Sandstein. Also, if I nominated other articles on the basis of this AfD that would effectively be WP:POINTY behaviour on my part. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The fact that these countries have created a common travel area, common parliamentary body, and common multilateral/intergovernmental forum is significant, and your wishing it wasn't so doesn't change things." - No. The fact is that Ireland and the United Kingdom created the Common Travel Area. Ireland and the United Kingdom created the parliamentary body. Ireland and the United Kingdom created the intergovernmental body. Look at the agreements. Do you see anyone else's names on them? Scotland, Wales, the Isle of Man and so on participate in or enjoy these arrangements as parts of or dependants of the UK, but these are bodies created between Ireland and the United Kingdom. Just because the United Kingdom is a multi-faceted state does not make relations with the United Kingdom anything more than just that. These are all topics already covered by Ireland-United Kingdom relations.

In 2014, the people of Scotland will get a chance to vote in an independence referendum. When they do so, and if they vote Yes, then there will be a third sovereign state in the region. When that happens, then we can reasonably talk of the politics of the British Isles as something more than Ireland-United Kingdom relations. --RA (talk) 17:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, wrong again. See STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN IMMIGRATION RULES; this is domestic legislation, enacted by the government of Isle of Man, that (in part) modifies the rules of the common travel area as they apply to immigration into the Isle of Man. The problem is you have painted yourself into a logical corner out from which you cannot escape - you have already accepted that Isle of Man is not part of the UK; you have also accepted that Isle of Man has responsibility for its domestic politics; we've already established that Isle of Man now has an independent 'international' character and is empowered to enact certain types of bilateral relationships, including relationships with Ireland on issues with which the UK government does not agree; and here we have the common travel area, which you claim to be solely a bilateral matter, but you've once again been proven wrong. The politics of these isles are messy, and the sharp line which you'd like to draw between sovereign and non-sovereign, or 'international relations' and 'domestic politics' is not so sharp after all. As soon as that line breaks down, away to dust goes your whole argument that this is a fork and can all thus be subsumed under Irish-UK relations...--KarlB (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Karl, the Common Travel Area is mentioned twice in formal agreements: the one I link above and as an annex to the Amsterdam Treaty. On both occasions the agreeing partners were the United Kingdom and Ireland alone.

The Isle of Man is competent for immigration. That does not make it competent for external relations or international agreements. The statement you link to states that, "The Isle of Man, the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Republic of Ireland collectively form a common travel area." Indeed they do. That was agreed by the UK and Ireland. --RA (talk) 19:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Much of the argument that this is a POV fork is fixated on the England-Ireland relationship. What about politics between Northern Ireland and Ireland? Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK? Ireland and Scotland? Ireland and Wales? Are there articles for each of these permutations? Is this really such a fork??? Carrite (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I presume you mean the United Kingdom when you say England. England ceased to be an actor in politics in the year 1707.

As for relationships between Ireland and other parts of the UK, such as Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, those are a subset of Ireland-United Kingdom relations. They are sub-national entities. We don't do permutations for the affairs of different parts of countries unless they very notable. Otherwise we would need 50 articles for every United States-XXX relations, thirteen for every Canada-XXX relations, sixteen for every Germany-XXX relations etc.

An example of why we don't is when Karl points to an agreement for a gas pipeline between Scotland, the Isle of Man and Ireland. He cites this as an example of Ireland-Scotland-Isle of Man relations. In fact, this agreement is between Ireland and the United Kingdom. Those are the only two sovereign states in the region. --RA (talk) 17:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, we see the basic misunderstanding which is at the root of this AfD. "England ceased to be an actor in politics in the year 1707" is an all-time classic. Campaign_for_an_English_Parliament for example, I don't want to bother you with others. The main point being, just because something is *not* sovereign does not mean it cannot be an 'actor' in politics; in this case, for those who believe in an 'english' identity, the notion of 'England' is very much alive as a political concept. As to the assertion that these relationships are not notable, it is clear for example that an Ireland-Scotland relations article can and should be created, and I would welcome your help in its development. As I've said before, the Ireland-UK bilateral relationship is clearly the most important and dominant relationship in the Isles. It does not mean however that all other relationships are subservient to that one, and no evidence has been provided to back up any such claim.--KarlB (talk) 17:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Karl, there is a campaign in the UK for an English parliament. And it is just that: a campaign for one. What next, will you want to create England-Scotland relations two non-existing states?

As for whether Ireland-United Kingdom relations covers whatever relations might exist with the UK authorities in Scotland, you do know that Scotland in the United Kingdom, right? --RA (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really quite curious as to your definition of 'relations'. Do you think for example that California and Oregon can't have any relations because they're not sovereign? As you point out, England-Scotland relations, UK-Isle of Man relations, Isle of Man-Scotland relations, Wales-Channel Islands relations etc could *all* be created, and there is enough content for all of those articles, because bilateral relations exist between every possible pairing of countries in the British isles. And yes, I know Scotland is in the UK, but the history of Irish/Scottish relations goes back way before the UK, and as has been stated by the president of Ireland and Chief minister of Scotland, the two countries are now exploring closer bilateral ties - which have a different character than the relationship of Dublin to London. There was just a Scottish-Irish summit about a year ago, with reps from Ireland, Scotland, and Isle of Man. I don't think Londoners were invited... If you don't believe me, why don't you ask any Scottish politician, whether their relationships with Ireland are all just via London. Don't be surprised if they laugh at the question. Scotland is even developing its own international relations and presence: [74] - they are developing a relationship with China! Again, your whole argument rests on sovereignty, and the claim that sovereignty is somehow the core or only determinant of politics, and that relations between countries are determined solely based on their sovereignty. Unfortunately, no scholars or writers or historians agree with you...If you do have any sources that back up your claim, e.g. that all politics in the islands is encompassed by Anglo-Irish relations or UK politics, they would of course be most welcome, but we may be waiting a long time... For more counter-proof, see recent speech by Irish prime minister to Scottish parliament: [75] ; note that in the whole speech, he only mentions 'United Kingdom' once, but he mentions the Scottish-Irish relationships many more times - for example, "In recent years, we have added a political dimension to an already extensive network of Irish-Scottish ties." or "The past two years have seen a notable intensification of Scottish-Irish political dialogue with a series of high-level visits in both directions" -KarlB (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and you are very determined to make a clear distinction bewteen Scotland and the United Kingdom. I wish you well in 2014. In the mean time, Wikipedia is not a platform to hi-jack with nationalist desire of what may be. For now, Scotland a part of the UK. And relations between the Irish authorities and UK authorities, regardless of where they occur in the UK, fall under the remit of Ireland-United Kingdom relations. --RA (talk) 18:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly I could care less which way Scots vote. Let them decide, I don't have a dog in the fight. The question is whether Scottish-Irish relations, as framed by the governments of Scotland and Ireland, and by reliable sources sources, is a sufficient topic in its own right. You can try an AfD on Ireland-Scotland relations once it's created, but it will likely fail, because there are reams of material just on that alone.--KarlB (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One other thing I should note is that the definition of the United Kingdom doesn't actually include the Crown Dependencies. This is because the UK is referring to those subnations that are constitutionally bound to each other, while the Crown Dependencies are not constitutionally bound and, in most aspects, act as free agents. This is mentioned here and even stated in our article on the Channel Islands, one of the Crown Dependencies, that they are not a part of the UK. Thus, again, these Crown Dependencies should have nothing to do with the Ireland-United Kingdom relations article. These connections are attempted to be explained another way by RA above, but he merely stated that their foreign relations are enacted by the UK government, which is true. But, besides that and defense, they have no other connections and, since this article in question is about the intergovernmental politics of the region and not outside of the area, this is irrelevant. Silver seren^C 18:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See the reference at the top of this section. I'll post it again for your convenience:

In law, the expression 'United Kingdom' refers to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; it does not include the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man. For the purposes of international relations, however, the Channel islands and the Isle of Man are represented by the UK government.
…
International law has the primary function of regulating the relations of independent, sovereign states with one another. For this purpose the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the state, with authority to act also for its dependent possessions, such as the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and its surviving overseas territories, such as Gibraltar, none of which is a state at international law. - Anthony Wilfred Bradley; Keith D. Ewing (2007), Constitutional and Administrative Law, vol. 1 (14 ed.), Harlow: Pearson Education, p. 33, 323, ISBN 1405812079

"But, besides [their foreign relations] and defense, they [the United Kingdom and the Crown Dependencies] have no other connections and, since this article in question is about the intergovernmental politics of the region and not outside of the area, this is irrelevant." — You do know that Ireland is an independent and sovereign state and not part of the United Kingdom? Relations between Ireland the Crown Dependencies are external relations i.e. the responsibility of the UK. Whether these relations exist inside or outside of the region is irrelevant. The UK represent the Channel Islands in the affairs of the region — for example in the Common Travel Area, in the establishment of the British-Irish Council, in the negotiation of energy agreements for the region, and so on.

