< 29 October	31 October >

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. --BDD (talk) 17:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Hinds (American football)

[edit]

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

The article makes no assertion of notability. David Hinds was an undrafted free agent who was released before playing a single snap of professional football. That's not enough to satisfy WP:NGRIDIRON and there isn't sufficient non-routine coverage or accomplishment to satisfy WP:NCOLLATH. There are dozens of such prospective NFL players every year and they aren't notable for being on the preseason team. Further, as an article about a player not in the news (because he's not playing) it's not being updated. At the time I encountered the article on October 30 it still claimed he played for Miami, even though he'd been released nearly two months ago. In sum, it's a non-notable stub with no prospect of expansion. Mackensen (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)s[reply]

Delete I am unable to find really much of any coverage for him even in local papers for his college playing, at least in online searches. Nothing regional or national. Failing WP:GNG, I can find no other measure of notability to consider.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NGRIDIRON and NCOLLATH.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 1 November 2013 (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 Features of the Marvel Universe. Consensus is to merge to Features of the Marvel Universe (non-admin closure) ES &L 12:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Project Pegasus

[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Marvel Comics through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary.

I am also nominating the following related page because there is no need to list characters that appear by location in a fictional universe. The main Marvel character lists can handle them if they don't establish notability on their own:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge both into Features of the Marvel Universe. BOZ (talk) 12:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Let this page stay. It's one of the important locations in Marvel Comics. If this is merged, where else are we supposed to put it's staff? Rtkat3 (talk 8:45, November 1 2013 (UTC)
Merge both into Features of the Marvel Universe. Not independently notable, lacks sourcing, the above argument borders on WP:ILIKEIT. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 22:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the main Project Pegasus article into a paragraph (deleting anything more than a paragraph) to Features of the Marvel Universe and then Delete the spin off article Characters of Project Pegasus which is nearly the definition of unsourced and unnotable Listcruft. Now a note for emphasis: I created the Project Pegasus article years ago, and recently I spun off the Characters page, and even *I* don't think they pass notability or many of Wikipedia's other guidelines. When I created the page in 2006, we were past Wikipedia 0.5 -- but not by much, and this was one of a number of articles that were created with the belief that they would be sourced and flushed out later. It is now 2013, and in over 6 years we still do not have a single citation showing significant coverage in a secondary source. This is not a notable topic. Instead, it is a small piece of comics trivia. And as to Rtkat3's argument "where else are we supposed to put..." this information, the answer is: On Marvel Comics' wiki, which is entirely available to anyone who wishes to find out information about this topic. This doesn't belong on Wikipedia unless it can stand up to Wikipedia's standards -Markeer 02:51, 3 November 2013 (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. --BDD (talk) 17:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sealed with a Kiss (Brian Hyland album)

[edit]

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

Prod was disputed, but this album shows no signs of meeting notability requirements. Brian Hyland probably deserves articles for some of his albums but not for generic compilation releases that are a dime a dozen and receive no coverage in reliable sources. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Iirc, I'm who originally nominated for prod. Fails NP:NALBUMS and I see no justification to warrant GNG. Sulfurboy (talk) 22:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage found for this compilation; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Gong show 22:35, 31 October 2013 (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 Lexx. (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 22:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brunnen-G

[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Lexx through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 21:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lexx. Could also be merged into List of fictional humanoid species in television. Not independently notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yo Way Yo, Home Va-Ray. Yo Ay-Rah, redirect Brunnen-G to Lexx (so that's what Jerhume means). Per nom, it has no independent notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:13, 3 November 2013 (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 Lexx. (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 22:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isambard Prince

[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Lexx through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 21:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lexx. Not independently notable. Cool character, but he fails to be discussed in reliable sources, as required by the WP:GNG. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:12, 3 November 2013 (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 List of Marvel Comics characters. (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 22:46, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Krakoa

[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Marvel Comics through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 21:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: K. BOZ (talk) 12:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per BOZ. — Mr. V (t – c) 05:05, 4 November 2013 (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) | Uncle Milty | talk | 15:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rhythm Activism

[edit]

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

Band appears to fail general notability guidelines. I looked in French and English and struggled to find decent reliable secondary sources covering the subject significantly. SarahStierch (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:Band # 5 and #10. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Argolin (talk • contribs) 13:00, 31 October 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sourcing improvements. What happened here is that this article was created a long time ago, when Wikipedia's sourcing requirements weren't nearly as strict as they are now, and it just never got added to as the rules tightened up. Although some of the newly added references are actually primary sources and should still be upgraded to the better kind, enough of them (Voir, Library and Archives Canada, etc.) are valid to demonstrate that they do indeed meet WP:BAND criteria. Bearcat (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – WIth enough available sourcing added, the subject passes WP:BAND criterion #1, or the WP:GNG. In addition to Voir, there is also coverage in Eye Weekly here, a little bit in Joey Keithley's book I, Shithead: A Life in Punk (p. 179), and with offline searches I've found coverage in the Waterloo Region Record (Reid, Robert. "Montreal's Rhythm Activism advance causes with theatrics", 25 November 1998: E10), in New Internationalist ("Rhythm Activism. Blood & mud", New Internationalist 269 (July 1995): 32), in Briarpatch ("Jesus Was Gay", Briar Patch 33.4 (May 2004): 31), and The Vancouver Sun (Mackie, John. "Rock and rant: duo plays raw music with a message", 18 February 1988: C12) among others. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:27, 3 November 2013 (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) Randykitty (talk) 22:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thaha Syaifuddin

[edit]

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

Notability CFCF (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO awarded the highest honor of country. --Green Cardamom (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the sources for that, there are no hits on the web, and the article barely holds any information at all.CFCF (talk) 10:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article's title appropriately uses what is apparently the current Indonesian spelling of the subject's name, but English-language sources still seem to use other transliterations - so Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL produces far better results (and other spellings might also produce significant results). These show the subject to have been a clearly notable anti-colonial resistance leader over a period of nearly half a century. And a trout to the creator of the article for something which, when nominated, consisted only of an assertion of notability, backed up by a not obviously reliable source in a language which the vast majority of Wikipedia editors (including myself) do not understand. PWilkinson (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2013 (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. Mr.Z-man 04:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Young Muslims UK

[edit]

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

No third-party sources that are not minor mentions with Islamic Society of Britain. So redirect there for being not notable.--Loomspicker (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC) Loomspicker (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NGO. A lot of hits about "Young Muslims UK" in Google Books. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Green Cardamon is correct, I just checked. Improve, don't delete. Dougweller (talk) 12:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Islamic Society of Britain. - Apart from Google Books there's not much else ...

-→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:56, 6 November 2013 (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 Walt Disney#Hibernation urban legend. The page history will remain available for editors interested in merging content, though there isn't much to work with. --BDD (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Walt Disney hibernation urban legend

[edit]

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

This page describes an urban legend regarding the death of Walt Disney, with minimal references, and minimal credibility. Most of the text of this article is already included at Walt_Disney#Hibernation_urban_legend, I don't see why this subject warrants an additional article. C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 20:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Previously nominated for deletion in 2010. Looks like a duplicate of the information already found on Walt Disney's main page. Same sources cited. PaintedCarpet (talk) 20:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, two sources aren't sufficient to establish notability. Should redirect to Walt Disney, since, as mentioned by CWC, this article's content can already can be found there. Jinkinson talk to me 21:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the appropriate section of the parent article. It actually spent over a year in that state before being silently reverted to article form by an IP editor. There's not enough to say, nor strong enough sources, nor compelling size issues with the parent article to justify making this a spinout in my appraisal, and direct content forks are discouraged. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Walt Disney#Hibernation_urban_legend. There's no reason to split from the parent article yet. Deletion is also acceptable, but this may actually be a useful redirect. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to main article. There's no shortage of sources from the reliable[1][2][3][4][5] to the less so[6][7]. But none of them (at least the reliable ones) really have much to say except "it's not true." It's useful to keep the stuff in this article about possible sources for the myth, because with a myth like this tracing its history is the most encyclopedic thing to do. --Colapeninsula (talk) 00:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Walt Disney#Hibernation_urban_legend. No reason to split. Cavarrone 06:05, 4 November 2013 (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. --BDD (talk) 17:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion and Relegation statistics in Argentine Primera División

[edit]

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

No indication this topic has been covered in reliable sources as an independent topic. Unnecessary content fork of Argentine Primera División. C 679 18:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 18:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no notability. Giant Snowman 19:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, seems a WP:NOTSTATS failure too. Fenix down (talk) 08:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. No one outside of the nominator has called for the article's deletion, and the majority of the consensus favors keeping the article; BDD's point that the subject is the topic of scholarly literature is the strongest for keeping it here. The one call for a redirect is an intelligent suggestion, and perhaps it can be brought up on the article's talk page (considering that repeated calls for deletion haven't worked). A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 13:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Work aversion

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was originally created to describe something called "Work Aversion Disorder", which is not a recognized disorder. After it was challenged at AfD, it morphed into a general article on a supposed phenomenon of "work aversion", and was kept on what I consider weak grounds. It is not difficult to find a scattering of sources using the phrase "work aversion" or "aversion to work", but they largely are just using it as a descriptive phrase with the common English meaning, not as a term of art. When searching for sources, note that the original version of this article, or variations of it, are found on many "low quality search keyword content" sites, such as [8], and since such sources are derived from the original Wikipedia article, they should not be considered evidence of notability. Gigs (talk) 17:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. Weak keep, but I could be sold on TNT, too. There are real sources for work aversion, including scholarly discussion of the topic from economic, sociological, and psychiatric perspectives (I've got references from Journal of Economic Issues, Social Forces, and Psychopharmacology). But none of that has to do with "Work Aversion Disorder", and the fact that the article as it stands is still married to that legacy makes the odds of substantive improvement seem foreboding. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- You do point out a solid argument for blowing it up and possibly starting over. I and a couple other editors have made little edits to remove the more outrageous claims and bad refs over the 3 years since the last AfD, but every time I load the page, I really get stuck on how it could possibly be brought up to any reasonable standard without basically gutting the article, an act that would probably be considered bad faith since I've advocated deletion in the past and failed. I still have serious doubts that this is a distinct enough topic for a standalone article, but I can envision that one could be created if it truly is something that is defined as a distinct symptom or phenomenon within an accepted field of study. If this AfD closes delete, I would not be opposed to the recreation of a more scholarly treatment of the topic that started over from scratch, if you can find sources to support such a thing. If it closes keep, I urge you or any neutral editor to make the drastic edits necessary to rid this article of it's protologism "disorder" roots. Thanks. Gigs (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sloth (deadly sin), which seems to be what it's describing. I understand what S.O. is saying, but I think it might be better to work that information into proper medical articles, such as mood disorder, major depressive disorder, passive-aggressive behavior, etc. Although I can see how a credible article could be written under this title, it would constantly be straining against the Puritanical bias inherent in the title. Lack of motivation, defeatism, and anxiety are common symptoms to many mood disorders, and there's plenty to say about their sociological and psychological effects. However, talking about them in terms of how unproductive they make worker drones and disrupt the nature order of the universe just doesn't seem very encyclopedic. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not a great article, but it's discussing a real concept that's discussed in scholarly literature. That it's not widely recognized as a disorder is no reason to delete, given the coverage of the topic. --BDD (talk) 18:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "The subject is real" isn't a very strong reason to keep either. Obviously "pain aversion" is a real thing, but we don't have an article on that, and probably shouldn't. You could write articles on "<anything negative> aversion" under that logic. Gigs (talk) 18:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're focusing on the wrong part of my comment. The article should be kept not (primarily) because it covers a real concept, but because that concept has been discussed in multiple scholarly sources. --BDD (talk) 18:18, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sounds like a variety of presenteeism. Bearian (talk) 21:24, 6 November 2013 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pano Kroko

[edit]

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

Delete, appears to be promotional and the sources appear to have connections to the subject. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no encyclopedic material here, and nothing substantial in the sources besides a listing and his own publications. DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found some mentions of him in a New York Times blog, but not enough to show evidence of notability.--Mojo Hand (talk) 16:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have been working with Pano Kroko on both "Greek Oxygen" and AJ4JD.org projects which we founded together, and I have substantial, personal evidence of his philanthropic and social entrepreneurial capabilities and capacity to effect massive social impact. He has offered his extensive international network of benefactors to the service of the Greek People while he also invests considerable time and effort into developing the much needed new breed of leaders that Greece requires. His family has a long-standing record of offering public service, altering the historical path of Greece in key and critical cross-roads and serving the country under highly adverse conditions. His mother. Dimitra Krokos, who recently passed away, was a well-known benefactor and philanthropist in the hometown of Lamia, who provided active support to those in need and offered her deceased husband's fortune in wide-spread philanthropy. Her first-born son, Dr. Pano Kroko is no doubt following along her path. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.132.49.246 (talk) 19:51, 10 November 2013 (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 by nominator. with no outstanding !votes for deletion. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 15:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Studley, Inc.

[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP - sources are WP:PRIMARYNEWS (WP:primary and/or things excluded in WP:CORP) not WP:secondary independent (a minimum of two desirable). Widefox; talk 14:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC) (clarified Widefox; talk 13:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Nom withdrawn - seems there's plenty of secondaries. Widefox; talk 14:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources on article are only passing mentions, but the company (and its eponym Julien Studley) has got more significant coverage in other media: LA Times[9][10][11], NY Times[12], Crain's[13], Other business newspapers[14][15][16], Bloomberg info[17][18]. Plus a lot of briefer mentions, e.g. in NY Times. These include analysis and historical information. The firm has been going since 1954, so it is likely there is more like this in print newspapers from earlier years. There's even a book published by John Wiley, Shaping the Skyline: The World According to Real Estate Visionary Julien Studley by Peter Hellman[19]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At least LA times are primarynews, Crain's doesn't even have an author - it's mainly a photo by Studley - hardly a WP:RS. Which of those aren't WP:PRIMARYNEWS? Primary sources don't count for notability (I think you've realised they're primaries as you removed your comment [20]). The biography looks good, but is it independent? If it is, we need another secondary to base the article on. "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" Widefox; talk 21:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Crain's article includes 4 paragraphs of text and some statistics, which maybe you didn't read. The fact that no author is given is irrelevant. The Bloomberg is also background. The longest NYT article[21] offers several paragraphs about what Studley did in previous years. Most of the articles offer background information and interpretation of the firm's actions both of which are classes of secondary content. Instead of trawling through people's edit histories trying to get dirt on them, you should look at other AfD discussions and other articles to see what are considered good sources. --Colapeninsula (talk) 00:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I looked for an author on that Crain's. [22] says the entries are submitted by each company (plus the stats from a survey) - no fact checking listed [23] (so those 4 paragraphs like the photo are copyright Studley) they are WP:ABOUTSELF WP:UGC "with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users." So no, the lack of attribution is crucial - it's primary, non-independent, UGC. Bloomberg looks OK (data seems to be from Capital IQ). Isn't the NYT PRIMARYNEWS? - just reporting what he said? bizjournals is just routine stuff WP:ORGDEPTH. Widefox; talk 17:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's ... really not what "user-generated content" means, I promise. That said, the lack of attribution does not mean that that text is not in Crain's editorial voice (if it were company-provided, it would be attributed to Studley, Inc., just as the photo was. Not everything in trade publishing (or, for that matter, wire services and the like) is given a byline. With that aside, in addition to the biography (authorized or not, Wiley is a reliable publisher, and I see no reason why that should be discarded) and the NYT article you seem to find acceptable, there's some discussion of this company and it's competitor Staubach in this book published by Random House, and even a showcasing of the company's office decor in this corporate design art book. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you're right technically - it's not UGC like IMDB, sure, just my shorthand for... the links detail that the competition entries are submitted (by Studley) - primary, non-independent (plus survey stats compiled from Studley employees) with no indication of fact checking. I'm not assuming it's anyone's voice - the links say they're user submitted. You're not claiming competition entries are secondary independent are you, which is the point for CORP? Widefox; talk 13:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With an (authorized, to be fair) biography by a prestigious publisher, the newspaper sources already provided, and the near-certainly of more potential references from the company's 50+ years of history, I don't see any reason why this company does not easily cross the notability threshold. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those primaries don't count. There's no inherent notability (e.g. for longevity) in WP:CORP - WP:ORGSIG. Are there any "any significant or demonstrable effects on culture.."? If the bio is authorised, not sure if it counts as independent - someone else here may know. Widefox; talk 21:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that your interpretation of Wikipedia's practices regarding the use (or inadequacy) of news sources for demonstrating notability is in line with common consensus on the topic, the essay you linked notwithstanding. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not just mine - was pointed out to me recently by a WMF employee, so I guess it's an OK interpretation, other AfDs notwithstanding WP:OTHERSTUFF. Policy is WP:PRIMARY. The essay says at the top it supplements it, rather than the normal run-of-the-mill essay. (I suppose it helps geeks like me to understand historians). News sources can be primary/good WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD or secondary. The nom does specify that primarynews needs to be discounted against meeting CORP to be fair. Business fluff to be discounted covered in WP:CORPDEPTH. Widefox; talk 22:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, our policies (and essays are assuredly not policy) are descriptive, not prescriptive. I haven't been at this half as long as some editors, and I'm not the most regular AFD participant, but I don't believe I've ever seen an AFD nominator interpret our notability requirements in the manner you're attempting to enforce here. Community consensus understands these requirements differently, I think. For what it's worth, I am quite familiar with how historians view the primary/secondary source divide; Wikipedia's use of those terms has never been particular synonymous. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Squeamish Ossifrage, that's a very good point, and I wholeheartedly agree - this is the first time I've used PRIMARYNEWS in an AfD prompted by taking onboard this (more academic) view of primary sources pointed out by a WMF editor. Seems a lot of effort, and so thanks for bearing with me. I clarified the nom to include policy (not essay links). Thanks Widefox; talk 13:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It was recommended to me on the Studley, Inc. talk page that I shared these links on this AfD page:

-Studley and/or it's eponym is a "tenant rep pioneer"[24][25], "granddaddy of tenant reps"[26], "tenant rep giant"[27] and "pioneer in the production of real estate market reports"[28]
-"Studley has represented 75 of the country's top 100 [law] firms"[29]
-"Tenant rep pioneer", "widely considered one of the most influential figures in NYC real estate" [30]
-"The commercial real estate company that he founded has helped to transform Manhattan's skyline" [31]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by RyLaughlin (talk • contribs) 14:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC) -The company's sale and restructuring [32] [33][34][reply]
-New office openings & hirings (secondary sources)[35][36][37][38]
-Bloomberg Businessweek profile [39]
-International expansion[40][41]
-Alliance w/ KMD[42]
-"Prior to the formation of Julien J. Studley, Inc., the commercial real estate space-user was not represented by a broker. Owners controlled most aspects of the transaction, the terms of deals were not revealed and market condition reports were not published. By choosing to represent tenants, Studley created a new sector within the business and opened up the commercial leasing process. "[43]
-"Julien J. Studley pioneered the commercial real estate market survey in 1963 with the monthly survey Studley Report" (p 86)[44]
-NY Times interviews/research citations (Most are Studley Reports)[45][46][47][48][49][50]
RyLaughlin (talk) 13:46, 31 October 2013 (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. --BDD (talk) 18:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MakeWebVideo

[edit]

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

Software not notable, the references are only press releases and blogs that do not count as reliable sources. I searched online for other sources, but I could find only a few other blog entries and press releases. I wonder if Fatpaint (article started by the same user, about a software produced by the same company as the one developing MakeWebVideo) should also be proposed for deletion. It has a few reviews in reliable media. Yarikata (talk) 12:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication of notability and very promotional in nature. epzik8 16:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Delete, references just 1 press release as to determine the publication date of the product. I have written the text as objective as possible. MakeWebVideo has lots of reviews and the website is already ranked by Alexa as top 84000 in the world after just a few months. One of the blogs mentioning MakeWebVideo is top 300 in the world (http://www.creativebloq.com/animation/tools-animations-10134750) that blog is reliable. Doing a search of makewebvideo in Google show plenty of reviews, most from prominent blogs (http://www.queness.com/post/14669/makewebvideo-create-amazing-animated-business-videos-yourself), (http://www.smashingapps.com/2013/09/09/makewebvideo-great-videos-at-great-price.html), I could go on... Regarding Fatpaint, it was reviewed by PC Magazine, and is one of the leading graphics tools on the internet. Try searching for "graphic design software" and it shows up just below Corel.com and Adobe.com. Mersica Inc. is clearly a company that is notable and has been around for years.Bummelum8 18:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Every reference source is a WP:SPS. No coverage in reliable sources could be found. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 20:27, 5 November 2013 (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 AfD closed as delete by BDD (talk). JohnCD (talk) 22:46, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Youth soccer league organisation

[edit]

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

Contested PROD (2011), concern was "fails WP:V and WP:ORG. Also problems with WP:ADVERT." - I feel these concerns have not been addressed. C 679 12:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 12:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, overly promotional, not notable. Giant Snowman 12:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, no indication why this is a notable organisation. Fenix down (talk) 12:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unnotable organization. Has no affiliation with the All India Football Federation. Also I believe it is now defunct. Also fails WP:GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 14:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:11, 30 October 2013 (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 Li (surname). Consensus across all similar discussions to merge to Li (surname) (non-admin closure) ES &L 12:01, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Li (surname meaning "chestnut")

[edit]

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

Non-notable stub written in poor English by a now-blocked user, whose creation of these articles was deemed disruptive editing. what little salvageable material there is can be incorporated at target Li (surname). this redirect has been discussed and there was some prior consensus at Talk:Li (surname)#Merger proposal. Rob Sinden (talk) 12:05, 30 October 2013 (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/2013 October 30. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 12:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on procedural grounds - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Li Surname (郦) In ictu oculi (talk) 12:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - All these Li Surname pieces belong in a single article. Alternatively, delete all as non-notable dictionary definition-type coverage. Carrite (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:10, 30 October 2013 (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 Li (surname). Consensus across all similar discussions to merge to Li (surname) (non-admin closure) ES &L 12:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Li Surname (理)

[edit]

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

Non-notable stub written in poor English by a now-blocked user, whose creation of these articles was deemed disruptive editing. what little salvageable material there is can be incorporated at target Li (surname). this redirect has been discussed and there was some prior consensus at Talk:Li (surname)#Merger proposal. Not to mention that this falls foul of WP:USEENG. Rob Sinden (talk) 12:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on procedural grounds - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Li Surname (郦) In ictu oculi (talk) 12:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - All these Li Surname pieces belong in a single article. Alternatively, delete all as non-notable dictionary definition-type coverage. Carrite (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

....discussion needs to be centred on one article. The expansion since the AfD was posted of Li Surname (郦) from stub into article is only an illustration that could be applied to any of these Chinese family names - no more logic for merger than merging All towns called Springfield. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:28, 31 October 2013 (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 Li (surname). Consensus across all related articles to merge to Li (surname) (non-admin closure) ES &L 11:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Li Surname (莉)

[edit]

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

Non-notable stub written in poor English by a now-blocked user, whose creation of these articles was deemed disruptive editing. what little salvageable material there is can be incorporated at target Li (surname). this redirect has been discussed and there was some prior consensus at Talk:Li (surname)#Merger proposal. Not to mention that this falls foul of WP:USEENG. Rob Sinden (talk) 12:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on procedural grounds - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Li Surname (郦). In ictu oculi (talk) 12:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

....discussion needs to be centred on one article. The expansion since the AfD was posted of Li Surname (郦) from stub into article is only an illustration that could be applied to any of these Chinese family names - no more logic for merger than merging All towns called Springfield. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:27, 31 October 2013 (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 Li (surname). Consensus is obvious on this and similar articles: merge to Li (surname) (non-admin closure) ES &L 11:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Li (surname meaning "whetstone")

[edit]

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

Non-notable stub written in poor English by a now-blocked user, whose creation of these articles was deemed disruptive editing. what little salvageable material there is can be incorporated at target Li (surname). this redirect has been discussed and there was some prior consensus at Talk:Li (surname)#Merger proposal. Rob Sinden (talk) 12:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on procedural grounds - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Li Surname (郦) In ictu oculi (talk) 12:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - All these Li Surname pieces belong in a single article. Redirect to Li (surname) as the merge target. Alternatively, delete all as non-notable dictionary definition-type coverage. Carrite (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