For similar reasons, Bermuda is mentioned in the article on United Kingdom–United States relations. --RA (talk) 18:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
procedural question now that this AfD is re-opened, I'm considering making some changes to the article, based on new sources that have come to light. However, I'm concerned that if I do so, as in the past, editors will do a wholesale copy/paste of any changes over into Anglo-Irish relations, edit-war to keep them there, then claim this as further evidence that this article is a content fork, ensuring confusion for new editors who come by this discussion and are pointed to an exact copy in Anglo-Irish relations. The issue is that since this AfD started, the presumed scope of Anglo-Irish relations has expanded to cover all political, cultural, economic, and social ties between any and all of the countries in the British isles, a scope it never had until this article was first created. Does anyone have any recommendations on how to deal with this? --KarlB (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this is related to the AfD, discuss article issues on the talk page. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can understand why we do need an article called "Politic in the British Isles" that is separate from "Politics in the United Kingdom". The British Isles would include the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, both of which are outside the United Kingdom. Since they have their own parliaments (and different tax rates to the United Kingdom, at least in the case of the Isle of Man) it would make sense to keep this article. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 15:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An article on this exists: British Islands. That is the formal legal name (in UK domestic law) for the UK and the Crown Dependencies taken together. As it is being used in the article under discussion, British Isles includes the Republic of Ireland. An article on the politics of the British Islands makes sense — all of the states and territories involved have constitutional links to the UK. A problem with politics in the British Isles is that it throws a random third state into the mix, one that has with no constitutional links to the UK. --RA (talk) 19:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland, the UK and the Crown Dependencies[edit]

I've moved this here from User talk:ACEOREVIVED because I think it has some interesting issues worth teasing out. In reply to ACEOREVIVED's comment above:

I think you may be mixing up British Islands with British Isles. An article on the politics of the British Islands makes sense — all of the states and territories involved have constitutional links to the UK. A problem with politics in the British Isles is that it throws a random third state, with no constitutional links to the UK, into the mix: the Republic of Ireland. --RA (talk) 19:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

hehe... yeah, Ireland is a totally random addition; it obviously has no connection whatsoever with the politics of the UK. oh, wait...--KarlB (talk) 19:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
(Sorry for hijakcing your talk page, ACEOREVIVED)

You will accept that Ireland is, unequivocally, not a part of the UK? That they are two separate states entirely. In contrast, the Crown Dependencies are considered part of the UK for certain legal matters, have a constitutional relationship with the UK and the UK is responsible certain matters with respect to their governance, external relation and defence (pedantic distinctions between "the Crown" and the UK aside). Additionally the Parliament at Westminster can, strictly speaking, legislate for them at any time.

In that sense, in comparison to the relationship between the Crown Dependencies and the UK, Ireland is a "random" third state. An article on the politics of the UK and the Crown Dependencies makes sense. Lobbing Ireland into the mix alongside them is a bit bizarre. You might as well have an article on Politics of the United Kingdom as it would be if 1922 never happened. --RA (talk) 19:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
yes, Ireland is not part of the UK. But neither are the crown dependencies. And, we have provided multiple independent bodies of scholarship that look at Ireland, the UK, and the channel islands together, or in various subsets, and study politics, comparative politics, international relations, political movements, political parties, and so on, across the isles. And, of course, we have extant multilateral bodies that have as members almost all of the countries in the isles, notably including Republic of Ireland. So, while you may find it bizarre to consider RoI in a broader context of the archipelago, many other reliable sources do not consider it odd.--KarlB (talk) 20:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's strange to look at the relationship between Ireland and the United Kingdom (inc. the Crown Dependencies) in the context of Ireland-United Kingdom relations. The institutions established by the two states, especially since the 1998 settlement, add a further perspective to that relationship, one that goes beyond realism, but it is still one of international relations. It is that relationship, and the post-1998 settlement, that the relevant books you cite refer to, Karl.

What is strange is to try to write an article that looks at the relationship between Ireland, the UK, its regions and its dependencies outside of the perspective of international relations. Especially one that tries to present a quasi-polity out of them, with Ireland in toe, and that tries to gloss over or blur the pealpolitik of the relationships between them.

The UK, its regions and dependencies are constitutionally linked. They can be looked at as a single polity (indeed they have a name as such, the British Islands). They can all ultimately be governed for and legislated for from London, for example. They share a common court of appeal. They share the same head of state. They are all are represented externally by the Government of the United Kingdom, who also provides their defense. The United Kingdom (whether through "the Crown" or not) is ultimately responsible for their governance.

In contrast, Ireland is a separate state. It hasn't had a constitutional relationship with the UK since the first half of the 20th century. The relationship, outside of international relations, is historical or unrelated to politics. One could just as easily compare England with France or Scotland with Norway as either with Ireland. And people have. --RA (talk) 22:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge to Politics of the United Kingdom. Simply merge verified information that isn't already in the Politics of the United Kingdom article into it~~ Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for your comment. What do you make of the fact that Republic of Ireland and the Crown dependencies, both of which are covered in this article, are both not part of the United Kingdom? --KarlB (talk) 03:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve – struck out my merge !vote above, per User:Karl.brown's comment directly above. This topic has received coverage using the term ([76], [77], [78], [79]), and as such the information should be WP:PRESERVED in some manner, rather than blanket deleted. Another option would be to selectively merge to Politics of the United Kingdom, Republic of Ireland and Crown dependencies, respectively. Keep for now, then possibly merge, if that's what consensus becomes regarding this article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first three links above, despite their titles, actually refer to the politics of the United Kingdom (inc. the Crown Dependencies). From its blurb, the fourth would appear to do so as well.

This is a particular problem in this discussion: the conflation of the United Kingdom (and/or including its dependencies) with the British Isles, which includes another sovereign state: the Republic of Ireland. --RA (talk) 10:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Karl, which begs the question, why are you pushing an article that links three supposedly unrelated groups of political entities in the first place? But yes, the Crown Dependencies, although not ordinarily considered part of the UK, could be treated (at least to some extent) in Politics of the United Kingdom. They are constitutionally linked to the United Kingdom and under the responsibility of the UK central government's Department of Justice. Ireland on the other hand has no constitutional links to the UK.

@Northamerica1000, the content has already been integrated into Ireland-United Kingdom relations. Specific items could be further integrated into other articles. But the subject matter, so far as it exits, is already sufficiently covered by politics of the United Kingdom and Ireland-United Kingdom relations. --RA (talk) 10:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Th conference on "exploring britishness" that you link to does not appear to have the term [80] and appears to be about the small islands around Great Britain, not Ireland or Great Britain itself, i.e dependencies etc. [81]. Another link says "Draft – Do not cite" at the top and does not concern the Republic of Ireland. The source Political Integration and Disintegration in the British Isles appears to be about the History of the british isles. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it deals with the United Kingdom and its dependencies, and the topic of the conference is Britishness i.e. the United Kindgom. This is a persistent problem in this AfD: conflating the politics of the United Kingdom with the purported politics of the archipelago as a whole, which also includes the Republic of Ireland. --RA (talk) 10:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many variables can shape politics. Example: from the lede sentence of [82]: "As issues of nationalism, identity, and what it means to be ‘British’ continue to affect the cultural and political landscape of Britain itself, its impact on the islands that share (or have shared) a cultural heritage with the United Kingdom has become new ground for academics." This can clearly be included in the article as a citation or external link, due to its relevance to the topic. At any rate, just some observations. WP:PRESERVE still seems in order. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be confusing Great Britain and it's related smaller islands with the British Isles. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. The British Isles (from the Wikipedia article), "are a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe that include the islands of Great Britain, Ireland and over six thousand smaller isles. Great Britain (from the Wikipedia article), "is an island situated to the northwest of Continental Europe. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So how are you then equating the "political landscape of Britain" with the political landscape of the British Isles?

In any case, as I've commented below, Britain in the sense used here means the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom is one of two sovereign states in the British Isles. Additionally, British (as in "...what it means to be ‘British’...") denotes the United Kingdom. --RA (talk) 14:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"...political landscape of Britain..." - Britain is a synonym for the United Kingdom. It is not a synonym for the archipelago that also includes the Republic of Ireland.

With respect to WP:PRESERVE, the citations you link to would make for interesting inclusion in politics of the United Kingdom and related subtopics. Otherwise, the content of the article under discussion already appears in Ireland-United Kingdom relations. --RA (talk) 13:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no actually. Britain (or Great Britain as it is generally used as well) is a geographic term for the whole island (not including the separate island of Ireland or the many other islands in the area). That's why it's British Isles, after all, So, you're right that it's not a synonym for the archipelago, just for the one island, but it doesn't have to do with the UK, which is a political construct. Silver seren^C 16:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I linked to the Merriam Webster dictionary above: "Britain: (2) United Kingdom". See also the Collins English Dictionary: "Britain: Great Britain another name for United Kingdom". Also, the Oxford English Dictionary (albeit specifically Great Britain): "Britain: .... The name is broadly synonymous with Great Britain...", for which, "Great Britain: ... The name is also often used loosely to refer to the United Kingdom."

You may also be interested in what DirectGov (a UK government information site) has to say: "'Britain' is used informally, usually meaning the United Kingdom." --RA (talk) 16:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, looks like it's more complicated than that. Britain can mean the United Kingdom (a political entity) or Great Britain (a geographic area). So it's simultaneously both. This is why I hate the English language. In related news, this book has a good description on the issue. I think we might have to agree to disagree. You see it as a issue which is already covered by another article on the political entity (UK). I see it as an issue where it is about the geographic region, which is not covered (British Isles). Technically, we're both correct. Silver seren^C 17:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just realized what you seem to take as the significance of the link above. It's to a tourist book pertaining to the British Isles! The mere existence of a tourist book on, say, the Mediterranean, does not mean we should have an omnibus conflating the articles on the politics of Spain, the politics of Italy, the politics of Greece, the politics of Morocco, etc. into one hodgepodge article. Your final comment also seems to suggest that you are cannot distinguish between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. --RA (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And, even if it was, as you write, "an issue which is already covered by another article on the political entity (UK)" (actually in this case substantively Ireland-United Kingdom relations), we don't go about creating two article on substantively the same topic but written from different perspectives. That is called a WP:POVFORK. --RA (talk) 19:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~There's no need for us to agree to disagree. We agree. Furthermore, I'm sure you'll agree with me that the island of Britain is wholly contained within the United Kingodm?~~ [Struck because I didn't realise what Silver seren was suggesting we must agree to disagree over.] So, from whatever perspective, the politics of Britain pertains to the politics of the United Kingdom.

So, why then are sources pertaining to the politics of the United Kingdom being used to support a combined article on the politics of the United Kingdom (including its dependencies) and the politics of the Republic of Ireland? Certainly these two sovereign states have much in common and, especially since 1998, co-operate well (including with each others' component parts and dependencies). But, this is covered in Ireland-United Kingdom relations (regardless of how poorly treated aspects of it were before the creation of this new article).