....discussion needs to be centred on one article. The expansion since the AfD was posted of Li Surname (郦) from stub into article is only an illustration that could be applied to any of these Chinese family names - no more logic for merger than merging All towns called Springfield. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having said that, I note this one already had these sources: In ictu oculi (talk) 15:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sheau-yueh J. Chao In Search of Your Asian Roots : Genealogical Research on Chinese Surnames Clearfield, 2009, 342pp with listing origin and meanings.
Russell Jones Chinese Names:The Traditions Surrounding the Use of Chinese Surnames and Personal Names Pelanduk Publications Malaysia Sdn Bhd, 1997
Tong Luo, Jia Wei Cao 500 Famous Chinese Names Times Singapore 1999 includes the classical meaning of over 1,000 Chinese characters
陈明远 Chen Mingyuan, 汪宗虎中国姓氏辞典 - Volume 1 -- 1995 Page 246 "[文林记杖]东汉(风俗通义)收·汉代有枕郡太守义阳侯厉沮·一作励温·五代十国时后梁有厉归其,道士·画家·明代有厉升,无锡人,任青田知县·清代有厉鸭,钱培人,文学家· (中国人名大辞典)收录厉氏 13 例·末(百家姓)列为第 247 姓."
Baijiaxing 百家姓 modern edition edited 钟海燕 Zhong Haiyan, 李月娟 Li Yuejuan, 徐阳鸿 Xu Yanghong - 2006
张世国 Zhang Shiguo 百家姓姓氏溯源 (Origins of the Names of the Baijiaxing) 2001 page 149 "奉齐厉厉姓溯源有三个方面。一、以国名为姓氏。春秋时有厉国,在距今湖北随县北三十五里的厉山店就是厉国故都。厉国后代有人以国名为姓氏。这是厉姓的一站出求二、以谥号为姓,源出于姜姓。周初,武王把齐国封给了姜子牙。西周末年,齐厉公在位, ..."
张学衔 Zhang Xuexian 华夏百家姓探源 2000 - Page 14 厉姓起源厉山,祖宗齐厉公。【姓氏来源】 1 《风俗通》记载: "齐厉公之后,汉有魏郡太守、义阳侯厉温。" 2 《古今姓氏书辨证》记载: "厉国在义阳县北之厉乡,以国为 ... 【楹联】 1 绩茂循良,勋铭带砺(宋厉汪)。 2 威弭郡盗(唐厉文才〉,名重文坛(清厉鹗)。"

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 Li (surname). Consensus is clear to Merge/redirect to Li (surname) (non-admin closure) ES &L 11:58, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Li Surname (郦)

[edit]

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

Non-notable stub written in poor English by a now-blocked user, whose creation of these articles was deemed disruptive editing. what little salvageable material there is can be incorporated at target Li (surname)#郦. this redirect has been discussed and there was some prior consensus at Talk:Li (surname)#Merger proposal. Not to mention that this falls foul of WP:USEENG. Rob Sinden (talk) 12:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - User:Robsinden has been asked to take this and other Chinese family names he wishes to merge/delete to RfC. To use AfD is not going to work since AfD works on notability and this surname is evidently highly notable; so on what grounds is deletion being proposed? To delete via AfD someone will have to explain why Li Surname (郦) is not notable? "郦姓" i.e. "Li-xing, the family name Li" gets 196 Google Book hits, the fact that these hits are in Chinese is neither here no there since notability is not restricted to English sources, and without being inappropriate the threshold for WikiProject Anthroponymy surname stub notability on en.wp is not as high as 196x sources; In way of non-random proof of that assertion see "surname Sinden" which only gets 3x, please take that in good faith, it is not being personal but makes more sense than randomly picking an English surname since Sinden (surname) exists. If I picked any other surname it could be claimed to be cherry-picking, this at least isn't random. This is a stylistic issue (objection to a Chinese name in the title of a Chinese name article) and not driven by an AfD rationale. Hence this an inappropriate use (even misuse) of AfD. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per this edit, it was your suggestion that this was taken to AfD!!! --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And as far as my own surname goes, Sinden (surname) is just a List of people with the surname Sinden by another name - it's hardly notable outside of a list. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was my first off-the-cuff response in an edit summary restoring your blanking of the article before I saw the other articles blanked. My following edit summaries on reverting your blanking of the other articles were:

12:05 Li Surname (莉) ‎ (Undid revision 579275163 by Robsinden same, requires RfC)

12:05 Li Surname (理) ‎ (Undid revision 579275185 by Robsinden same)

12:04 Li (surname meaning "chestnut") ‎ (Undid revision 579277000 by Robsinden you need to raise a RfC on this)

12:03 Li (surname meaning "whetstone") ‎ (Undid revision 579277008 by Robsinden no consensus in July, and has been forgotten about is not a reason to delete)

11:59 Liu (柳) ‎ (Undid revision 579275923 by Robsinden no consensus for this) (current)

11:58 Li Surname (郦) ‎ (Undid revision 579441672 by Robsinden if you want to delete a Chinese family name please use AfD process)

As I said, you need to use RFC not AFD to make wholesale mergers/deletions of Chinese family name articles since AFD handles notability and notability is based on sources. You will find that almost all English family name articles are little more than lists, mainly because WikiProject Anthroponymy is poorly supported by the editing community as a whole - although it is partly that most English surnames simple aren't as notable in sources as the big Chinese ones in the "100 Names". That isn't a reason for wholesale mass deletion of English surname stubs. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But, as we established in the previous discussion, these are stubs that are not independently notable outside of the "umbrella" article of Li (surname), that had recently (at the time anyway) been created by a blocked user whose actions in creating these and similar articles had been deemed disruptive editing. That's why I redirected - there was previous consensus as far as I'm concerned, and no-one had done anything since July. Let's await the outcome of this discussion to decide once and for all. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's evidently a communication issue since you are repeating above in this paragraph things you have been told by several WP China editors and WP Anthroponymy editors are incorrect. In any case I see no need to rehash it here. This requires a high/wide discussion with all contributors to the China and Anthroponymy article corpus involved. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There clearly is a communication issue. You advise me to AfD, then reprimand me for doing so. Then you say that AfD is for notability, and when I point out that this is a notability issue that these recently created stubs do not meet, you do not listen. There is nothing in my nomination that I "have been told by several WP China editors and WP Anthroponymy editors are incorrect". I have no idea who these editors are anyway and why you assume that it is they that are "correct" and me "incorrect", seeing as consensus in the discussion those months ago was swaying away from your favour. There is also no need for "high/wide discussion" to redirect these crappy little non-notable stubs. These AfDs will sort it, and any editor interested enough can delve through the history of our disagreement and make their own minds up. Now, let's leave it for other editors to have some input. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See above wikt:off the cuff. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect the lot of these Li stubs to Li (surname). Were it not obvious that changes would be contested, I was tempted to do this boldly myself. There is already separate etymological information there, although it is badly in need of cleanup and sourcing (and, no, the sourcing of these stubs is by and large not suitable: I found Chinese Wikipedia and Baidu links). Whether there should be a list of notable Li individuals at the surname article is a matter of editorial discretion (although precedent from most surname articles would be to include that as a navigational/disambiguation aid). Regardless, AFD's remit is not restricted solely to discussions of notability and sources; the community is quite capable of resolving the issue here without the need for anything so grandiose as an RFC. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Previously, User:Blueboar made a good attempt to tidy up that article at User talk:Blueboar/drafts - Li (surname), but nothing came of it. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I've overlooked something essential, I'd unilaterally support adoption of that draft in place of the current article. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Squeamish Ossifrage - "although it is badly in need of cleanup and sourcing" - yes but that would have to be done by editors with an incentive to do so, I have to say I have no incentive to improve the articles if they are going to be continually messed about. In fact it's counterproductive to do so. If en.wp does not wish to host Chinese family name articles, why improve them? The content might be better on Wiktionary. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hit an edit conflict to find that your comment to me changed entirely, so I'm not going to give as long a response this time. Yep, sometimes Wikipedia editing is frustrating. Is there an objection to replacing the parent article with the provided draft and redirecting the stubs to it? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Squeamish Ossifrage, hi, thanks. Sorry about the edit conflict. Yes, there is an objection to replacing the parent article with the provided draft and redirecting the stubs to it - these surnames are all individually notable and articles can easily be improved if disruption stops. However there's no objection to Blueboar making a Li (disambiguation) or indeed List of Li surnames - although such a list would be better done by an editor with article contributions in the subject area, I appreciate that Blueboar has contributed 10 freemasonry articles to en.wp, but that's very different from Chinese genealogy. The issue put simply is why a list, List of towns called Springfield precludes having standalone articles for Springfield, Massachusetts, Springfield, Missouri, Springfield, Illinois? How is this different from homonyms in Category:Chinese-language surnames? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for one thing, the past editing history (or actual expertise, for that matter) is not a consideration for who can or should edit given articles at Wikipedia; that's simply the project's way. That said, I've spent a little while digging through our Manual of Style documents for some concrete guidance here. The Chinese-language MOS is not in a good way. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/China-related articles seems to suggest that Chinese names should default to a romanized presentation (essentially Pinyin without tone marks), while Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) suggests that Hanyu Pinyin with tone marks should be the default. Likewise, there doesn't seem to be any consensus about what degree of similarity is necessary for similar names to be "lumped" into a single article or "split" and disambiguated. While not addressing it from a Chinese perspective, WikiProject Anthroponymy considered the topic without any firm resolution, and as that WikiProject is only slightly better than moribund, I doubt consensus guidance will be forthcoming from that direction. When in doubt, as this is the English language Wikipedia, we present information in whatever manner would be most useful to an English reader, and I still believe that is a unified article until there's enough individual content to spin sections out per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and WP:SPINOUT. In the meantime, I think an interested editor should consider launching an RFC to resolve the conflict between the two Chinese-related MOS guidelines to determine whether tone marks are relegated to parenthetical notes or used as the preferred spelling (with the caution that this sort of thing has apparently been a contentious MOS topic in the past). In any case, I don't think a perfect solution is capable of being sorted out at this AFD; the best we can hope for for now is to ensure the information is in a format most useful to our readership. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep Each Li-variant is likely independently notable; per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, these can be spun out if necessary.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And that's the key: "if necessary". I can't see the necessity. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Li (surname)... feel free to use the format I created at my user draft page (linked above by Robsinden) if it would help. Blueboar (talk) 14:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Blueboar, your strong support for RobSinden's view is noted, again, but if I am correct I recall you were asked by an editor in the previous discussion to explain why homonyms should be merged, and that is perhaps a discussion that can be had in a wider RfC.

But when we get to RFC you actually will need to present evidence that these surnames are in fact homonyms. Yes they have the coincidence of similarity in modern toneless North China pinyin. But are they the same surname in Cantonese or Korean? What is your evidence that these surnames are really homonyms? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I never said they were homonyms... I don't care whether they are homonyms or not... I simply think that merging all the various "Li (surname)" articles into one single article is the best way to inform our English speaking readers about the various names that are transcribed in English as "Li". It's about how to present the information to our readers... not whether to present the information. Blueboar (talk) 15:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blueboar, you said you wanted to merge them because they were all spelled the same, all spelled the same is a wikt:homonym. I ask again the question about merging all Towns called Springfield, that is also a wikt:homonym. In fact that is a real homonym, since all the towns called Springfield really are all called by the same name. In the case of these Li names they aren't all Li in all variants of Chinese and Korean. These are different family names that just happen to coincide when tones are removed in modern North Chinese dialect. Do you think it is confusing to have separate articles on so many Springfield (disambiguation) towns? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - All these Li Surname pieces belong in a single article. Redirect to Li (surname) as the merge target. Alternatively, delete all as non-notable dictionary definition-type coverage. Carrite (talk) 15:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Carrite - are they the same surname? (And yes I personally would prefer to just delete all and have an outright ban on Chinese surnames than have a ban on making decent articles) In ictu oculi (talk) 15:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this is your interpretation of a decent article, I'd hate to see a poor one. Why not have one really decent article, in which we can show to the uninitiated the difference between all the different surnames romanized as "Li", instead of 5 or 6 confusing shitty little ones? --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robsinden, if I may ask what exactly is your content contribution area to wikipedia?

No, this is not my interpretation of a decent article, this is my interpretation of an article editors are staying away from because of disruption. I recall that when I tried adding a Chinese source - with translation - to one of these name articles the article was blanked. Will you allow the articles to be improved?

Yes, we can show to the uninitiated the difference between all the different surnames romanized as "Li" in List of different Chinese surnames romanized as Li in modern toneless pinyin or Li (several surnames) or Li (disambiguation) or similar. But that would be a list article or a dab. Merging homonyms is as meaningless as an article on Towns called Springfield, what sort of an article is that? It is a list or a dab. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need to stop trying to discredit the editors, and concentrate on the content. There is no salvagable content on these "recently" created stubs by a blocked user that is not better served on the "umbrella" article. If a breakout article is warranted, then we can look to split away (though if we do, we also need to follow proper naming conventions). Note that I did not nominate Li (surname meaning "plum") for deletion, as I think there is a valid argument for a standalone article there. I judged these redirects (although deletion is preferable, as the redirects are not useful) to be uncontroversial based on previous discussions, and still stand by that. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

.....and now Rob Sinden is edit forcing his removal of content from the article admittedly it is not good content source, far from it, but it illustrates that better content and better articles exist on Baidu and Zh.wp. Again sources are not the point 192x Google Books sources exist on this surname, they could be added the article could be expanded, but what Chinese speaking/reading editor is going to bother for an article which will be List of surnames which are Li in toneless pinyin. And such a list article will have to have in text 10x separate interwiki links to zh.wp anyway - exactly what RobSinden has just deleted. Because it will be a list representing in English 10 different zh.wp articles. What is the point? Are we going to have editors who have never created, or even contributed to, any name or Germany article suddenly propose to merge 10 German surnames? In ictu oculi (talk) 15:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're clearly unreasonable, misrepresenting me like this. No content removed whatsoever, just the links to WP:CIRCULAR and WP:USERG references. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See above, what I have actually written. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What, "Rob Sinden is edit forcing his removal of content from the article"? You really know how to wind other editors up. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the same to any editor who is reverted from removing interwiki and html links from an article he/she has AFDed, and then he/she forces through the removal anyway after being reverted. See WP:BRD. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Content and sources added - I have added 2 mainstream state-owned print sources - one of them China Social Sciences Publishing House, the other China Meteorological Press - despite the name they publish science and linguistic books also - and removed speculative content which may be true, but without access to the library today cannot source it so cutting for the time being. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Despite these improvements, article is still little more than WP:DICDEF, and would still be better served by an "umbrella" article of Li (surname). --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This editor said above "Note that I did not nominate Li (surname meaning "plum") for deletion, as I think there is a valid argument for a standalone article there." - yet the amount of information and sources is now about the same. What is the difference that makes Li/Yi/Lei/Rhee surname notable and Li/Lih/Lik not notable? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my personal opinion is that it should be merged, but I recognise that it is a more controversial case, and that valid arguments could be made for its inclusion. However I deemed these stubs, based on previous discussions, non-controversial. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And also if the editor proposes merging all Li/Lee/Lik/Yi etc into a List or dab, how does Li (surname meaning "plum") get included in that article? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This should either be one umbrella article differentiating the various "Lis" or they should all be deleted as dictionary definitions. I'm indifferent as to which. What I do know is that this slug of little unencylopedic dictionary definitions need to go away. Carrite (talk) 02:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carrite, to put your view into context, how many 1,000s of surname articles do you estimate are in Category:Surnames by language? And what percentage of them should "go away"? Can you point to e.g. a German, Czech or French, etc, surname article that is a well referenced by print sources as this Chinese family name article? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable surname with 3000 years of recorded history. -Zanhe (talk) 01:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article is referenced, and demonstrates notability. Any assumption of non-notability is, in my eyes, systemic bias in action. There is no reason for a bunch of completely unrelated surnames to be bunched together. A article with limitations can be gradually improved; that's what Wikipedia is all about. The author being a "now-blocked user" is an irrelevant factor. --benlisquare_T•C•E 04:07, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Li (surname) or delete:

In their current state, the various Li surname articles (and Feng surname articles) are more dictionary entries than encyclopedia articles. Reading these articles I found myself wondering if Wikipedia should have any articles on surnames. Fortunately I found Yuan (surname), which is a good example of a surname article that is actually an encyclopedia article. Not that an article has to be FA quality to exist, but I really think that the various Li surname articles should be merged into Li (surname) until they are ready to stand alone. They can be improved there and then spun out when they are ready.
It seems to be a point of pride for some editors that all the different Li surnames should have their own articles. I don't see how this makes the encyclopedia better. Another reason for keeping different articles seems to be that the different Li surnames are in fact different surnames, so it rankles to group them together. While it might not make much sense to group them together in Chinese (I assume), they all transliterate to the same word in English, so it does make sense to group them together in English.--Wikimedes (talk) 20:46, 8 November 2013 (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 Systema. Consensus is the individual is more strongly associated with Systema, and a redirect will actually possibly strengthen that article (non-admin closure) ES &L 11:57, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Vasiliev (martial arts)

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The only sources used are directly associated with Vasiliev, dubious claims impossible to verify, there's not even a Russian article about this person (and the article about his supposed "Russian martial art"[51] was deleted on the Russian Wikipedia.) Niemti (talk) 11:07, 30 October 2013 (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/2013 October 30. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 11:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In my opinion the previous AfD was leaning towards Keep rather than No consensus but no matter another AfD is appropriate to hopefully provide some closure. It does not matter that Vladimir does not have a Russian page and that might even be expected since claims of notability come from his teaching the art in the West. It would help if some of the external links were integrated as references.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because it was also under a PROD for pretty much the same reasons and Mikhail Ryabko is listed as Vladimir's teacher.

- His supposed "Russian martial art" Systema Ryabko was deleted on Russian Wikipedia, and his Russia-based "master" Mikhail Ryabko (a really out-of-shape guy) also has no article there (their only articles are on Eglish Wikipedia). The info on them here on Black Belt is just total baloney: "It was during the 400-year Mongol occupation of Russia that systema evolved. Created by the Cossacks in A.D. 948, systema is thought to have originated from Hun and Mongolian martial arts." (that's some seriously alternate history stuff - somehow it was supposedly created at once hundreds years after the Hun invasion of Europe and hundreds years before any contact between the Slavs and the Mongols, and at the time when there weren't even really Cossacks yet, and then for over 1,000 years no one has heard about it before Ryabjko "learned systema from one of Joseph Stalin’s personal bodyguards"). There's more nonsense: "After the warring periods between the Mongolians and Huns, [sic] the systema weapon nagaika, which is a lead-filled short whip, was created by the Cossacks to be used specifically against Eastern threats." - in reality, the nagaika was taken from and named after the Nogais, who are Turkic people, relatively recently (and the Huns completely vanished over 1,000 years ago). Complete BS. And this video is like a parody: [52] --Niemti (talk) 13:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also I just checked books, and in independent sourcers he (or rather: his manual) appears to be mentioned/cited primarily in New Age psudoscience: The Healing Power of the Breath, Quantum Eating: The Ultimate Elixir of Youth, this kind of stuff, also some novel. --Niemti (talk) 14:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And as we speak about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Systema_practitioners_by_nationality lists only those 2 guys (with Vasiliev being listed as both Russian and as Canadian), and also Alexander Retuinskih. Now, there are 2 problems with Retuinskih:

The only mention of "systema" in his article is the category, and he appears to be a practitional of his own style of sambo, something called 'Retuinskih's System ROSS' and which according to Wikipedia is "a martial system trademarked by Russian Cossacks" (lol). Wikipedia further helpfully explains: "Cossacks is one of many Russian non-governmental public organisations with their own ranks system." - that's probably the most inaccurate definition of the Cossacks I've ever heard.
His article on Russian Wikipedia was deleted too.[53]

--Niemti (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this whole "systema" stuff should be deleted here, too. Quote: Systema or “the system”, has no real history. That sounds right rather than the craziness from Black Belt magazine. --Niemti (talk) 14:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Systema has just survived an AfD debate. The question here is whether the two subjects here meet notability guidelines - not a refight on Systema itself. I also gagged on the invented 1000 year history but that is not mentioned in any of the articles.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, yeah.[54] Hey, what about this gem? "Systema is the progenitor for Russian sambo." Also from Black Belt magazine,[55] which is actually sourcing systema article. --Niemti (talk) 15:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And what do you think about this Alexander Retuinskih fellow? Lots of big claims with self-published or very poor sources (like some forum posts or whatever is this) or no sources at all (like in the case of Recognized as one of the "Top 100 Most Influential People in Russia"). What about 'Retuinskih's System ROSS' too. --Niemti (talk) 15:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as per my comments in the first AFD : "This article needs work, not deletion. The 'Aikido Journal' article, the 'Black Belt' article and the 'Meibukan Magazine' article are good quality references and should be enough to establish notability per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Notability#Martial_artists." jmcw (talk) 16:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think the information contained in "the 'Black Belt' article(s)" is true and it was really invented in alternate history universe "during the 400-year Mongol occupation of Russia in A.D. 948 from Hun and Mongolian martial arts", and that it "was the progenitor for Russian sambo", etc, and shouldn't be completely rejected as the absolutely ridicalous plain bullshit this is? Whatever are these Aikido Journal (I tried to find any "about" on this blog, couldn't) and Meibukan Magazine (something defunct, no idea) they make "good quality references"? Btw, how interesting that if you search for "Meibukan Magazine" on Google Images, the 24th top image is to Vladimir Vasiliev's Wikipedia article[56] (which is also just one of only 3 Wikipedia articles where it is used[57]). Also, where was all this "work, not deletion" in nearly 5 years since January 2009 (and why the Russian Wikipedia decided for deletion in the meantime)? And where are any other "systema practitioners"? Is those 2 (or 3?) guys really all for something supposedly spanning over 10 centuries, and now taught worldwide for over 20 years? --Niemti (talk) 17:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:TRUTH. In this AFD, I see what looks like OR and innuendo. The article has reliable sources. Could you supply some reliable references for your wall of text, please. jmcw (talk) 17:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. For example, the "Stalin's Falcons", the supposed Stalin's ninja/Jedi personal bodyguard service[58] who supposedly thought the little Misha the ancient and secret art of systema[59] from the age of five[60] (before he was even "inducted to Spetsnaz at the age of fifteen"[61]) didn't exist. Or rather - they did exist, but they were really pilots. And it's a lie, and this whole BS is built on it. Compare:[62][63] --Niemti (talk) 17:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you believe that www.cuttingedgeshop.com and www.systemamiami.com are Wikipedia:Reliable sources? jmcw (talk) 20:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not, because it's systema BS. And yet Aikido Journal believed this silly fairytale about the ancient mystery art of Russia's Shaolin monks and the "Stalin's Falcons" Jedi order of the NKVD, who then taught it to a 5-year-old child prodigy before he became a 15-year-old Soviet Army child commando - the art that no one one in the world knew about (and apparently the world is still unaware of any Stalin's Falcons who were not airborne) before the revelations of Ryabko & Vasiliev:

If someone had told me a few years ago that out of a western Christian tradition would come a martial art as deep, sophisticated and evolved as the best of the oriental arts I would not have believed them. Yet there is such an art coming out of the ancient Russian culture with deep roots in the Russian Orthodox monasteries. At its root in the present day is an exceptional man, Mikhail Ryabko. Trained by one of Stalin’s Falcons from the age of five and beginning his operational career in the Russian Spetsnaz (Special Forces) at the age of 15, Mikhail Ryabko was not only given the secrets of this ancient art, he was put in the position of repeatedly applying both the art and its principles in life and death combat on, what for much of his early life, was a day-to-day basis. This System, taught by Mikhail Ryabko, is not a shadow of what once was, it is a living practical art that even now is being applied by warriors in combat. When working with Mikhail and his foremost student, Vladimir Vasiliev, one is struck by the calm depth of these men. Enormous knowledge and ability taught with calm, deep conviction.[64]