By way of comparison, we wouldn't combine politics of Austria and politics of Germany to create some hodgepodge of the two. Regardless of the shared language, culture and political history, including having several times formed a unified state, we treat the two in Austria–Germany relations and not as an omnibus of politics of Austria + politics of Germany. Why is it any different here? --RA (talk) 18:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Sidenote: perhaps some of this information could also be merged to improve some of Wikipedia's portals The general nature of the topic encompasses a wide range of subtopics. Here's some relevant portals below:

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please would the closer disregard the British Isles naming dispute crap in this AfD. They're called the British Isles, and hilarious though it is how butthurt people get about that, we can't allow the pointy disruption to affect our encyclopaedia. The British Isles is the correct name and Wikipedia deals with the world as it is, not as certain Irish Nationalists wish it was.
Having said that, I'm distinctly unimpressed with the current content and I wouldn't object to the whole thing being nuked from orbit (it's the only way to be sure!) Of course, only a complete idiot would turn a plausible search term into a redlink, so after any deletion an immediate disambiguation page should be created. Just in case the closer is the kind of person who finds a word in bold helpful, mine is:-
Delete and disambiguate between Politics of the United Kingdom, Politics of the Republic of Ireland, Demography and politics of Northern Ireland, or Ireland–United Kingdom relations.—S Marshall T/C 19:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. As the original creator of the article, I of course agree that the content could be improved, but please note it was only extant for one hour before being proposed for AfD. As I continued to improve the article during the AfD process, all of my edits were copy/pasted into Anglo-Irish relations and then used to defend a charge of content-fork, so I of course was discouraged from contributing further until the AfD was finished; hence, I'd ask that you don't judge the current content *too* harshly. In addition, please look at this: [83], that is the Ireland-UK relations article 4 YEARS after its creation, and it only has 1 reference! While I appreciate your suggestion to merge the content back to those pages (which are already linked to/listed from this page), I respectfully submit that the scope of this page is different than all of them; it is not meant to capture the details of domestic politics in those countries, nor to outline the complex Anglo-Irish relationship (which as has been pointed out, already has it's own page). Instead, this page was to be a survey/comparative politics page, and to focus on the *other* relationships, both bilateral and multilateral, that are currently going on in the British Isles (similar to Politics of Europe or Politics of the Caribbean. I have stated elsewhere that the Anglo-Irish/Dublin-London axis is clearly the dominant one, and it is normal that we should have an article on that. However, there is more to this story than Ireland-UK bilateral relations, and that is what this page was intended to cover. I've provided multiple sources that show that this topic is notable (there is even a whole book on the subject called "politics of the British Isles"), so I'm wondering if you might reconsider, or at least provide further reasoning behind your delete !vote. --KarlB (talk) 21:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, nominating for AfD after a mere hour is not normally appropriate behaviour, and I do have a certain amount of sympathy with you. It's hard to make good faith contributions to Wikipedia when you've inadvertently run into a battlezone in one of the most problematic areas of Wikipolitics. Closer: If this content is deleted then anything that has been moved to Ireland-United Kingdom relations will need to be checked; a history merge may be needed to ensure that Karl.brown and anyone else who has contributed to this article receives credit for their work (and see also the Terms of Use).
Karl.brown, if you want to work on this article and develop it in peace, there are ways to do this. You can ask the closer to userfy or incubate the material (depending on whether you'd rather work on it yourself or in collaboration with others). It would no longer be published in Wikipedia's mainspace, and no longer indexed by search engines, but it would give you a full chance with no time limit or deadline to build the article. Once you have content that you feel is fully-developed and you feel ready, you could then ask the community to re-assess. How's that?—S Marshall T/C 22:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to the merge, Karl (and other minor contributors) was credited when the content was added.

With respect to how the nomination happened so quickly, that is because Karl came to create this article immediately on the back of a number of heated discussions to do with Category:Foo of the British Isles that he created. One of those was Category:Politics of the British Isles, which has descended into such a mess that I don't know how it can ever be closed. It is hardly wise to march out in the middle a heated discussion on Category:Politics of the British Isles to go and create a mainspace article on Politics in the British Isles. So, Karl is hardly faultless if this article got nominated for deletion so soon after its creation. (Incidentally, I'm supportive of Category:Politics of the British Isles now that a number of POV issues have been sorted out. This article, however, is unredeemable and recreates some of the same POV issues that were at issue with Category:Politics of the British Isles.)

With regard to userfication, following the first (aborted) deletion of this article, two editors (myself and BHG) were working with Karl on a new version of the article in his user space (albeit that we had just started). The re-listing of the AfD put the kibosh on that, but I (and I imagine BHG) would still be happy to help with that, if Karl wants. --RA (talk) 22:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now that both sides have replied, let's pay attention to Sandstein when he said I ask all who have already participated in the debate above, especially those who have done so at great length, to refrain from continuing to do so, so as to allow others to offer their opinion.
What I would like the closer to take from my participation in this AfD are two simple points: (1) Certain people from the Republic of Ireland object to the term "British Isles". The fact that they're extremely vocal doesn't change the reality, though. The correct common use term for these islands is and has always been "The British Isles". And (2) I do not think this content has encyclopaedic value but I do think a disambiguation page should occupy this space.
Having read around the subject some more I see that Karl.brown already has a copy of this article in his userspace, under the truly bizarre title of User:Karl.brown/Politics in the atlantic archipelago (which is like calling North America "South Canada"). There is no need to incubate or userfy any further copies.—S Marshall T/C 23:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, it was userfied at my request; I renamed it as 'Atlantic archipelago' because that's a word used by historians (starting with J. G. A. Pocock) in place of the British Isles; my thought was, if the word is the problem, just rename. As to RA's assertion that the creation of this article was problematic, I actually created it *based* on things that came out of the discussion at CfD; at first I thought a category would be sufficient, but after looking at the content and the multiple sources it seemed reasonable to create an article which captured a number of elements which were not at the time present anywhere. That those elements have now been copied into Ireland-UK relations was secondary to the creation of the article. The *other* article that RA speaks of is indeed in progress, but would be more focused on expanding the thoughts of the academic perspectives section of this article, which will be on either (a) the 'archipelagic' perspective in scholarship of the isles - what is it, where did it come from, where is it going or (b) the idea of post-nationalism, especially as espoused by Richard Kearney and other scholars. I am very happy to work with other editors like RA and BHG on this new article in userspace until we are comfortable, but I also feel that it is a different article with a different purpose than the present one.--KarlB (talk) 00:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Karl, if you based it on things that came out of the CfD discussion then you weren't listening very well. Precicely the problems with that exist with article were raised. For example (diff):

"Category:Nordic politics provides a good example for what this category could be. (I was going to suggest it but you beat me to it!) It's clear in it's focus and is not just a POV catch-all for anything to do with 'politics' that just happens to take place in 'Scandinavia'. A reason for that, I believe, is because it doesn't focus on a 'some random thing' in 'some random place' but on a single specific and identifiable 'thing': Nordic politics. One could imagine an article on Nordic politics. What would an article on politics of the British Isles be about? (Contrast with History of the British Isles, which has a clear focus.)"

I can see now that you were offered WP:BEANS by this comment but it raises the exact issues about creating the article that you then did. --RA (talk) 08:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Question "Is this an encyclopedic topic ?" The answer to that is clearly is yes given the debate over the name and history of the Isles it is obvious that the politics and relationships of the elements are of somewhat importance. Question "Is it a content fork" Well I can't find an article on exactly the same subject so finally "Would the content be better of merged" possibly to British Isles but that would probably be best dealt with at the two talk pages. Mtking^(edits) 03:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "The answer to that is clearly is yes given the debate over the name.." —Indeed: British Isles naming dispute.
- "… and history of the Isles …" — Indeed: History of the British Isles.
- "…it is obvious that the politics and relationships of the elements are of somewhat importance." — Indeed: Ireland-United Kingdom relations. (Remember, now, there are only two sovereign states in the region.)
- "Well I can't find an article on exactly the same subject so finally…" — See, Ireland-United Kingdom relations, which includes a summary of the political history of the British Isles (including a survey of the contemporary political landscape of the Isles) in its background section as well as a summary of the "naming dispute" as a minor point of contention in the relationship.
- "Would the content be better of merged" — It already is. See, Ireland-United Kingdom relations. --RA (talk) 08:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the creation of this article was doubtlessly well intentioned, but as it is, it is nothing but a POV fork that inappropriately mixes political relations between the sovereign nation of the United Kingdom, its various dependencies and possessions in close geographic proximity, and the sovereign nation of the Republic of Ireland, using the POV and politically loaded term "British Isles". Most of the potential content of this article could be much better incorporated at Ireland–United Kingdom relations and Politics of the United Kingdom. Alternatively, the article could be reduced in scope to exclude the independent and non-British state of the Republic of Ireland, but still include the various miscellaneous entities in the region, this would also be legitimate. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Strong Keep - The unique political relationship that exists within the British Isles (or British and Irish Isles, whatever) creates a situation that warrants an article like this. What with political parties that are all-Ireland, combined with weird mixes of politics between the two countries, their citizenship arrangements and so forth warrant such an article. Just because an article includes “British Isles” shouldn’t mean it is anathema. There is no agreed upon substitute, as we are all aware, and yet still, there is a unique regional “grouping” that is the British Isles, with its unique history of union, interference and so forth. Yes, there is no one “political entity”, but the entities that do exist closely interact, as could be detailed here. Maybe a title change is in order, but I still believe the article could be valuable with some refurbishment. RGloucester (talk) 07:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All of which is covered in Ireland-United Kingdom relations (or, from a historical perspective, in History of the British Isles). A specific problem here is one of WP:CONTENTFORK. As interesting as the topic is, we don't need two article that treat the subject. --RA (talk) 10:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, can that article include the Crown Dependencies? And furthermore, even if we accept that it includes those, what about subnational entities, like the devolved governments? As these gain more power, they have begun to cultivate their own relationships with Ireland, and even with other subnational devolved entities…putting it under that title excludes these, because it only refers to the UK govt. I’d recommend something, and I don’t know if you can do this, but maybe use “British and Irish Isles” instead? Or "Politics in Britain and Ireland”? Either way, I think, that this “type” of article has a place. RGloucester (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
About the devolved administrations, first, they are unquestionable part of the United Kingdom. Relations between Ireland and whatever part of the United Kingdom, fit under Ireland-United Kingdom relations. Relations between parts of the United Kingdom and other parts of the United Kingdom fit under the internal politics of the United Kingdom.