That's some serious Metal Gear class shit right there. It was written for them by one James Williams - a certified as an instructor of Systema, a Russian Martial art taught by Mikhail Ryabko and Vladimir Vasiliev. Williams teaches Nami Ryu Aiki Heiho, (kenjutsu, iaijutsu, and aikijujutsu) and Systema in Encinitas California.. Oh, and the Meibukan Magazine thing (the third 'independent' source for this article) is also by James Williams - and by Vasiliev himself. That's literally exactly same article, actually.[65] --Niemti (talk) 20:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you do not believe the article. The questions is, do you have a reliable source that is critical of this material. So far, I have only heard Wikipedia:I DON'T LIKE IT. jmcw (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of "Stalin's Falcons" the bodyguard force is not confirmed by any historians or documents or anything. The existence of this "ancient martial art" at any point through more than 1,000 years since precisely "A.D. 948" is not confirmed by any historians or documents or anything. The existence of the 10th century Cossacks in contact with either Huns or Mongols (not to mention both) is not confirmed by any historians or documents or anything. Science is a bitch, I know. I also disagree in calling an article written by systema instructor a reliable source on systema (and also any kind of interviews with these people, or the articles based just on their very dubious and absolutely unverifiable claims, and it's just very telling you can't find anything about this "ancient martial art" prior and beyond their revelations and teachings). All this is rooted only in the story of some guy about how a member of "Stalin's Falcon" elite bodyguard force that the rest of the world still knows nothing about supposedly told and taught him when he was 5. I don't think that's material fit for Wikipedia if it wants to be taken seriously. They don't have Russian articles for a reason (they also don't have articles in any non-English Wikipedia, but in Russia the article about their "ancient martial art" was deleted too). --Niemti (talk) 22:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we will have to see how the consensus develops. jmcw (talk) 22:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You know, you can provide non-systema sources backing any of these dubious claims (historical existence of the Stalin's Falcons who were not aviators, historical existence of a Cossack ancient martial art from the 10th century based on "Hun and Mongol martial arts", historical existence of the Huns and Cossacks in the 10th century period, and whatever else really) anytime, and you might convince me. --Niemti (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some of their supposed "superhuman abilities" ("superhuman ability" is a direct quote) from Vasiliev's official website where he promises to teach his Jedi skills via a DVD: "Transferring the impact of a blow you have just received right out of your body onto another person. Small, subtle hits so powerful that even the bystanders feel them. Light punches that reach the internal organs bypassing the muscles. Phenomenal use of breathing and psychology to dispel direct blows. Unbelievable strikes that remove stress, tension, fear, that make people stronger and actually heal them! (...) Warning: The contact in Strikes is real."[66] This stuff is actually even more ridicalous than I thought it was. No idea why Black Belt insists of taking them any seriously... I found them in Soldier of Fortune, but turned out to be just an ad (lots of ads in Black Belt too, one of them says: "Mikhail Ryabko - Overcome any attack with minimum or no physical contact at all!"). --Niemti (talk) 14:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also note how A. A. Kadochnikov was redirected to Kadochnikov's Systema, which was in turn deleted, and then he was redirected to Systema, creating further confusion. (Systema really means just "style" in Russian.) --Niemti (talk) 20:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just found an interesting thing regarding Ryabko & Vasiliev's incredible claim that "Mikhail Ryabko from the early Spetsnaz era" (to quote Black Belt mumbo jumbo) was "inducted to Spetsnaz at the age of fifteen" (and "has been a tactical commander of hostage-rescue teams, counter-terrorist operations, and armed criminal neutralization" and "has been in numerous military campaigns" and what not). Ryabko's old website (Internet Archive) says he's served in the Army at the age of 20-23 in the early 1980s (a standard Soviet conscript service was 2 years), before working for the Interior Ministry as an trainer, and is "Colonel of Internal Service" (whatever it is), while Wikipedia claims he "is a Colonel in the Russian military" and systema people advertise him as "Colonel of the Special Operations Unit with the Russian Military" nowadays. Some more alternate universes stuff. --Niemti (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also Ryaboko's Wikipedia link stating "Mixed martial arts record from Sherdog" (it's in his first infobox[67]) actually leads to Brian Stann (nicknamed "All-American", ironically - and just compare his article and Ryabko's). Speaking of which, there's just no mention of either Ryabko/Vasiliev or even just "systema" on the entire website (while there's 1336 hits for for "Russian and 424 for "sambo"). --Niemti (talk) 08:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't have the time to really research this right now, but I have a few quick comments. First, Systema has just gone through an AfD discussion, so I view it as off the AfD table. Second, it's true that Systema just means system, but that is the name by which the art is generally known in the English speaking world--and is what most people would search on. Third, WP isn't concerned with truth as much as verifiability and sources, so even false claims can be mentioned if they're reliably sourced. I would mention George Dillman's claims of his ability to move people by his psychic power as a similar situation. If there are no reliable sources the claims can be removed. Finally, I would throw out the possibility of redirecting Vasiliev's article to the Systema article. Papaursa (talk) 02:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect both to Systema Upon further examination, I think my redirect idea is a good one so I'll make it my official vote. Neither of the articles appears to have the significant independent reliable coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 01:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect My feeling that the AfDs are driven by WP:I DON'T LIKE IT still stands and that should not be a reason for deletion. However, the lack of non-primary sources for both articles (Vladimir Vasiliev (martial arts) and Mikhail Ryabko)means a redirect is appropriate. The base art Systema has passed a recent AfD and should be left alone.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect both Vasiliev and Ryabko to Systema. Their articles don't show independent coverage for them individually.204.126.132.231 (talk) 22:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can actually agree for a Redirect to systema. (I'd nominate systema itself fort either redirect or deletion after some cooldown period since the previous nom, in which I didn't participate.) --Niemti (talk) 10:38, 7 November 2013 (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. --BDD (talk) 18:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Y Window System

[edit]

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

A student project that seems to have been abandoned shortly after its publication. Can't find any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. There's a release announcement on Slashdot, and some mere mentions of the project's existence in some academic papers, but nothing which unambiguously establishes notability. Psychonaut (talk) 10:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's little evidence anyone ever cared, including its creators, and I've looked. What little notice it got at the time was as a putative competitor to X existing at all - David Gerard (talk) 11:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to indicate this had any significant notability beyond existing. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 13:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable project that never caught on. Could be merged somewhere, such as X Window System or Desktop environment, but I'm not sure it would actually be notable enough to mention. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:24, 31 October 2013 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aliya (singer)

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unsigned, never-signed artist Boleyn (talk) 09:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Falls short of WP:BIO standards. And Adoil Descended (talk) 17:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:05, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkmenistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At this point in her career, it looks like she hasn't yet garnered enough attention to demonstrate notability.--Mojo Hand (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A reasonable search turns up nothing meeting WP:IRS. The Russian and Swedish articles also lack reliable sources. WP:NOTYET. BusterD (talk) 23:13, 9 November 2013 (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) | Uncle Milty | talk | 15:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Everytime (Butterfingers song)

[edit]

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

The chart that this song charted on is insufficient per WP:NSONG. By calling this I am effectively withdrawing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Everybodys Jesus. Laun chba ller 09:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Pretty much the same as Everybodys Jesus. Hottest 100 is not a sales chart, but does indicate high rotation. Made the AIR Charts. [68] Doctorhawkes (talk) 22:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, I think you'll find that's the AIR Independent Charts - per WP:NSONG, the song requires to have charted on a national chart, that being the main AIR Singles Charts. Did it chart on that?--Laun chba ller 09:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep have added additional references establishing the song's notability. Dan arndt (talk) 07:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficiently discussed in multiple sources, high rotation on a national radio network & on TV shows.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 18:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not the highest-quality nomination - David Gerard (talk) 13:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - was this nominated in connection with oppose vote to disambiguating Talk:Everytime → Everytime (Britney Spears song) per WP:NCM? we can't keep prodding and deleting albums and songs simply because they provide name competition for Britney, Madonna, Gaga, Miley and so on. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a valid reason to say "keep" though. Also, no one is complaining at 3 (Britney Spears song), Miles Away (Madonna song), Monster (Lady Gaga song) or Stay (Miley Cyrus song), so calm down your disambiguationmania. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 04:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it charted, satisfies WP:NSONGS. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 04:30, 6 November 2013 (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 Procedural close. This appears to have been created in error, as it was created moments after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hitha Prabhakar was created. There is no need for two AfD discussions for the same article. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hitha Prabhakar

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Resume. Laun chba ller 08:12, 30 October 2013 (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 23:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hitha Prabhakar

[edit]

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

Resume. Laun chba ller 08:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is someone's online resume. All information is from the subject herself. Article fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) criteria: not widely cited, no large body of work, contains only primary source material from the subject herself, most of which is a listing of places subject has worked. Cited material are either her work or interviews of her. Ehusman (talk) 12:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The only reliable secondary sources are the two book reviews and while a good start it's probably not enough since these sources are lower bar coverage (Kirkus reviews many books). The remaining sources are all dependent in some way, not fully independent secondary, or just trivial. If the book had 2 or so more reviews I would probably change to Keep (and redo the article to reflect notability as a book author). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to satisfy WP:Creative. Article does read like a resume, sources are mostly primary, and there doesn't seem to be secondary sources that satisfy notability. PaintedCarpet (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Improve I acknowledge this page does resemble a resume of sorts. That said, the subject's body of work is comparable to many TV journalists and personalities whose presence on Wikipedia is well-established. For example, the subject has long appeared regularly on the two biggest business networks in the United States, (CNBC, Bloomberg Television), each of which has many personalities on Wikipedia with relatively similarly circular references. Adriannalopez (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is determined by sources about a person, not sources by a person. Appearing on TV is part of the job description to be expected not notable since these are works by the journalist. Also the existence of others articles on Wikipedia that fail notability is not reason for this one to be kept. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:31, 5 November 2013 (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. JohnCD (talk) 22:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

América de Cali strip

[edit]

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

Consensus in AfDs for similar articles here, here too, and also here has determined that this type of article is trivial. The references for this article are blog-type websites which do not satisfy the criteria for inclusion and do not sufficiently cover the kit (strip) in its own right. A section at the parent article is sufficient. C 679 07:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 07:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. C 679 07:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - THis article is just a gallery of kits. No indication that there is any widespread discussion of the kit itself in reliable sources to indicate that it has any notability separate from the club. Fenix down (talk) 08:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per previous consensus. Giant Snowman 09:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Fenix down. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 14:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is a lack of sources to indicate the importance of this topic. – Pee Jay 13:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with América de Cali, simply shows the evolution of the uniform as in other articles of sports teams.

What is the difference with the following articles? Arsenal F.C. strip, Manchester City F.C. strip, Parma F.C. strip

--Juliancames (talk) 14:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Giant Snowman 14:15, 5 November 2013 (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. --BDD (talk) 18:18, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Film Works

[edit]

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

The only claim that asserts notability, that one movie received "great" audience appreciation and was acclaimed by Suresh Oberoi is linked to a self-published source, which does not even mention Oberoi. Seems to be a vanity page. Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 07:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article seems to be fine, since the citation is given at places and the point about linking it to a self-published source is invalid, as the article clearly states 'Oberoi' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99maulik (talk • contribs)

The creator of the article, 99maulik, now seems to be outright lying. The article [69] has a claim that a movie was acclaimed by Oberoi, and this is cited to [70] (Google cache). This page as it stands now makes no mention of Oberoi (though I don't doubt that it may change, since, with all due respect, I think it is quite likely that the page creator is also the creator of that webs.com page). --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 07:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. Yet another start up article for a start up company with no significant coverage yet. Indeed, there isn't anything to support a Suresh Oberoi connection and, in fact, there's nothing on this company aside from COI (LinkedIn, Youtube, etc.). Although the company seems to have produced two films so far with another in production, none of it has received considerable attention. Of course, keeping in mind this is a new company, I searched Google News but found nothing. Even with this being a foreign company, it's plain to see it's not notable yet. No prejudice towards a future article or userfying. SwisterTwister talk 22:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - because it doesn't matter if that single source is reliable or not - it doesn't constitute significant coverage in multiple reliable sources required for commercial enterprises per WP:CORPDEPTH. Stalwart111 00:23, 31 October 2013 (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. No consensus to delete - current article is significantly less promotional that previous attempts, and appears to meet WP:NCORP right now (non-admin closure) ES &L 11:54, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

V Star Creations

[edit]

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

3 Speedy Warrants have already been rewarded to this article V_Star_Creations_Pvt_Ltd, Contributor of this article requested an undeletion and got rejected Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#V_Star_Creations_Pvt_Ltd. Once again the author created this article. P.s: This article is highly unsourced and not at all a notable company. Foodie (talk) 07:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The earlier articles were written in highly promotional language. This time around, the author finally got the message and posted a text that, with a little tweaking, became neutral. As for WP:N, I don't have time at the moment to compose content, but see what you all think of this collection of articles describing V Star's stand against the practice of nokku kooli.[71][72][73][74][75][76][77] —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have read each of these. They each appear to refer to a single news item about an industrial dispute. That dispute neither adds to nor removes any notability from the corporation in my view, since the incident is peripheral to the company's business. I see the most reliable source as being valid to add to the article as a matter of interest, but not as a matter of notability. Adding all of them would smack of WP:BOMBARD and would create some sort of faux environment purporting to enhance notability where none in enhanced. Your mileage may vary, of course. Fiddle Faddle 18:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I get your point, but I don't think the source of notability for a company needs to be limited to its lines of business, just as a person can be notable for having done something that doesn't relate to what he happens to do for a living. In this situation, I'd make a case that it is related: Within the context of corrupt government/union collusion to extort money from businesses in Kerala, when they pulled that stunt on this one business, its owner stood on principle and defied the nefarious forces in a public way that made an impression. And it wasn't just a single act: there were new developments a year or two later. In any event, I don't have strong feelings about it, but this is the way I was looking at it. Also, this is the only potential trigger for notability that I could find. Reports that the owner donated a kidney at best could be used to argue for his notability (and indeed Wikipedia has an article on him), but not in a form inheritable by the business, even though it is mentioned incidentally in the reports. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on the version of the article in place at the time of AFD. To the closing admin: If the article has significantly changed since my last edit to this AFD page, and if in your judgment the changes demonstrate notability, then disregard this !vote. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See also: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/V Star Creations Pvt Ltd. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based upon the single source in the article, a source which I view as passing WP:RS despite have a PR look and feel, I feel that sufficient notability has just been established for this organisation. It requires substantially more sources in order to be safeguarded for sure, but these sources must not be of the WP:BOMBARD type. The article is not a good article, and requires substantial expansion. It also appears to try to inherit notability from family members, something that is deprecated and is, ultimately, pointless. Fiddle Faddle 17:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question Am I incorrect in my understanding that if a topic does meet notability standards, it does even before the article has been properly sourced to reflect this? I was feeling that the seven links I gave here yesterday might be sufficient to satisfy folks of the business's notability for purposes of this discussion even before I get any of them into the article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, notability either exists or it doesn't exist, independent of what is in the article. However, an article can "fail AFD" if the article does not adequately demonstrate notability and the reviewers are unaware of credible evidence of notability. It can also fail at AFD if the reviewers believe that the best option is to WP:STARTOVER. I have not had time to look through the links above, and I may revisit my position after I do. Should this article survive, it is very important to have the article be solid enough to avoid any return trip to AFD. This means that notability is clearly demonstrated AND it isn't such a poor-quality article that editors would rather have no article than the one that is there. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks! —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Being unsourced is not a reason for deletion (given that this is not a WP:BLP matter). That previous, significantly different versions were deleted is also not a reason to delete this version, Really neither of these should be mentioned in the nomination. The issue here is notability. Timtrent you are mistaken. If a business is written about extensively, whether for industrial disputes, or unusual personnel practices, or community engagement, or any other reason, even if that reason is "peripheral to the company's business", it will still be notable. The general notability guideline doesn't say anything about a company being notable only for its core business, nor does WP:CORP. Most often a company is notable, when it is notable, for its lines of business. But that is not always true. DES ^(talk) 13:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:03, 3 November 2013 (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. Consensus is to keep at this time (non-admin closure) ES &L 11:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of highest-grossing Kollywood films

[edit]

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

Official box office records are not kept in India, and definitely not in Tamil Nadu. There are no figures for these films and almost all the given sources are very very poor and unreliable. Veera Dheera Sooran (talk) 17:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we could either delete the article or replace it only with information verified by boxofficeindia, which I believe is the one source that the project has come to accept for box office takes. The sources currently in the article obviously have to go, consisting mainly of blogs or other self-published sources. If there is somehow an argument for keeping this, then I'll have to go in and remove every poor source from the article, and then remove all the unsourced information; my guess is that this will probably leave the article empty, though I've only scanned the article quickly. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This would be an interesting and worthwhile article if there were sources covering it. But there don't seem to be me. The nominator's logic appears sound to me and I can't see how this subject should be kept without allowing original research and improper sourcing. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and obviously write the gross collection in the article without which it is meaningless. Even if there is no one fixed source to the collection figures, as long as the source is independent, the number is acceptable. We have used such independent sources in many articles; GAs, FAs. When the info can be present their on individual pages, i see no reason why it can't be clubbed together in one article and arranged in progression. We definitely need to clarify that the sources are different and values are disputed. But the topic is notable and content is sourced.
@Qwyrxian: I have hidden non-RSs and the scene doesn't seem very bad. But i haven't verified anything with the sources. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are reliable statistics kept on the grosses? If so and if the numbers are added to the article I think it can be kept, but do these figures exist and if so where? Candleabracadabra (talk) 11:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SpacemanSpiff 06:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the subject is obviously important, and if the sources are less reliable than we would like, they are nonetheelss enough to support the article, as long as their approximate nature is made clear there. DGG ( talk ) 02:01, 8 November 2013 (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 23:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Post-Graduate Diploma in Global Business Operations

[edit]

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

If someone posted an article with the title "MBA at New York University", which consisted of generic information true of MBA programs anywhere along with specifics about the curriculum and the tuition, I suspect it would be deleted on the grounds the "Wikipedia is not your student course catalog". What this school offers isn't different from an MBA in international business; it says as much in the first paragraph. But because they've given it a different name, they've given the impression that even as a generic thing it's different and merits its own article. I disagree, and I believe it amounts to a pitch for the college's international MBA program along with catalog-type information. What do you all think? —Largo Plazo (talk) 05:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 05:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 05:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm also noticing that as long as it's been there, while not tagged as such, the article has no references other than the university's own publications. —Largo Plazo (talk) 05:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A slight reassessment: since the name of the school isn't included in the article's title, a better analogy would be creating an article titled "Master of Business Administration" that deals only with the MBA program at one school. It may be that no other school uses this article's title as the name of any of the degrees it awards, but that gets back to my original point about this being, despite the name, nothing more than an MBA, and it seems odd that it should merit a separate article just because the name is different. —Largo Plazo (talk) 05:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not finding significant coverage in reliable secondary sources - just the primary source coverage from the article. It does indeed look like a promotional piece based on a variant name. Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the basis of the nom's arguments. We have normally deleted articles like this on idiosyncratic program titles. DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 8 November 2013 (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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shortcut Slant Asymtote

[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, sorry! —Largo Plazo (talk) 05:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP is not a school text. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. This article is pure WP:original research and signed as such. D.Lazard (talk) 08:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A11. Obviously made-up by the article's creator, and the article says as much. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, by "made up" I understand "make-believe" or something invented by the writer or his pals, like a new game or fictional character or buzz word. That's distinct from original research that represents real knowledge but which, while it doesn't belong on Wikipedia, isn't grounds for speedy deletion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think your understanding of "made up" is too narrow. See WP:MADEUP. This is a valid speedy deletion candidate. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion isn't mentioned in that article, other than a See Also link. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do see that at Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#A11._Obviously_made_up it says "An article which plainly indicates that the subject was invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and does not credibly indicate why its subject is important or significant." The "discovered" part bothers me a bit. I'd hate to think that if Einstein posted the original Special Theory of Relativity article, it wouldn't be seen as entitled to a full deletion discussion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The policy is what it is, and means what it says. Your narrow reading of it is not supported either by the text of the policy or the further content guideline WP:MADEUP which elaborates on this point. Let's not engage in hypothetical slippery slope arguments by invoking Einstein. This article should clearly be deleted quickly, either as a speedy or a snow. (Also I wonder why you nominated this article for deletion if you now seem to be arguing against its deletion.) Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised that you don't understand the difference between being in favor of an article's deletion and having the impression that it may not qualify for one or another of the deletion options. You could ask the same question of every person who has ever nominated an article for deletion without attempting Speedy first. Anyway, why haven't you just gone and requested speedy deletion? —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This isn't an encyclopedia article in any way. epzik8 16:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A11. Also, not even slightly encyclopedic. PianoDan (talk) 15:30, 1 November 2013 (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 [[Diwali]]. Consensus is that this article need not exist on its own, as the sweets in question are not typically specific to Diwali alone. As such, merge into and expand Diwali to discuss those specific to that festival (non-admin closure) ES &L 11:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diwali sweets

[edit]

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

I couldn't figure out under which category i should mark this one for CSD. Now i think this article should be Merged with Diwali or deleted.--Foodie (talk) 04:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Shouldn't this be the subject of a WP:MERGE discussion (on relevant article talk pages) rather than a deletion discussion? Stalwart111 05:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez i think you're right. I wasn't sure about it. --Foodie (talk) 07:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's up to you - I can procedurally close this to allow you to start that merge discussion if you like. Stalwart111 07:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did some research once again and now i think deletion is the right option. This article just doesn't make any sense and should be deleted. --Foodie (talk) 11:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine - as long as you are advocating deletion (even with other options) this discussion is procedurally okay. Others can contribute from there. I'll hat this bit. Cheers, Stalwart111 12:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the hatnote. This discussion is relevant. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I would suggest deletion. Any sweet that you have during Diwali, i.e. any Indian sweet, will be here. This makes no sense. I know that some desserts are traditionally made in Diwali whereas some aren't, but there's no restriction as such. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as we have comparable articles for other festivals such as List of Christmas dishes and Easter food. Warden (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We could have such article for Diwali as well if there was really a fixed set of dishes being prepared. Being culturally varied, these sweets change from state to state. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 19:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At the very least, needs added context and rewriting. — TheJJJunk ^{(say hello)} 15:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are there sweets unique to the celebration of Diwali, for example special preparations or large items, or sweets that are only made during that time of year? Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Of the list, laddu, rasagulla, gulab jamoon, rava laadu, jalebi, mysore pak, son pappadi, barfi, halwa, kheer, rasamalai, are quite common. They might be "special" in some regions whereas quite common in others. Like Rasagulla is a common dish in Bengali tradition. In metros and larger cities you will find shops selling these all year round. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 20:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 20:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See the article List of Christmas foods as an analogy--almost all of those listed there are not specific to just the holiday. , but are nonetheless characteristic of its observance. DGG ( talk ) 01:56, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While some Hindu/Indian festivals do have specific food items associated with them (say, Ganesha Chaturthi and modak; pongal and rice/Pongal (dish); holiand bhang, gujiya etc), Diwali is not one of them. Rather Diwali is associated with general feasting and sweets of all types. The comparison to Christmas, Easter etc is not really pertinent in my opinion. Abecedare (talk) 13:13, 8 November 2013 (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 by User:Jimfbleak per CSD G11, "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Parducci

[edit]

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

Unsourced biography. I found him linked in a few articles, so I did a little research. Couldn't really find anything except that he's been in a few movies that the IMDb says are awaiting 5 votes, and he recently published two e-books that have no reviews. His publisher advertises that they aggressively promote their authors, and his article was created by a single purpose account. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A look at his IMDb page shows mostly bit parts and one-off roles, things that are far from what the article claims. Not that bit parts can't get attention, but it's rare that they do and I couldn't find anything that shows that he's an exception. I found two mentions in the LA Times for a bit of comedy he did with two other people, but the problem is that's all that seems to be out there. This looks to be a pretty blatant puff piece written by what was likely a COI editor, since their sole edits appear to have been attempts to add Parducci to various different pages. This could probably be speedied as sheer promotion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very much an 'EXTRA', his IMDb ranking is in the 135,000 range so not very famous in the movie circles either. Only big production he has been in is Switchback as Man in Shower. Sorry but no, some extras do deserve to be listed on wikipedia but he isn't one of them..--Stemoc (talk) 05:54, 30 October 2013 (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 List of Horrid Henry characters#Sour Susan. (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 22:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sour Susan

[edit]

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

This article is quite sour as it's a very tiny stub on a fictional character that fails to establish separate notability from its source media. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 02:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to an artilce on the series. This is what we usually do. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Horrid Henry characters#Sour Susan. Not a notable character. Does not seem to have significant coverage, as required by the WP:GNG.NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per NinjaRobotPirate. No significant coverage found to suggest an independent article is warranted. Gong show 23:07, 31 October 2013 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Connie Corleone

[edit]

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

More Godfathercruft. Character fails WP:GNG - only source is Blogspot. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 02:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 02:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 02:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 02:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google News link above shows many newspaper articles that deal with this specific character, including WaPo And NYT. Just because the sources aren't currently in the article doesn't mean the GNG is not met. Jclemens (talk) 06:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones are you talking about? I found only mentions in articles about the films and an unrelated musician. A bunch of name-drops don't equal substantial coverage. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 11:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As noted by Trescott, the reliable sources that mention the article subject do so only incidentally, in passing - there is no real in-depth coverage of the article subject itself. Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Corleone family or Delete. The Google News stories seem to be about The Godfather series or Talia Shire herself, rather than the character. I think a merge is probably called for, but I would support deletion as a fallback. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A significant character with a role in the plot in an extremely famous film? and also in the famous novel-- That's certainly enough reason for a separate article. For films & novels of this importance, the distinction is between those characters who are just background, and those who have an actual role in the events. In both, the events involving here are unforgettable. Has anyone actually checking in the by now fairly extensive literature of the works? DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A small role in the novel and three films does not justify keeping this weak stand-alone article. Poor content; obvious padding. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 08:38, 8 November 2013 (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. Consensus hasn't changed from prior discussions. Editorial questions related to objective criteria for inclusion in the list can be addressed on the article talk page. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of chemical compounds with unusual names