The Crown Dependencies are, just that: dependencies of the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom is responsible for their external relations (as well as the UK Department of Justice being responsible for ensuring their overall good governance). So, for example, an agreement to run a gas pipe line between Scotland, the Isle of Man and Ireland is an agreement between the UK and Ireland (and not between Scotland, the Isle of Man and Ireland). It is Ireland-United Kingdom relations.

The British-Irish Council is a practical example of all this. It involves the three devolved administrations of the UK, the three of the Crown Dependencies of the UK, as well as the Ireland and the UK sovereign governments. Good. But who signs the agreements: Ireland and the UK. And how does the UK describe these agreements: bilateral. It is Ireland-United Kingdom relations.

This article forks Ireland-United Kingdom relations in a way that pushes a POV that over overplays the position of the regions and dependencies of the UK, downplays the position of the two sovereign states, and blurs the distinction between the United Kingdom and Ireland. That is a valid perspective on Ireland-United Kingdom relations (as well as on the internal politics of the United Kingdom) but it is a perspective (viz. a POV) on the topic, not a new topic of itself.

A better approach may be to have an article on the perspective itself e.g. Postnationalist politics in the British Isles. --RA (talk) 08:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between de facto and de jure. RA is focusing on de jure, whereas for practical purposes, (a) every scholar writing about the British-Irish council calls it multilateral (b) the crown dependencies are not part of the UK, their internal politics and political parties are also not part of UK politics, and their external relationships with devolved administrations of the UK and RoI is *not* part of the UK government nor is it fully mediated by/controlled by/subsumed by the Dublin-London axis. In fact, ample evidence has been provided that the crown dependencies have their own international identity [84], form relationships with other countries independent of London, and act in a de facto manner that does not suggest they are simply following orders from London. This is a fuzzy area of international law, and an evolving relationship, but to simplify by saying "pshaw Isle of Man international relations are effectively part of UK international relations" is oversimplification in the extreme and does not befit an encyclopedia that wishes to be accurate. When all 3 crown dependencies come together in a multilateral fashion to discuss relations with UK, is that just internal UK politics? (when everyone goes out of their way to state that they are *not* part of the UK!) I think not. The whole sovereignty argument also doesn't hold water; we have politics between California and Oregon, and no-one goes on about how neither California nor Oregon are sovereign. No evidence has been provided anywhere to illustrate that all international relations are subsumed by sovereignty, nor that sovereign entities cannot have relationships with non-sovereign entities that are not worthy of note. I have noted on several occasions that the Dublin-London axis is clearly the most important, and merits a large and complex article just for itself. But that is not the totality of relationships in the archipelago, and highlighting those relationships separate from Anglo-Irish relations is not POV, it is simply more complete coverage.--KarlB (talk) 12:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Karl, I'm talking de facto as well as de jure. This is further demonstrated by the document that you link to.

Let's look again at the in-and-out of the Crown Dependencies' relationship with the UK:

In law, the expression 'United Kingdom' refers to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; it does not include the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man. For the purposes of international relations, however, the Channel islands and the Isle of Man are represented by the UK government.
…
International law has the primary function of regulating the relations of independent, sovereign states with one another. For this purpose the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the state, with authority to act also for its dependent possessions, such as the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and its surviving overseas territories, such as Gibraltar, none of which is a state at international law. - Anthony Wilfred Bradley; Keith D. Ewing (2007), Constitutional and Administrative Law, vol. 1 (14 ed.), Harlow: Pearson Education, p. 33, 323, ISBN 1405812079

So, the Crown Dependencies, for the purposes of UK domestic law are not (normally) considered part of the UK. For international law, however, they are (de jure).

Now, how about de facto? Well, let's take Scotland as an example. Scotland has an international identity that is seperate from the UK, for sure. Kilts, bag pipes, what have you. But Scotland, itself, is not seperate from the UK. Scotland is part of the UK. Relations between Scotland and Ireland are relations between Ireland and a part of the UK. They are Ireland-United Kingdom relations. It doesn't matter if it is the UK central government or a town council in Durham. Scotland is part of the UK. No amount of identity can change that fact. The referendum in 2014 may change it but, for now, Scotland is part of the UK. Fact.

"But that [relations between Ireland central government and UK central government] is not the totality of relationships in the archipelago, and highlighting those relationships separate from Anglo-Irish relations is not POV, it is simply more complete coverage." - Indeed. However, rather than developing the Ireland-United Kingdom relations article to reflect the totality of those relations (i.e. WP:NPOV), you went ahead and created a new article just to push one point of view (POV) on the topic. That is a POV fork. --RA (talk) 15:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Self-invented POV-article. The British Isles don't have any politics or international relationsships. The is the realm of states, not islands. Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: User talk:Night of the Big Wind !voted earlier also. --RA (talk) 20:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If he voted earlier, then this vote is invalid and distracting and should be struck (which I have just done). Silver seren^C 20:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - this is a good and justified article that just needs improvement. Considering the history of the British Isles it is surely impossible to deny that there is notable political aspect to the relationship of all parts of the British Isles? Therefore an article on the politics on the British Isles seems very valid and should not be deleted through blatant censorship to rid wikipedia of the British Isles. I see there is a Politics of Europe. If people go and get that one deleted it would seem more justifiable to have this one deleted. BritishWatcher (talk) 07:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. However, that doesn't address the issue that we already have an article on this topic (see WP:POVFORK).

While you were looking at Politics of Europe, did you notice that there are more than two sovereign states in Europe? If there were more than two sovereign states in the British Isles, an article on the subject would be more than just another way of treating British-Irish relations. (Think about it this way: if there was just one sovereign state in the archipelago, say the United Kingdom, would we have a duplicate article on politics of the United Kingdom rephrased as "politics of the British Isles"?)

The Scottish independence referendum in 2014 may change that. For now, however, there are just two sovereign states in the region. So Ireland-United Kingdom relations covers it amply.

It is not, as you write here, a "crusade to remove British isles". --RA (talk) 08:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles should be reviewed in AfD on their own merits on a case by case basis (WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS), so no there is no implication on other articles. Also whether Politics of Europe would survive AfD is unknown, but irrelevant to this AfD. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can we close now, please?[edit]

The AfD was relisted, partly to allow other editors to offer their opinion and partly because the original discussion was closed after only two days. It has now had the regulation seven days on top of the original two, and a number of new editors have !voted, but a couple of editors, who were asked to refrain from continuing to do so, are still trying to out-do each other with TLDRs. Will somebody please take a deep breath and close the discussion? Scolaire (talk) 07:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Might want to ask at WP:AN. Probably get a quicker response that way. Silver seren^C 09:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It might get good to ask Sandstein as he appears familiar with the AfD but I don't think made any judgements on it? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Scolaire (talk) 10:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snowball keep. Brandmeister^talk 23:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ell & Nikki[edit]