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article at present violates WP:NOT, in that it's a loose coalition of compounds unusual for different reasons. As such, they should be split into different lists, like List of chemical compounds named for shapes, List of chemical compounds named for brand names, etc. Note that last AfD was in 2010 and I didn't participate in it. Furthermore, though the article is "sourced", only four of the references are in the lede, and none of them provide an objective criteria (which is needed for a list to be kept) of what constitutes "unusual". Also, remember WP:TRIVIA and the policy/guidelines about "in jokes". p b p 00:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The nominator suggests that the content in this article should be split into new lists, but if it's deleted, then this proposed split won't be very easily performed. Split discussions can occur on talk pages, rather than at AfD. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those lists would at least have objective criteria. However they would still be lists of trivia. BayShrimp (talk) 00:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of films considered the best. Yes other stuff does exist, but the film list has been snow kept several times.Martin451 02:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Best films" is quite a bit more notable than "chemical compounds named for shapes." BayShrimp (talk) 05:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No objective standard for inclusion in the list. Nor can there be since an "unusual name" is a matter of each person's opinion, not of fact. On one hand every compound's name is distinct so that "water", "alcohol", "rust", etc. are all unusual. What the fans of this article seem to think are unusual names are mainly those that suggest some "naughty word" in English. An encyclopedia is for facts, not for someone's opinion of what is "unusual." BayShrimp (talk) 00:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as usual). As usual, there are objective standards and cited ref(s) for claims of "unusual"...as usual, approximately "if a reliable source says so". Whether the article needs some pruning (other editors adding whatever they think is unusual) vs sticking to WP:V material is (as usual for this article) an editorial issue for this article. There is an explicit and verifiable scope and inclusion criteria. The article is not so long that it needs to be split. And there's no obvious objective criteria for deciding how to split either. But split != delete. But no prejudice against creating separate "list of chemicals named for..." if someone feels like it (and there are many that do fall into those categories that are not "unusual"). Why are we here and again? DMacks (talk) 01:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Consensus can change, articles may be AfDed again after a number of months/years have passed. And "if somebody says so" is subjective, not objective. Objective would be "It did this", "It is in this place", "It is named after this", etc. p b p 02:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, articles can be nominated for deletion again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again until those you are arguing with loose the will to argue. "if somebody says so" is what wikipedia is about. We document what other people say and think and publish. When many people say Cummingtonite is a funny name, we report that. If there is a common element (pun intended) we group them together. We do noy whole heartedly delete/rename articles because they contain words like "unusual" or Arsole.Martin451 03:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it's OK for content in an article to be based on "somebody says so", but he criteria for lists requires a little more than that, such as "people who did X", "places that are Y", etc. But keep in mind that the use of the word "unusual" to describe a BLP, it'd be gone in about five seconds. And since Arsole has its own article, we're not losing content by deleting this list. We're just losing an article that consists in an all-too-large part of flatuence jokes p b p 04:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: One isn't allowed to change one's name to Arsole Martinevans123 (talk) 15:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC), is one? (is it Latin?)[reply]

Comment selection criteria are discussed in the Manual of Style for stand-alone lists and are not relevant to a deletion discussion. RockMagnetist (talk) 01:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clickbait list-of-50-unusual-things looks like it should belong on the Huffington post rather than Wikipedia. Or, if this is kept, at least severely trim it to compounds for which the unusualness of their name has been documented — which seems not to be the case for the current list. Rather, the list looks like some editor's opinion of what's unusual, documented by sources that in most cases only verify the name itself, not its unusualness. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Diff for all changes from last time there was consensus-keep until now. DMacks (talk) 01:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Chemical names such as Pu are unusual and do not fall into other categories. We could have list of chemicals named after geometric shapes, list of chemicals named after brands, but where would we dump the Pu and Arsole jokes, or those that just accidentally take the piss. Lists of unusual things are notable, even if the name is an accidental emmision [78]. Martin451 02:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Seaborg story can be told at Plutonium. We don't need, in any list, stuff that was named as a fart joke. That is pretty clearly WP:NOT p b p 02:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is pretty unclearly, instead, since I see no WP:NOT section saying "thou shall no mention stuff that was named as a fart joke". Given how shaky is your understanding of WP:NOT, judging from the other related AfD, my advice is to stop handwaving it as if it was a free WP:IDONTLIKEIT jolly. --cyclopia ^speak! 16:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "your understanding of WP:NOT is shaky", what you really mean is "I don't agree with what you're saying, so I'll claim you don't understand policy". As such, your claim that my understand of WP:NOT being shaky is inaccurate p b p 16:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When you attempt to read my mind, you fail miserably. It's not that I disagree with you. I do, surely, but that's another thing -after all there is a lot of people who disagrees with me and that nonetheless has a more than decent understanding of policy. It's that you, instead, cite policy without understanding it, as proven repeatedly by your comments: e.g. claiming that the policy mysteriously forbids topics related to fart jokes, or by claiming elsewhere that an analogous topic on which entire books and articles are regularly written is a "non encyclopedic cross categorization". As such, my claim that your understanding of WP:NOT is shaky is sadly accurate. Of course policies can have different interpretations and grey areas, but you seem to consistently miss the point of them. You're free to believe otherwise. --cyclopia ^speak! 16:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per BayShrimp. 'Unusual' is in the eye of the beholder, and these represent nothing but the personal perspective or quirky sense of humor of the individual making the list. There is nothing 'usual' about deoxyribonucleic acid, tungsten or MAP kinase kinase kinase either. While at least some of the entries are referenced, a quick survey shows the references to refer to the origin of the name, or the derivation of the chemical compound, and not that the name is unusual. This list is just as arbitrary as 'list of things I think are interesting' or 'list of funny jokes'. While this may eliminate a venue for juvenile bathroom humor puns, I suspect the Wikipedia project will not be much the worse for the omission. Agricolae (talk) 02:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just the personal sense of humour of the individual making the list, as Agricolae says. In no case is the supposed unusualness of the name backed up by a source. Fails WP:LISTN. -- 101.119.14.248 (talk) 03:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The analogous list at Place names considered unusual was moved to Wikipedia:Unusual place names back in 2006, if I'm not mistaken. Perhaps this article should be handled similarly. Cobblet (talk) 04:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Pitch till you win" is an amusing carnival game, but an inappropriate and disruptive tactic to use in AFD. So here is what I said at the fourth AFD in 2010: "Keep per WP:LIST, WP:V, and WP:N. There are several reliable and independent sources listing these as chemical molecules with silly names. See "Molecules With Silly Or Unusual Names," by Paul May, published by Imperial College Press, 2008, ISBN-13: 978-1848162075. See also "Storyville: Molecular scientists have a word for it." The Independent on Sunday, Feb 1, 2004 by David Randall. He also finds amusing "Curious chloride" and "Moronic acid" from the Bristol University list. In many cases, the names were selected to be amusing or whimsical. A ref specifically saying that "arsole" has an unfortunate silly name is [79] "Chemical Cock-ups: A Story of How Not to Name a Chemical Compound Created" BBC, 13th April 2006. Then they in turn cite the Bristol site. The Royal Society of Chemistry makes fun of the silly name of Moronic acid at [80] in their Autumn 2005 newsletter. Another reliable and independent source listing some of these as having silly names is [81] "The New Book of Lists: The Original Compendium of Curious Information"(2005) By David Wallechinsky, Amy Wallace, page 203. Any entries which are not citeable to a reliable source which says it is a silly or unusual name can be deleted by the normal editing process." Edison (talk) 04:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

. . . and in 2010 someone published a book, Things that Suck. Then there is 1001 Ridiculous Sexual Misadventures. And let's not forget, Stuck Up!: 100 Objects Inserted and Ingested in Places They Shouldn't Be. Just think of all of the wonderful lists we could make. Agricolae (talk) 05:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources may be independent of the subject, but they're mostly not independent of each other. The Book of Lists and the Royal Society newsletter are simply borrowing from May's list while Randall's article is about it. "Chemical Cock-ups" seems independent, but h2g2 is a tertiary source. In the Bibliography, there are works by Alyea and Metanomski that may be independent, but I can't access them. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Edison. Sources on the topic abound, the topic is notable, and entries can be easily sourced, so that no OR is required. It is also completely unclear what advantage to readers or the encyclopedia would be gained by deletion of this article.--cyclopia ^speak! 10:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the objective criteria? p b p 13:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are the objective criteria. In any case an AfD is about the topic, not the inclusion criteria. If you have issues with inclusion criteria (I agree the list needs serious trimming), that should be done on the list talk page.--cyclopia ^speak! 13:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can't say that the sources are objective if they're just some guy pulling a list out of thin air. Period. Sources like that are not objective p b p 16:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If WP only dealt with purely objective sources we would only have articles about mathematical theorems. Sorry, but nothing requires sources to be "objective", as far as I know (no, not even NPOV: what has to be neutral is the article, not the source). The point is that sources exist that deal with the topic, list the compounds and characterize them as such. That's what we need. That they pull it out of thin air or out of a secret but unquestionable Unusual-O-Matic algorithm is none of our business, at this level. In other words: I understand you don't like the sources, but that is not an argument. --cyclopia ^speak! 16:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying my own point: What we need is an objective criteria for us to decide what to include. The objective criteria is: "it is listed in sources about the topic". That's perfectly objective for us: either it is sourced, or it isn't. That in turn the source uses objective criteria or not, is an entirely different problem and a much less relevant one. --cyclopia ^speak! 16:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, whether or not the source uses objective criteria (and I might add, none of them do) is pretty darn relevant. p b p 16:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right sorry, that is the WP:PURPLEBACKPACK89SAIDSO policy, you are right, I'm going to change my !vot... wait, how is that it is a red link? --cyclopia ^speak! 16:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Edison who says it well. --Bduke (Discussion) 10:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is one of a number of similar chemistry pages Wikipedia:Unusual_articles#Chemistry_and_material_science. The list is factually accurate, referenced, and fairly well written. I'm not sure we should be deleting things simply because they're trying to be funny. Project Osprey (talk) 12:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And where's the objective criteria? p b p 13:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Edison and DMacksabove. This is not an indiscriminate list in the sense the WP:NOT disfavors or prohibits. However, all entries should be sourced to a WP:RS that specifically says that the name is unusual. DES ^(talk) 17:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Despite the book by May, this list does not satisfy WP:LISTN. Why? Because it is supposed to be a reliable source for notability of the list. I would not argue against citing May on the statement that adamantane is an isomer of twistane, but is he a reliable source for the statement that adamantine is an unusual name? How would you even define "unusual" for a chemical name? I think the more fundamental policy consideration is that the items in this list are loosely associated, being linked only by the vague term "unusual", so a reliable source may not even be possible. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow. The May book is, for example, a book by a chemist (if I understand correctly) on the whole subject of chemical compounds with unusual names. That is, pretty clearly, a reliable source on chemical compounds with unusual names. What kind of source would you ask instead? --cyclopia ^speak! 17:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that to satisfy WP:LISTN he needs to be a reliable source for the unusualness of the names. And how can he be that if he hasn't even defined "unusual"? RockMagnetist (talk) 17:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why should it be explicitly defined? All we need is sources doing the judgement. --cyclopia ^speak! 18:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have a very good list unless ALL the sources are using the SAME definition. Take the List of no-hit games article. Every source agrees on what a no-hit game is, and that a no-hit game is a notable topic. Neither of those things are true for this topic, and they have to be p b p 18:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LISTN does not at all require some precise and objective criterion for membership in a list, with some rigorously stated definition, and lists have always been sourceable to published opinions as to membership. We look for reliable sources saying something belongs to a list, and thus have more lists than if they were all based on simple "yes/no" membership criteria. The present guideline just requires that the class of entities in the list are collectively notable, not that membership can be determined with laboratory instruments. (Persons involved in this AFD are presently trying, at Village Pump, without much success, to change the guideline for lists so that lists could not be based on subjective critera such as "unusual" or "worst." It's an interesting tactic, to try to change the guidelines while an AFD is ongoing.) Edison (talk) 19:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Edison:, maybe the definition doesn't need to be precise, but have you thought about the many ways that a name could be "unusual"? It could be the longest name, or the one with the highest proportion of consonants, or an anagram, or the one most frequently misspelled, or the one that is used the most often ... Really, this list could be more accurately named List of names of chemical compounds that an English speaker might find funny. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For more on the difficulty of defining a word like "unusual", see What's Special About This Number? and the Interesting number paradox. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its understood that for an encyclopedia in any given language, "unusual names" are ones that are unusual in that language. But you raise an interesting point: Are there comparable lists of "unusually" named things in Wikipedias of other languages? Even in English, "Arsole" is probably not as funny in the US as in the UK, since it sounds nothing like "asshole," the US term. Edison (talk) 20:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you should mention that - I was thinking of that very example. Also, some require a particular cultural background - for example, you need to know about Adam Ant to get the joke about Adamantine. And some seem like cheats to me; for example, ha ha, Cadaverine - but wait, it actually is a chemical produced by decay of a dead animal. So what's the joke exactly? There are lots of trivial names that include words with other connotations, for example caustic potash or slaked lime, but didn't happen to appeal to May's sense of humor. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All of this is very interesting and I even agree, but it is also irrelevant -all what is relevant is what sources say. If you disagree with them, write your own source on the topic. --cyclopia ^speak! 21:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyclopia: remember that there are other reasons for deletion besides lack of notability. My main point is that the topic violates WP:NOT because it is a loose collection of information, being based on a very elastic term - "unusual". Much of the above discussion just illustrates how difficult it is to pin down the term, and how May's publication fails to solve that problem. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was not talking about notability. The problem, RockMagnetist is only of you disagreeing with the assessment of the sources about what is unusual and what not. I may disagree as well, but that is not our job here to simply throw them away because you don't like what they consider unusual.--cyclopia ^speak! 22:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However, it is our job to decide whether sources are reliable. May started a web site for fun, collected suggestions from others, and eventually wrote it up as a book, and that's the only independent "reliable source" for this list (all the others are derived from it, as I discuss above). I accept that May, being a chemist, knows whether a name refers to a chemical compound, but as to whether the name is silly or unusual, his judgement on the matter has no more value than yours or mine. So, for the purposes of this list, his book is not a reliable source. And it is all the less reliable because he has not even discussed what he means by "unusual". RockMagnetist (talk) 23:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, reliably sourced list that is likely to be of interest to readers. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Keep See previous nominations, no new developments V8rik (talk) 20:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This looks like it is heading to at least no-consensus-to-delete, if not an outright 'keep'. Repeated (5th nomination!?) nomination seems counter-productive and foolish. On the other hand, the current inclusion criteria ("a sample of trivial names") is vague and not at all discriminating. That needs to be cleaned up, or it will just invite a sixth (ugh!) nomination. The second inclusion criteria, "some examples of systematic names and acronyms that accidentally resemble English words," is much better, but could still be made more precise. I humbly suggest that some of the editors spending time crafting arguments to delete or keep the article could be better employed improving the criteria for inclusion. Cnilep (talk) 01:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A name change was also recommended in closing the first two debates. A more accurate name might make it easier to specify the inclusion criteria. RockMagnetist (talk) 01:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Edison and BD2412 have summed it up fairly well. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, categorise - Practically all named chemical compounds have 'unusual' names. There is no real barrier for inclusion - I would suggest a category "Named chemical compounds", with sub-cats "Chemical compounds named after people", "Chemical compounds named after places", "Chemical compunds with shape descriptive names", acrnyms, greek references etc and misc. Would be a shame not to be able to look this up, but needs to meet the Wikipedia:DISCRIMINATE aspect of WP:NOT - I would volunteer to categorise. (let me know)Prof.Haddock (talk) 18:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Edison has found sources that mention it, such as The Royal Society of Chemistry and things published by Imperial College Press on the subject. The same arguments about what the word "unusual" defines is going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unusual deaths (7th nomination). Having the word "unusual" in the title seems to upset some people. Dream Focus 21:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic easily passes WP:LISTN and so our editing policy applies. People were writing about whimsical chemical names long before May started compiling them too. As Nickon and Silversmith wrote, "actually, chemists do have a good sense of humor..." Warden (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment People keep claiming that this article has "sources" (plural), when I have provided evidence that there may be only one source and a lot of others that either copy it or discuss it. Since no one seems to have read my comment, I'll reproduce it here:

The Book of Lists and the Royal Society newsletter are simply borrowing from May's list while Randall's article is about it. "Chemical Cock-ups" seems independent, but h2g2 is a tertiary source. In the Bibliography, there are works by Alyea and Metanomski that may be independent, but I can't access them.

Instead of uncritically repeating the WP:LISTN mantra, perhaps someone could try to refute this? RockMagnetist (talk) 22:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I heard you the first time and have refuted your claim already. Warden (talk) 22:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what part of your statement is a refutation. Is it this? "People were writing about whimsical chemical names long before May started compiling them too." RockMagnetist (talk) 22:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The following sentence develops the point which is that Nickon and Silversmith's Organic Chemistry: The Name Game was published in 1987, was the result of ten year's work. and so long pre-dates May. Q.E.D. Warden (talk) 23:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, @Colonel Warden:, that is one of the sources I don't have access to. In Google's snippet view of the book, I can't even find the word "whimsical". So it would really help if you could tell us - does the book provide any more detail on which words are whimsical or otherwise unusual, or why? Can it be cited for inclusion of some of the words in this list? RockMagnetist (talk) 23:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can pick up a second-hand copy quite cheaply. For now, here's a review which makes it fairly clear that it covers this ground. Warden (talk) 23:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Colonel Warden:, the review does whet my appetite for more. Nickon and Silversmith's book seems like far richer fare than May's, which is heavily weighted towards the sort of stuff that would make a middle school student snigger. I do wonder why the supporters of this list aren't making any use of it. Why has no one cited it? RockMagnetist (talk) 05:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That work was added as a general reference to the article in 2007, six years ago. At that time, most entries did not have in-line citations - I suppose that blue links were considered adequate. And, of course, the process of adding in-line citations is quite laborious and few editors seem to have the skills, resources, time, energy and motivation required. To demonstrate the level at which most editors operate, consider a list created by the nominator: List of Crayola colored pencil colors. Presumably the nominator finds it easier and more entertaining to attack the work of others rather than improve his own. Wikipedia is a volunteer effort and you get what you pay for. Warden (talk) 09:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Warden: Actually, List of Crayola colored pencil colors was created by Red Slash and nominated for deletion by Purplebackpack89. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I see in the history. This diff shows the article creation and Red Slash doesn't seem to have edited the article. Warden (talk) 18:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Colonel Warden:, the particular article has nothing at all to do with this particular AfD. The purpose of AfD is to discuss the merits of this one article, not to bemoan me. I ask you once more to stop hijacking this thread to attack me. p b p 19:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:OSE, "these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes". Warden (talk) 22:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Colonel Warden:, OSE also says, "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist". Furthermore, WP:ATA says that OSE arguments should be avoided in deletion discussions. You are now being disruptive in your desire to embarrass or sanction me as a result of a perfectly legitimate (per Wikipedia:Consensus can change) deletion request. The "you're being disruptive by dragging me through the mud"...that comes from the notice at the top of every AfD editing screen. p b p 23:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATA says, "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this." One point of citing the pencil list is to show that you seem to require a higher standard for this page than you do for your own work. See WP:SAUCE. 10:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Your "cogent argument" boils down to "keep because Purplebackpack89 is inconsistent." Do you really think a closing admin will give such an argument any weight? You're making a personal attack and trying to justify it with policy. Please stop. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since the point here seems to have been lost, I shall recap. RockMagnetist asked why no-one had cited a particular source. My explanation was that many or most lists have few citations because such work is hard. Myself, I always like to back up my points with evidence so so I pointed to List of Crayola colored pencil colors as an example. That list has sources like "My own 8 pack of Crayola Colored Pencils" and so is tagged for clean-up. It seems quite ridiculous that we should be arguing about a comparatively good list which has been brought to AFD before and repeatedly retained with a result of Keep when there's junk like that out there. As this process seems quite inefficient and disruptive, I expect this discussion to be closed in a similar way to another recent case - with a finding that we should have no more such nominations per WP:DELAFD. Warden (talk) 15:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not that anyone cares at this point (I wish I hadn't been tagged--seriously, I don't have anything to add to the actual discussion) but I definitely remember creating that list, probably by splitting it from the main article. That was several years ago. I'd assume someone did a copy-paste move of it at some point, or it was deleted and then recreated. Anyway, I definitely did create that article at some point. I don't remember how exactly it happened though. Red Slash 16:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Early in this discussion, DMacks asked "Why are we here again?". Then he/she provided the answer in this diff and didn't even realize it. The list has not changed in any fundamental way - no one learned anything from the discussions. If the defenders of this article don't want to keep repeating these sterile arguments, they should be asking themselves, "How can we keep this from happening again?" I have tons of ideas, but I'm ready for sleep. Let's see if anyone else can come up with some ideas before I offer my suggestions. RockMagnetist (talk) 06:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Why not start discussions on the talk page for whatever problems you think the article has, and work it out through normal editing practices? AFD is not cleanup. Dream Focus 08:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The policy WP:DELAFD recommends blocking disruptive editors who "...repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome." This might seem harsh but notice that the previous nomination was by TenPoundHammer who has a long record of making vexatious repeat nominations and is still doing so. The nominator in this case seems similar. They have only just finished serving a one week block and yet here they are, stirring up trouble again. Wikipedia is often compared to a MMORPG and such pastimes are commonly plagued by griefers. We should perhaps be more severe in restricting access by those who are not here to compile the world's knowledge. Warden (talk) 09:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Colonel Warden:: WP:AGF and WP:NPA. If you look at my edits between that (IMO wrong, and clearly nothing to do with my participation in AfDs) block and the (IMO correct) nomination of this article for deletion, you'll see a number of edits that added new content or replaced bad content with good. Saying I'm not here to "compile the world's knowledge" is inaccurate, and since NOTHERE is about improving the encyclopedia rather than just adding content, it's even more inaccurate. What is particularly disheartening to me is the continual calls for blocking me or forbidding me from AfD participation. You and Dream and Cyclopia have tried to do this to me at least once, and to TPH many times, and usually have been met with disapproval and/or trouts. What needs to stop is you continually clamoring for people like me and TPH to be sanctioned. As for nomination of this article for deletion, it was last nominated in 2010, and per Wikipedia:Consensus can change, it's OK to revisit a discussion that's three years in the rearview mirror (and FWIW, we've gone from 1 delete vote to many, so there has been a shift). I really wish you three would focus on actual arguments rather than "it was renominated too soon" and "I don't like TPH and PBP" p b p 15:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Purplebackpack89:, I honestly don't remember having called for you to be blocked or sanctioned, nor I remember having asked that about TenPoundHammer. Care to elaborate? It is well possible my memory fails, but I'm perplexed. --cyclopia ^speak! 18:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see here. CallawayRox started it, you supported it. p b p 19:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, Purplebackpack89, a topic ban from the topic of ARS? Hardly a huge sanction, and absolutely not forbidding you to participate to AfDs. Point taken however, I didn't remember that. --cyclopia ^speak! 10:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged the first compound in the list, Adamantane, as requiring a citation for the implied claim that it is unusual. Who is claiming it is? Looks Ok to me. However, I would not !vote delete for this list, it just needs proper sourcing. Several entries simply have no citations. Maybe, remove all the unsourced compounds, and only allow re-admission with sources? See what was done for List of films in the public domain in the United States, a potentially subjective list initially mostly unsourced, now has every single entry sourced (I hope). Also, for what it is worth, I do not consider the nomination disruptive, the list always struck me as borderline encyclopedic but with possibilities for cleanup. -84user (talk) 12:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While, List of films in the public domain in the United States may be many things (and that list may be cluttered and full of extraneous junk and in need of a good clean up), the one thing it isnt is "potentially subjective" - a film is either in the public domain or it is not. "unusual", however, will always be subjective. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus: that's exactly what I plan to do. @Warden: I totally share your distaste for disruptive editors, but by focussing on them you overlook the obvious question - why does this list get picked on so much? @84user: good start. Now over to the talk page. RockMagnetist (talk) 14:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have created the talk page section How to protect this list against challenges. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rock, I don't think you can definitely say, "Let's never revisit this again". Per Wikipedia:Consensus can change, nothing is final. We may revisit this again in 3-10 years, under a different nominator than me. The problem is that it's based on either the subjective judgment of a Wikipedian, or the subjective judgment of some author. If you found an objective method, or you split this into articles based on nomenclature (my original suggestion). p b p 23:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Purplebackpack89: You have completely missed my point. I am saying that, if the defenders of this list don't want to keep having this argument, they should take the criticisms seriously and either improve the list or merge it with Trivial name. And I have links to specific suggestions for both courses. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Trivial name. I have started a merger proposal here. I know it's a bit messy to have an AfD and merger proposal at the same time, but I want to present some serious alternatives that might break this AfD cycle while people are paying attention. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The so-called trivial names are names like water or cholesterol. They seem to be the opposite of unusual and so the merger would violate the principle of least astonishment. Warden (talk) 18:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although I am voting for a merge here, I would like to keep the merge discussion on Talk:Trivial_name#Merger_proposal. Otherwise it will get confusing. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per Edison!... →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete List of chemical compounds that May thought had unusual names is not an encyclopedic topic. Criteria used by May and any other reliable source will be different. No actually objective criteria have been put forth that would allow readers and editors to know what should be included or excluded. Giving special credence to any published author who happens to use the word " unusual" is to give them WP:UNDUE weight. We are not a collection of indiscriminate trivia. WP:IINFO.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNDUE requires us to "fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". May is a published authority on the topic and his work is influential, being re-published by the Royal Society, for example. This is exactly the sort of material we should base our work upon. Your personal distaste is irrelevant per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Warden (talk) 20:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If May is indeed the expert on unusually named compounds, then giving other voices the same validity as May would indeed be WP:UNDUE and would lead to List of chemical compounds that May thought had unusual names which is clearly not an encyclopedic topic. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per 84user. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Edison and DMacksabove and others. Edwardx (talk) 10:44, 2 November 2013 (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.