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

Even though they were put together for competing in Eurovision 2011 they are still separate artists and not really an official GROUP. A majority of the information here should be either placed on both of their own separate articles or place them inside the Azerbaijan in Eurovision 2011 one. Bleubeatle (talk) 05:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Ell & Nikki is not an official group. They are two artists/singers that were put together at the end of Milli Seçim Turu 2010 to represent Azerbaijan in Eurovision Song Contest 2011. They haven't done anything else together like record a new music material that suggests that they are a group. This article is an example of WP:BIO1E: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.". This is why we have Eldar Gasimov and Nigar Jamal. There is no need to have this. They should be treated as separate individuals who competed together for Eurovision 2011. Bleubeatle (talk) 06:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – no need to !vote, by nominating an article for deletion you automatically endorse its deletion. Cheers. – Kosm1 fent 07:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry my mistake. I haven't done this in a while.. I will change the Delete to Comment instead. I can still comment on the matter right? Bleubeatle (talk) 07:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Of course you can. :) – Kosm1 fent 07:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a significant duo that has won the Eurovision contest and deserves to have its own article, as a majority of followers would know them under this name. The two individuals concerned Eldar Gasimov and Nigar Jamal are also significant enough in their own right and their individual articles should be kept as well. The three articles can be edited in such a way as to avoid repetition. The individual pages can have a few sentences about the duo's win in Eurovision then refer the reader to the Ell & Nikki article for greater focus. Individual pages would cover more their other non-Eurovision careers werldwayd (talk) 06:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is a similar situation to a Eurovision winning song, Rock 'n' Roll Kids, which was performed by two artists Paul Harrington and Charlie McGettigan. They do not have an article together as an ensemble simply because they are separate artists much like Eldar and Nigar here. Also, I think that we should treat Eldar Gasimov and Nigar Jamal as individual artists by linking their names whenever "Ell & Nikki" is mentioned. Perhaps have it in this format "Ell & Nikki". Bleubeatle (talk) 07:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I think the wrong article was nominated. Ell & Nikki are the winners of the Eurovision Song Contest 2011 and they must meet almost every criterion of WP:MUSICBIO, so deletion of this article is out of the question. However, for individual articles about each performer to be kept, notability must be proven individually, so a deletion discussion for Eldar Gasimov and Nigar Jamal would make much more sense. – Kosm1 fent 07:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The group meets MUSIC criteria 1, 2, 6, 9 and 12. It is immaterial how long the group was together or how formal their partnership was. Notability is not temporary. The Steve 09:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable for reasons above. --Zymurgy (talk) 09:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - As everyone has mentioned, this article and the individual articles Eldar Gasimov and Nigar Jamal; are all notable for so many reasons. A) the two solo artists performed together and won one of the globally well-known contests, B) in deleting the article would bear an impact to other articles such as ESC 2011, to which Ell & Nikki are linked to in regards to their performance as a duo, and C) if the duo article was to be deleted, then we'd need to start looking into other articles for duos, such as Ant & Dec. Ant & Dec are a duo act, but they also have individual article, as each of them also do solo stuff which warrants having 3 articles for them. So in that respect, having three articles here would also come under the same criteria. Wesley☀Mouse 14:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with user Kosm1fent, the wrong article has been nominated. Their separate articles would have made more sense to place up for AfD even though I think those two articles would have been kept too. Clearly passes WP:MUSIC.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - They are notable have won eurovision. Possibly the wrong article has been nominated? --Chip123456 (talk) 16:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Certainly notable. However, neither member is worthy of their own article yet. Looking at their articles, they seem to have done little of note outside Eurovision, and no mention of any of their solo music charting.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 22:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - My interpretation of the second paragraph of WP:BIO1E is that this article is appropriate, as the Eurovision Song Contest 2011 was highly significant, and their role in it as winners was also significant in its own right. That argument assumes that BIO1E is even applicable here, as an argument can be made that the national selection and post-win activities were events in their own right. I don't have an opinion on the notability of the individual articles at this point, although I will say that it may have been better to go through the talk page discussion route (e.g. use of ((split))), before going to AfD, if going at all. CT Cooper · talk 17:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Reply to Tuzapicabit's comment - Both Eldar Gasimov (Ell) and Nigar Jamal (Nikki) have had other songs released as a solo artists, as well as done other work as individuals, and there are sources to show that Nikki has also done collaborations with other artists such as Dima Bilan. While, Eldar was also the co-host of Eurovision 2012. Although it could be possible that editors in general have forgotten to update the articles with this information. Wesley☀Mouse 23:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Wesley, I can not see a scenario were any of these three articles would be deleted. All three has notability and passes WP:MUSIC. But the argument has been that should any of the article be up for AfD then their individual article's should have been placed up for it. But that doesnt mean that those users agrees with deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. OK, Eldar having presented the 2012 contest will give him notability, but I see none for Nigar. The fact that she has released solo music does not make her notable. If it goes on to chart, then fine, but according to her page it has not.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 03:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm frantically searching on google for chart positions, but I can't read Azeri, so it is very difficult to understand what comes up on the results. If anyone here does know Azeri and is willing to fill in the gaps of chart positions on Nigar's page, then please do. Wesley☀Mouse 03:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I believe that Running Scared's chart history can go under Nikki's article as well. She was one of the song's featured/ main artists after all so she does deserve the right to have this song under her discography in the future.Bleubeatle (talk) 05:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have found another article that seems to resemble Ell & Nikki's. They are Donna and Joseph McCaul who represented Ireland in Eurovision 2005. Although they were unsuccessful, they have done a lot of activities together after the event that were not related to their Eurovision participation. I'm not sure if Ell & Nikki have done anything else together that had nothing to do with their Eurovision victory.Bleubeatle (talk) 04:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think the nominator may have misunderstood the guidance on WP:BIO1E. From reading the information, BIO1E it is in regards to articles covering events. The significant clue in BIO1E is the line which reads "When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both." That means if someone has worked on an event only once, then it may be unclear whether to right an article about the person, event, or both. If Ell and Nikki hadn't have won the contest, then yes a combined article wouldn't be justified. However, as they did win the contest (a show which is notable in its own right), then a combined article is warranted. Also, the same article fulfils all the criterion under WP:BLP1E. The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources. It is important for editors to understand two clear differentiations of WP:BIO1E when compared to WP:BLP1E. Firstly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people. Secondly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals. Wesley☀Mouse 05:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be honest here people, Ell/Nikki won the Eurovision 2011 the worlds biggest television music event. Neither this article nor their individual articles will be deleted. They all passes WP:MUSIC.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly BabbaQ, I agree with every word you wrote. The number of people who have said "keep" should be a clear enough hint that his AFD was just a waste of time to begin with. (edit) I think the noble and probable decent thing to be done here seeing as it looks like there is a lot to be discussed, would be for the nominee to withdraw the AFD, and take the discussion over to the article's talk page, and then discuss the issues. Wesley☀Mouse 13:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with these guys. But then again I am an inclusionist to begin with --Zymurgy (talk) 20:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. --MuZemike 00:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Astronomical Review[edit]

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

New journal established last year, too young to have become notable yet. Not included in any selective major databases. Does not meet WP:GNG ~~or WP:NJournals~~. Guillaume2303 (talk) 06:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Aside from the notability debate, there appears to be an issue with disambiguation. A quick online search reveals this New Zealand publication (technically Astronomical Review) and this apparently renamed LGBT mag (listed at List of LGBT periodicals#United States, although the site doesn't seem to mention that name). -- Trevj (talk) 09:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was an old website for the previous title at www.wh-magazine.com. This site is no longer active. The LGBT magazine is an unrelated publication published by a different publisher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.200.149 (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into SETI Institute article. Journal does not meet Wikipedia's academic journal notability guideline, and material is closely related to SETI Institute, so merger is appropriate. NJ Wine (talk) 04:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:SJ applies here, I think.—S Marshall T/C 11:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON and per lack of evidence of passing WP:NJournals. Inclusion as an entry in a large database of journals doesn't seem to be enough to me to convey notability. And the connection with the SETI Institute seems too tenuous to me to warrant a merge; it seems to be less a sponsoring organization and more that they have a joint fundraiser together. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Per the relist request for non-essay rationales, I would add that I think this also fails WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that WP:SJ applies here. --71.63.200.149 11:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC) — 71.63.200.149 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WP:SJ indeed applies here and that would be relevant if it were policy. However, it's just the opinion of one editor that reliable sources should have an article here. Logically, it should also apply to books, magazines, etc. The result would be that for these publications, we throw away any consideration of notability. In the present case, we also need to discard WP:V, as all we have to verify information is the journal's homepage (and given the confusion about the journal's name and date of establishment signaled above, that could be better, too). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SJ and WP:NJournals are in direct conflict with each other. Both are officially essays but my opinion is that WP:NJournals is much closer to being a reflection of the usual Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and consensus, and that invoking WP:SJ is a very weak way of supporting a keep opinion. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SJ is the older essay, having been developed jointly by myself and User:Drmies in early 2009. It's very much an essay, consisting mostly of unsubstantiated opinion statements about the reasons why scholarly journals are in many ways Wikipedia's most important sources... basically, Drmies and I took the view that one of Wikipedia's strengths is in being more up-to-date than other sources, which we can achieve by our access to bleeding-edge research in journals that has yet to filter through to textbooks or print encyclopaedias, and we found ourselves saying the same thing in AfD debates so often that we summarised our view as an essay. NJournals looks like an essay that wants to be a guideline, to me, and it's unfortunate that the two essays come at the same subject from different points of view. But let's not pretend that one essay "outranks" the other, shall we?—S Marshall T/C 22:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relist comment: The above opinions are mostly based on two contradictory essays about journal notability. To obtain an informed consensus, we need more opinions that are based on accepted policies or guidelines. Sandstein 05:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The lowest possible bar for scholarly journals, under the policy of IAR — use common sense to improve the encyclopedia. Footnotes often link to a journal title. Some verifiable and accurate information in a blue link trumps no information in a red link. Neither the essays cited above should be worth 5 cents at AfD — they are opinion pieces, not an approved policy (such as IAR) or guideline (such as GNG). Carrite (talk) 06:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And the nom clearly states that this fails WP:GNG. So much so even, that this also fails WP:V, because there aren't any sources (apart from the not-very-informative homepage of this journal) that we can base an article on. To make this a bit clearer, I have struck the reference to NJournals in then nom. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I could see keeping The Astronomical Review via a Wikipedia:Scholarly journal lowest possible bar for scholarly journals under WP:GNG if articles within Wikipedia cited to The Astronomical Review, but there doesn't seem to be much usage of The Astronomical Review within Wikipedia per this search or what links here link. If you go around and improve 20 to 40 or so Wikipedia articles with citations to The Astronomical Review, then you might have a basis for keeping or recreating (if deleted) The Astronomical Review. External cites to The Astronomical Review would go towards make the collective event of citing to The Astronomical Review notable for a Citations to The Astronomical Review article (assuming third parties covered the topic), but still wouldn't WP:GNG help a The Astronomical Review topic as a stand alone article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ...how does citing within Wikipeida establish notability in any way, shape or form? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It doesn't, but I think that Uzma is referring to the IAR argument used above by Carrite, saying that because the journal is not or hardly cited on WP itself, there's no use in invoking IAR. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ahhh, I see now, thanks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - By "External cites to The Astronomical Review", I'm referring to external scholarly journals citing to the external Astronomical Review journal, which goes into determining the Impact factor mentioned in WP:SJ. Such impact factor topic would be covered in the topic Citations to The Astronomical Review (assuming WP:RS wrote about how all these other scholarly journals are citing to The Astronomical Review journal), but still wouldn't WP:GNG help a The Astronomical Review topic itself as a stand alone article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia articles largely are built on inline references that cite to journals, nagazines, books, newspaper, etc. In the Wikipedia citation, the name of the journal often is dynamically linked (e.g., the [[ ]] are put around the journal name.) If there are enough of those, perhaps 20 to 40, Wikipedia should have an article on the journal, at least a stub, for at least Wikipedia purposes. For example, I recently created Orange Coast Magazine, which has 60+ (?) whatlinkshere article links.[85] The magazine exceeds WP:GNG, but even if it didn't, all those internal Wikipedia links might, in my view, justify maintaining a stand alone article on the reference topic. It's a unique feature of publications and probably could be mentioned at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes. Perhaps 5 to 20 citation dynamic links may justify a redirect. For The Astronomical Review topic, it lacks enough reference material to meet WP:GNG and is not being used enough within Wikipedia to even meet a Wikipedia:Scholarly journal lowest possible bar for scholarly journals under WP:GNG or even justify a redirect. These are strong reasons to delete. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - To be honest, I don't see any truly, outstandingly convincing things to make me believe this article should be kept. On the other hand, I don't see any truly, outstandingly convincing things to make be believe that it should be deleted, either. Therefore I default to a position that this should be kept, although with no prejudice against a renomination sooner than would usually be considered non-pointy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Durabom[edit]

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

Product does not appear to actually exist. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 04:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find no information about a paint product called "Durabom" though perhaps it is a typo and the author intended to describe "Durabond" or "Dura-Bond". There are companies and several products by other companies that use that name, or variations thereof. We shouldn't keep an unreferenced article about a product or company whose name and identity we aren't even sure about. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Due diligence web search brings up no results. As Cullen³²⁸ says, it may be a misspelling, but as it is the article is unreferenced and of no obvious notability. Michaelmas1957 05:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I asked for a PROD. Zero related ghits. — Bill william compton^Talk 07:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no, there's nothing out there. 'Bom' could be Portuguese for good, leaving the "U.S." claim unexplained. No idea, but a speedy appears entirely justified. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After a lot of search in Google, I can't find any reliable sources. A speedy would still be problematic. →TSU ^tp* 17:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep in view of positive unanimous consensus and no calls for deletion outside of the nominator. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kolyan Edgar[edit]

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

Contested Prod on notability grounds. In response several Russian language links were given but mostly TouTube. The others don't seem to establish notability either. Peter Rehse (talk) 03:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 03:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 June 7. Snotbot t • c » 03:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but improve article. Wikipedia's mixed martial arts notability guideline states that a person is notable if they have fought for the highest title of a top-tier MMA organization. Based on the translation of the Russian sources, Kolyan Edgar seems to be among the top Kudo fighters in Russia, and I also found an English-language site that says that he won the World Championship for Kudo. He definitely meets the notability standard. NJ Wine (talk) 04:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is Kudo a "top-tier MMA organization"?Peter Rehse (talk) 04:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think of kudo more as a karate offshoot than MMA. Jakejr (talk) 04:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would say winning two world championships is sufficient to show notability. I have added a source (the Kudo International Federation) to the article showing the championship claims are supported. I've also cleaned up the text a little bit, though the whole article could use more sources. Jakejr (talk) 04:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Notable in his field. Cavarrone (talk) 23:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He is notable in his field and winning 2 championships (at world level) is enough to get WP:N. →TSU ^tp* 17:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Redirects, if desired, can be performed WP:BOLDly. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bio-Armour[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Bio-Armour (2nd nomination)

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

Totally unsourced, non-notable; virtually no third-party references (and those that do exist could easily be noted in the "In fiction" section of the Powered exoskeleton article). Not every vaguely interesting sci-fi concept needs its own article. PROD failed only due to existence of a previous PROD. Michaelmas1957 02:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, disregard "2nd nomination" in title – I didn't realise that PRODs don't count. Michaelmas1957 02:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO and WP:MADEUP. The article has no references, and I couldn't find any independent sources discussing bio-armour. While there are plenty of cartoon and fictional accounts of biological-based protection, the term "bio-armour" is not used. NJ Wine (talk) 03:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, how did this WP:OR MADEUP WAYTOOSOON ESSAY survive six years? Bizarre. There was no substance to it at the start, and there's none now. No citations; no real technology or research to support it; not even a real dictionary entry; just wishful dreaming based on sci-fi: "will theoretically be able to self-repair" (9 May 2006, still there today). No it won't. Quickly now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I've been trying to get the damn thing deleted for more than a year now! Michaelmas1957 04:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A very long overdue delete. The article is unreferenced, and has been so for many years now. While I think the concept of Bio-Armour is an important concept of several works of fiction, even a search fails to find any coverage specifically about the actual concept. Time to put this one to a long-delayed rest. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, strikes me as a valid search term, so I'm tempted to say redirect to Powered exoskeleton maybe? Agree that the design section reads as in-universe OR, which is a pity. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Snow delete DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Constitutional Monarchy of Scoussia[edit]

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

Non-notable micronation. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ONEDAY Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly non-notable; looks like the write-up of some kid's idle daydream. Michaelmas1957 02:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete either a daydream or some kid's school project for social studies class. I'd say it's close to being speedy-deleteable as a hoax, as it presents clearly made-up information as fact. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I considered it, but I don't believe that it is deliberately intended to misinform by presenting something false as real. I believe there is a difference on createing an article on a made-up micronation, and making-up a micronation and creating an article for it if you understand what I mean. The former would be a hoax, while the latter is presenting real information about a non-notable topic that you created. Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would class it as WP:MADEUP, instead of WP:HOAX. However, both warrant speedy deletion.

Speedy Delete per WP:MADEUP. I found The Constitutional Monarchy of Scoussia on Nation States, which is a website where you can design a nation the way that you want it. I found that the website was interesting, but the subject matter has no notability. NJ Wine (talk) 04:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to metion WP:MADEUP isn't a speedy deletion criteria; however, an admin could always ignore all rules and do it anyways. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This article is totally unsourced, and it doesn't seem likely that reliable independent sources will be written about this fictional country. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, others have already said it all: unverified and WP:MADEUP. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 05:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mighty kicks[edit]

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

This is a non-notable (I couldn't find any reliable sources) article about a soccer program, bordering on advertising. The PROD was removed by the page creator. David¹²¹⁷ 02:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree, it looks purely promotional. Michaelmas1957 02:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable and WP:NOTPROMOTION--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 03:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be purely promotional. No indication of notability, regardless. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Author appears to be using Wikipedia as means of advertisng Finnegas (talk) 15:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a soccer program that visits different schools and is growing fast and should be known. It is very similar program to Soccer Shots, which has no proposal for deletion. What would be a way to improve the article to avoid it being deleted. I want it to be an encyclopedia article, and not promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodpatrick (talk • contribs) 04:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are two reasons Soccer Shots Franchising, LLC isn't up for deletion, and your article is. The first is that Soccer Shots demonstrates notability by adding citations to reliable sources. The other is that Soccer Shots is written from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic tone, and is not advertising. If you can fix the problems outlined here, then people will most likely establish a consensus to keep the article. Did that answer your question? David¹²¹⁷ 05:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No WP:RS, like an advert and no trace of WP:N. →TSU ^tp* 17:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Le WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gérard Rozenknop[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Doesn't meet WP:ACADEMIC (he was director of an engineering school) or WP:BIO. All references listed are primary sources. The article itself reads like a basic (short) resume. McSly (talk) 01:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I cleaned up the article so that it no longer reads as a resume, but as the director general of a major university, Gérard Rozenknop clearly meets Wikipedia's academic notability guideline: The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society. NJ Wine (talk) 04:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your cleanup has been promptly reverted (although, this is certainly easily fixable). I don't think that the ENAC qualifies as a "major university" or a "major academic institution". It is a specialized school, has "only" 2000 students compared to more than 23,000 for University of Paris-Sorbonne (one of the 13 Universities in Paris). But more importantly, if you look at the article itself, you can see that the subject has not accomplish anything significant (or at all) in the academic field which is kind of a requirement to meet WP:ACADEMIC.-- McSly (talk) 13:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ENAC is the biggest aviation university in Europe : [86], [87] and a grande école, which is above universities in the French educational system 80.13.85.217 (talk) 13:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not saying that it is a "bad" or "small" school. Just saying that 1) regular universities has 10 times more students 2) grande école vs universities is really a French-centric debate that doesn't really translate internationally so saying that they are "above" is not really an argument 3) the most important part, the subject of the article has not accomplish anything notable in his life except which kind of disqualifies him for an article on WP.--McSly (talk) 13:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia's academic notability guideline is very clear: "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society", which is completely the case here. 80.13.85.217 (talk) 13:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He was a director of one of the Grandes Ecoles, which in French educational system stand above the universities and thus he is notable according to academic notability.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He was President of the French Civil Aviation University, some secondary sources. 80.13.85.217 (talk) 10:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC) This is an editor who edit without an account from a static IP. KTC (talk)[reply]
Keep' Certainly notable as per NJ Wine...William 18:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A grande école is a "major academic institution". Major doesn't just mean they have lots of students. The director general is "a highest-level elected or appointed academic post". KTC (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep~~Comment~~ Has been deleted from French wiki http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion:G%C3%A9rard_Rozenknop/Suppression mostly because of insufficient reliable references — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcewan (talk • contribs) 18:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was few months ago. So maybe at this time the sources was not the same. Here, the sources are good qualities and secondaries. Even that, the academic notability is not the same on every Wikipedia. Here, it clearly meets academic notability : "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society". And moreover, the article is young, it takes time to make improvements by contributors. 80.13.85.217 (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you should know since you are the one who created both articles. So, are they the same ?--McSly (talk) 20:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notability seems to have been established here. Mjroots (talk) 22:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - NJWine's explanation of the significance of the grandes écoles is exactly spot on. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 01:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep - This person passes criteria #6 of WP:ACADEMIC, as a former director-general of the École nationale de l'aviation civile (French civil aviation university). Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to meet all requirements. --Nouniquenames (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Even discounting the two IPs, who seem to think this is about politics, we have no consensus between keep and redirect. Sandstein 08:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of China (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Functionally pointless page. The third suggested link isn't to an article but to a section of an article (the List of Chinese flags article on the page), which is basically a picture, and I'm willing to bet that it that flag is never referred to as the Flag of China in any sort of contemporary context. The other two both hatnote to each other, so there's no reason for this page to exist, and no reason why anyone should reach it. CMD (talk) 01:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking further into it, this may actually fall under WP:CSD G6, which specifically mentions "deleting unnecessary disambiguation pages". CMD (talk) 02:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Chinese flags which has much of the information people visiting this page would be looking for, and links to the rest of that information. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I liked Redirect to List of Chinese flags as being a compromise between the reason (whatever it was) of the people/person who created the disambiguation page with its admitted relative uselessness, and the plethora of information at the List of Chinese flags. However questions remain: (1) should the dab hatnotes be changed to pointing to the List of Chinese flags instead of the ROC/PRC flag pages? which feels like a more NPOV solution; and (2) what function would the redirect have if there are no links to Flag of China (disambiguation)? Flag of the People's Republic of China redirects to Flag of China. I gather that at some point the consensus was that PRC was the primary topic for China, and hence Flag of China should not point to a disambiguation page, nor to the List of Chinese flags. Is that true? Obviously there are a lot of toes here to be stepped upon (or oxen to be gored). --Bejnar (talk) 23:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Procedural close~~, as I'm pretty sure that dab pages are supposed to be discussed at WP:MFD? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Are they (the might be, I don't know)? They don't fall under "Book:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including Wikiprojects), User:, the various Talk: namespaces, and userboxes (regardless of namespace)", as far as I can tell. On the other hand, no that one option has been removed from it and it is just now two hatnoted articles hatnoting to each other, if this is procedurally closed it's probably more appropriate to nominate it for G6. CMD (talk) 11:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - AFD is the correct venue, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Article alerts/Archive. TimBentley (talk) 18:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for clearing that up. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if not speedy dismissed. There are three instead of two. Don't mislead people. Be honest. Even if it should be G6ed, the venue should be MfD. 119.236.141.31 (talk) 18:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a third link now, because you've just added one, but this isn't a list, it's a disambiguation page. The list is at List of Chinese flags. CMD (talk) 18:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added it before you filed your misleading AfD. 119.236.141.31 (talk) 10:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Version when I filed AfD. From my nomination: "The third suggested link isn't to an article but to a section of an article (the List of Chinese flags article on the page)". For the record. CMD (talk) 12:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Mfd is only for the following namespaces: "Book:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including Wikiprojects), User:, the various Talk: namespaces, and userboxes (regardless of namespace)". Dab pages are however in the main article namespace, so this forum is the right venue for discussing them. De728631 (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Misleading AfD nomination. There isn't just one China. It's like Korea. 117.103.153.160 (talk) 14:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Totally irrelevant. My nomination had nothing to do with there being one or two Chinas. It was made because it's a disambiguation page no-one should ever reach, as both the relevant articles hatnote directly to each other. CMD (talk) 14:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - China, People's Republic of China, Chinese Taipei, Reorganized National Government of China, etc. all got flags and the DAB page allows readers typing in a reasonably likely topic name for more than one Wikipedia topic can quickly navigate to the article they seek:

Chinese Taipei Olympic flag
Flag of the People's Republic of China (1949 – )
Flag of the Ch'ing Empire (Manchu Empire) ( – 1912)
Flag of the Republic of China (1912 – )
Flags of the Reorganized National Government of China
List of Chinese flags
List of flag bearers for China at the Olympics
List of flag bearers for Chinese Taipei at the Olympics

-- JeffreyBillings (talk) 15:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - now a useful dab page (and, when it comes to disambigations, WP:ITSUSEFUL does need to be considers, IMHO). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Chinese flags - everything on this page is already in List of Chinese flags. -Zanhe (talk) 23:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Houalla[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Doesn't meet WP:ACADEMIC(he was director of an engineering school) or WP:BIO. All references listed are primary sources. The article itself reads like a basic (short) resume. McSly (talk) 01:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Notable persons.[reply]

Keep. Current President (and not "he was") of the French Civil Aviation University, a Grandes Ecoles, which in French educational system stand above the universities, some secondary sources and dedicated sources. Clearly meets Wikipedia's academic notability guideline: The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society. Notable person. 80.13.85.217 (talk) 10:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC) This is an editor who edit without an account from a static IP. KTC (talk)[reply]
Keep per IP 80's excellent argument. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As per my argument here. A grande école is a "major academic institution". Major doesn't just mean they have lots of students. The director general is "a highest-level elected or appointed academic post". KTC (talk) 18:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Highest elected position at a major academic institution. Article needs cleanup to conform to English usage (tense, for example) and WP:MOS. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Completed some cleanup--Nouniquenames (talk) 16:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep, notability seems to have been established here. Mjroots (talk) 22:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep - This person passes criteria #6 of WP:ACADEMIC, as the current director-general of the École nationale de l'aviation civile (French civil aviation university). Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets requirements --Nouniquenames (talk) 16:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Audinator[edit]

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

Software product with no sources cited to indicate notability. The article gives two sources, but they are about the auditing issues that this software is meant to correct, not about the software itself. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At best, it would appear that this is a case of WP:TOOSOON or WP:CRYSTAL. It reads like an advert. The editor seems engaged enough to have discussed this AfD with the nom, I hope he comes here to offer references to support notability. Roodog2k (talk) 19:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IMHO, the interaction with the editor that created this article could have been a little better. I always assume good faith WP:AGF, and go out of my way not to bite the newcomers WP:BITE. Even when his motive and actions appears clearly and consciously against guidelines. Someone should have at least offered him cookes! (I did.) Roodog2k (talk) 19:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added sources to article in order to indicate notability as suggested BizIntelAnalyst (talk) 13:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment The two sources you added are (1) customer comments from Audinator's own website, which are not independent, see WP:V; and (2) Microsoft's listing of this product as approved, which doesn't show notability per WP:CORP. What we need are independent discussions of the product itself, in reliable sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Roodog2k. I have searched for sources and found none. That is, of course, not to say they don't exist but any that exist are certainly elusive. - UnbelievableError (talk) 00:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, no indication of notability. --HighKing (talk) 11:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Daniel Domscheit-Berg. The arguments brought foward supporting merging outweigh the arguments for straight retention here. --MuZemike 00:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OpenLeaks[edit]

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

Because WikiLeaks was a big story at the time, the promised launch of OpenLeaks received international media coverage. However, following this, OpenLeaks completely disappeared without notice. The launch was promised (and the site still does) for January 2011 but nothing happened. Their blog has also not been updated since January 2011. Further, the wiki page does not contain any notable information to justify its existence. Information on OpenLeaks could be moved to Daniel Domscheit-Berg, its founder. Michael5046 (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Daniel Domscheit-Berg per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OpenLeaks is going through tests and general set-up delays - as you can see from this recent video, things are (slowly) coming together - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rz90_9f6NS8 - I don't think this page should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.137.55 (talk) 13:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At the end of the day, OpenLeaks only exists as an announcement/promise with no results as of yet. There is nothing on the wiki page that justifies a page for OpenLeaks, and it can easily be moved to Daniel Domscheit-Berg who is the website's founder. The new interview is irrelevant because it is yet another promise (like the one in 2010). Also see WP:CRYSTAL, if they have something significant in the future, an article can still be created.Michael5046 (talk) 15:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. And change any and all policies that might have been used to justify deletion; if they are relevant at all to this case, it should be considered a failure case requiring a bug fix to the policies. The part of WP:CRYSTAL on product announcements is justifiable essentially only as protection against disguised spam, which this is not. Even if OpenLeaks never becomes active, the announcement will always remain relevant as an enduring part of the wider history of WikiLeaks. It will be searched for under its own name, not under the name of the founder; general information about him is unlikely to be of interest or use to those searching for OpenLeaks info. More generally: give up deletionism as a general philosophy. Wikipedia has become much less useful since deletionism and "notability" became entrenched. I can't count the times I've looked for missing articles that ought to have been there, or had to spend time (as now) defending the existence of a useful article when it should have been totally uncontroversial.

Neuromath (talk) 02:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect Merge to its founder on the basis that the website hasn't shown any continuing cultural or social importance, which is a general principle of wikipedia notability for media and organisations. WP:WEB says "if a notable person has a website, then the website does not 'inherit' notability from its owner. In such cases, it is often best to describe the website in the article about the notable person." --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom and WP:CRYSTAL. --BDD (talk) 20:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is not revoked, there is a serious misreading of what WP:CRYSTAL says: something can not exist but have achieved notability. Even vaporware has articles if they meet GNG, which this does. If any merger happens it should be because a proper merge discussion in the article, not deletion discussion. Thius should be closed as no consensus, and let a proper merger discussion happen in the article. As it stands, this smells like forum shopping.--Cerejota (talk) 22:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - while it's very true that notability is not temporary, even a notable subject can have insufficent information available to make a reasonable article about it. As a failed project, this is best dealt with by merging into the article on its (attempted) founder, with a redirect to the section of the article the contento on OpenLeaks is in. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - For some perspective: there were deletion discussions for Bitcoin, and this thing doesn't even exist yet! prat (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Underlined (band)[edit]

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

Not notable, fails WP:MUSIC GregJackP Boomer! 01:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 22:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable band, violates WP:NOTPROMOTION, in-text external links to facebook pages--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 03:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Beara GAA. Spinning Spark 20:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glengarriffe GAA[edit]

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

Contested PROD, with the summary "This is one of many 100s of GAA clubs with articles. The smallest of clubs are the backbone of the organization. Major star players can come from these clubs". The number of these clubs is not relevant (although perhaps others need deleting?); These clubs may be the "backbone" of GAA, but that does not make each club notable in their own right. Major star players can come from these clubs - but that could be said about lots of non-notable organisations. I see no evidence that this club meets the sports notability criteria, let alone the general notability criteria. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since each GAA club represents just a parish, by very definition 90% of all GAA clubs will be small. Sure there are a few very notable clubs, such as Austin Stacks, Ballyhale Shamrocks, St. Vincents, Glen Rovers and Thurles Sarsfields, but these are the exceptions. One cannot get a sense of the breadth of the GAA, unless an attempt is made to include all the clubs. I would also state that I have seen articles for soccer clubs from hamlets in Wales & Isle of Man included. Surely any GAA club has the same merit as those?

Pmunited (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Size is not the problem - it's the notability (or lack of it) which is the reason for my nomination. A small club can be notable, but this one does not appear to be one of those. Other small clubs having an article does not mean that this one should have one; it could be that the other ones meet the notability criteria, or it could be that they should be deleted - neither of which has a bearing on this discussion. To get a sense of the breadth of the GAA, surely a reliably sourced statement about that subject could be included in the main GAA article? -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 21:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge partially into Beara GAA. This article does not meet the criteria for a stand-alone article, but some the information could be covered within the scope of the Beara GAA article. Quasi human | Talk 17:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Woods (political theorist)[edit]

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

All the cited sources are the subject's own organisation. The subject is notable only in the context of International Marxist Tendency, which is itself at AFD as its notability is questionable, to put it charitably. Most of the material in this article has no independent source at all. Guy (Help!) 06:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. The nominator didn't look very hard, there is a long BBC World article cited (as an embedded link) as well as a paragraph in The Economist. I also found this Daily Telegraph article without much difficulty. When it is suggested you are the advisor of president Hugo Chavez, notability is likely to follow, whether it is deserved or not... Sionk (talk) 01:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep the coverage in reliable verifiable sources (as pointed out by Sionk) probably wouldn't be enough for notability on their own, but combined with his connection to Hugo Chavez, I would tend to keep the article.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 03:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another lengthy news source added from the Western Mail, which seems to be the (as yet uncited) origin of much of the info in this article, judging by the close paraphrasing. Sionk (talk) 06:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This person passes WP:BASIC and WP:GNG, per:

(in Spanish) "Alan Woods, the new ideologue of Hugo Chavez?". BBC News.
"The strange tale of Hugo Chavez and the Swansea Marxist." Wales Online (website for several Wales newspapers)
"Welsh Trotskyist in row over claims he is key adviser to Hugo Chavez." The Telegraph.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (orate) 20:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sentric Music[edit]

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

Advert for company. Awards are not major. Lacks significant independent coverage of Sentric Music. Best sources are a blog where they talk about themselves and two local interest pieces from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, falling short of the Depth of coverage needed. Notability is not inherited from it's clients. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whilst I agree that the article content is a little too much like an advert, that is not a reason in itself for deletion. This in The Guardian and this reporting they were "named as one of the world’s top five “virtual businesses”" combined with the other sources (there are more that only appear on factiva) in the Liverpool Daily Post are in my opinion sufficient to meet WP:CORP. There has clearly been significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. SmartSE (talk) 08:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Guardian blog is not independent coverage and the Daily Post pieces fall short of "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability" from the Audience part of WP:ORG's Primary criteria. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Huh? What makes the Guardian not independent? WP:GNG arguably takes precedence over WP:CORP, and is easily met, but even using CORP's criteria, because of the Guardian article, the coverage is not solely local. SmartSE (talk) 11:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's just a blog hosted by the Guardian and it's just Sentric talking about themselves. There is almost no independent analysis. Just a printing of Sentrics words. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have done my best to ensure that the information contained on this page is relevant, factual and from a variety of reliable sources. While the awards may not be major, they were still awarded to Sentric and so I feel relevant. News articles from The Guardian, Liverpool Daily Post and the Irish Times hopefully offer reliable sources and a press release from The North West Fund [88] is current, relevant information. Philrose83 (talk) 13:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Irish Times is not about them and does not even mention them. Press releases are not independent. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 23:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 23:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 23:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but remove all acts listed which are not notable. This sort of listing should be treated like our usual criteria for lists, having a Wikipedia article or being obviously qualified for one. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but needs a cleanup. 83.244.237.75 (talk) 11:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bettween[edit]

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

The article does not appear to meet notability standards for WP:GNG, compounded by the fact the site no longer appears to be in existence. None of the text indicates it had a large and important user base before it closed. LauraHale (talk) 09:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SIMPACK[edit]

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

There does not appear to be any reliable sources that discuss this software package. There are currently 4 sources, 3 from the developers website and 1 is a press release about an integration of this software into another companies software. I have not been able to find any reliable sources that discuss the software. GB fan 18:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, couldn't find any reliable sources either.--McSly (talk) 02:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drill and tap size chart[edit]

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

Massive number of errors in metric sizes, the chart does not agree with published lists The drill sizes for metric taps are incorrect, they do not agree with published industry lists: http://www.newmantools.com/tapdrill.htm http://www.shender4.com/metric_thread_chart.htm http://www.engineershandbook.com/Tables/tapdrill.htm --Janke | Talk 18:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As tempting as it is to say "speedy keep" for the nominator not advancing a valid rationale for deletion, I do question whether or not this chart is encyclopedic. It looks like a pure copy of information available in other sources, with no encyclopedic context whatsoever. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if there had been just a few errors, I'd have corrected them. But, it looks like all the metric sizes are wrong, comparing with industry lists... so fixing this would be a major undertaking. I don't think WP should publish inaccurate info. --Janke | Talk 05:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the naive opinion here, but this chart, though difficult to understand at first, is the only one I've found that enumerates both metric and imperial size drills and threads, and all in one place. It's a pity that errors have been found, but if those could be fixed, I hope 'potentially very useful' is a good enough criterion to keep it around. --Butchwax 19:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- The thing is, correct tables are very easily found with a google search. Why keep a list with all metric measurements wrong? --Janke | Talk 18:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi, thank you, I understood your points from the initial dialog. My points were: (1) 'if those [errors] can be fixed', why not keep the useful table; and (2) a single table enumerating both metric and imperial sizes is not easy to find with a google search, which is why I value this table. I can see where I was unclear the first time, my apologies for making you repeat. --Butchwax 04:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All the referred tables (and above comments?) are for tap and through-hole sizes of bolts. I needed to know the diameter of a #59 bit. Wiki's wire gage table only goes up to #40. The references in that article are not nearly as useful as this table. It is "encyclopedic" because it brings together the bolt and wire worlds in one (very useful) place. I urge correction of errors and retention of Table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VogelJS (talk • contribs) 18:24, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after some consideration. I still believe that the original rationale for deletion is an editorial matter and not a matter for deletion. However, this chart has zero encyclopedic context. "It's useful" is actually not a valid rationale for keeping an article. Additionally, a couple of the comments above lead me to believe that this chart is a synthesis of multiple sources available elsewhere, which is not allowed as it is considered original research. There may be another wiki or wikis out there that would accept this content, but as far as I can tell this is not suitable for Wikipedia. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This table may be a 'synthesis' because it is a compilation of other sources, but it is not a synthesis in the sense of the linked WP article. The purpose of the compilation was not to 'imply a conclusion' or 'advance a position'. See this article about compiling information. I admit (again) that wishing to keep this around because it's useful is a naive position. However, there are other pages I use that are quite similar, e.g. Comparison_of_AMD_processors, another page of tables with data compiled from other sources. It was nominated for deletion in 2008, but the debate was about redundancy, and even under scrutiny, other arguments from this discussion that could have applied to that page were not advanced. An argument that still stands for this page's deletion is the claim that the metric numbers are incorrect, but this could be fixed. I'm afraid I don't understand the argument about 'encyclopedic context', but would appreciate a pointer to an explanation of the term. --Butchwax 17:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Basic data about important things in the world is encyclopedic. It isn't OR, it isn't SYN, it is just the assembly of facts. The policy regarding "useful" is NOT MANUAL ". While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places and things, an article should not read like a "how-to" style owners manual, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestion box. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes." with the explanatory footnote "Also, in the main namespace, describing to the reader how other people or things use something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use something is not". This is not an instruction manual. It's information about objects, just like an article about a geographic region is information about objects, or information about breeds of dogs is information about objects. Looked at another way, its like the table of an alphabet. This could be included within an article with a more conventional title, but it's still clear enough. Let's not get overly legalistic. The fundamental reason for having content is, after all, that people are going to use it. We're not an abstract exercise. Being useful to the readers is what we're here for--the only restriction is we are useful in the way of providing information. There is no sort of information that is not potentially encyclopedic if it's important enough and written properly. (and what does " encyclopedic " mean, except, whatever it is we want to have in WP? We make our own rules.)

Keep This is useful information, or would be if it were accurate. Errors of themselves don't warrant deletion. I too have had difficulty finding this information elsewhere. Mcewan (talk) 13:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree: this is useful information, or would be if it were accurate. Errors of themselves don't warrant deletion. I too have had difficulty finding this information elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.13.73.30 (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article was intended to replace the so-called accurate results from Google searches with a single source (after becoming very frustrated with not being able to find a unified source for drill sizes etc.) The metric errors seem to have been introduced here but I think this was well intentioned, and frankly likely the result of using another internet source incorrectly. With fixes and updates, this page is incredibly important and encyclopedic as a comparison to different hole sizes and drill uses. As for the encyclopedic content, please compare to something like Orders of magnitude (length). If you'd like, I could add in some standard items (such as spark plugs, or the types of screws used in the Golden Gate Bridge) but I really don't think this information is necessary or useful beyond just the sizes. Coolhandscot (talk) 16:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colin S Wood[edit]

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

Even if the organisation this chap founded is notable (which is questionable in itself), I certainly don't think it's well-known or substantial enough to make its founder notable. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I got your point but Mr. Wood is a notable person in his field and has really helped a number of people with mental disorder, they have a group called 'Mentality' where people comes to share how they were cured or bettered, so there might be something about him to deserve rightful place. Aawebdev/User talk:Aawebdev 03:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is certainly a good cause, but this is not a good reason to include it on Wikipedia where only notability criteria really matter.--McSly (talk) 02:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This individual is not notable nor is the biographical information well referenced. A notable American is likely to have been referenced in sources in the USA, so I think having the primary reference to be the Bangkok Times suspect. Even in that article, it simple quotes the subject of the article, and is not a researched piece of journalism. In following the site purportedly founded by Mr. Wood, (www.mentalhealthsocial.com) the resulting site indicates that this domain name was recently acquired by PsychCentral. No doubt this individual is an advocate for mental health and a sufferer of an illness, though neither of those in themselves meet the tests of WP:N or WP:V and do to it's poor references, it fails WP:RS as well. Vertium (talk) 02:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation when he gets called up. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amalio Diaz[edit]

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

Minor league baseball player in the independent leagues, only a couple of pitcher of the week awards.... not enough for notability. Spanneraol (talk) 21:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Why AfD? Was this de-PROD'd? Either way, not notable. No prejudice against recreation should the player become notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like it was de-PROD'd simply because there were references. It seems that this article was created in early 2009 by a former editor who created tons of MiLB player articles in his short tenure. EricEnfermero (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:TOOSOON. No prejudice against recreation if and when he gets called up to The Show. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Weiser[edit]

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

Independent league baseball player with no claim to notability. Spanneraol (talk) 21:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ambivalent There are some sources out there that cover him in a seemingly non-trivial manner, which is more than merely game recaps. I'm undecided at the moment about whether or not it surpasses the threshold. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Many of the hits that I saw were either stats sites, local news coverage of a hometown MiLB team, or hits related to his college career. He was definitely a standout at Miami of Ohio and was drafted high, but I don't think that affects notability. I'm new at this though. EricEnfermero (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2012 (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.