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. Closing this early, because the article has been rewritten so that the earlier votes do not apply any longer. Per Cunard's comment, I am deleting the earlier history of the article. NW (Talk) 15:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Najah Secondary School[edit]

Al-Najah Secondary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Personal essay, unsourced original research. JNW (talk) 23:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. 72.83.205.80 (talk) 00:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it helps to say why. DGG ( talk ) 01:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete & rewrite The problem is that an article could be written about the subject, since all HS are notable. Unfortunately, the present article is not really useful as a start. Rather than rewrite it as is , i think it should be deleted, possibly by speedy G10 , to remove the unsuitable material from the edit history before re-starting. DGG ( talk ) 01:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• What DGG said. Go out and buy your lotto tickets now, because DGG and I agree on this. JBsupreme (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above; it is an unsourced essay and soapbox. Bearian (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I also agree with DGG here, but I think deletion is appropriate if there is no improvements. The article has no indication of notability and I don't see sources beign added. Even if they were, the article would require a fundamental rewrite. Essays are not what I want in an encyclopedia, AfD is about the article, not the article's name. The page can be recreated if there is notable content; and my !vote (the ! makes all the difference) changes if there is notable content and the personal essay content goes away. Shadowjams (talk) 05:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but purge page history per my rewrite. This secondary school's existence is confirmed by this Google Books link. Per DGG (talk · contribs)'s comment above, the content that existed prior to my rewrite should be purged from the page history because it contained attacks on the principal of the school. Cunard (talk) 07:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 07:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 07:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'm confused. The article indicates the school is in Israel. The political party mentioned in the article is in Morrocco, it would appear from the link. And the article is listed as a Pakistan stub, and included in the categories "Girls' schools in Pakistan" and "Pakistani school stubs".--Epeefleche (talk) 07:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for pointing out the mistakes. The school is located in Palestine. I have corrected the stub tag and category link. The correct political party is Independence Party (Palestine), instead of Istiqlal Party. Cunard (talk) 07:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks!--Epeefleche (talk) 08:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oops ... more questions. The article about the party is written in the past tense, and speaks of a party that "was" which has its origins in the 1930s. Can't tell when it ended. I'm not sure how that accords with this article, which appears present-day. Is that the correct party? Does it still exist, and is the article on the party wrong?--Epeefleche (talk) 08:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• My guess is that Independence Party (Palestine) has likely been disbanded. The article for the party states that the party's "origins lay in the Istiqlal movement associated with the short-lived Sharifian government in Damascus". The Independence Party was likely discontinued at the end of the Sharifian government. I have little knowledge about this subject, so I could be wrong.

  The school article currently says "[a] number of leaders from the Istiqlal Party have taught at the school." This is the correct tense because "have taught" indicates that the individuals used to teach at the school. It does not indicate whether or not the party still exists, so the same tense would be used even if the party was not disbanded. Cunard (talk) 09:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I did a bit of poking around, and found an article that indicates that the party "disintegrated within two years of its founding." That would be 1934. But I guess that's its claim to fame.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• One of the teachers, Izzat Darwaza, lived from 1888-1984, so it's possible that he taught at this school in 1932 or 1933. I can't find any English sources that say when this school started but there could be non-English sources somewhere. Cunard (talk) 10:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Apparently the school came first, then the party -- the book I cite to below indicates that it was in operation by at least 1928, four years before the party was created.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Per Cunard/DGG. See also reference in this book--Epeefleche (talk) 10:03, 1 November 2009 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Greenwald[edit]

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

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

Seems to be lacking secondary sources that show that he is notable as a craftsperson. Your thoughts? Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is an assertion of notability in the article, but I can find nothing to verify it. One of the 3 links does not work and the other 2 do not mention Greenwald at all. I can find nothing to establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 00:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I'm not finding the coverage that would establish notability. I did find this evidence for an award but it seems rather minor and without specifics in the article, it is impossible to identify if this is what is meant by award-winning. -- Whpq (talk) 14:54, 1 November 2009 (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 wrong venue. Use ((db-histmerge)) or ((db-move)) instead. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LYNX Red Line[edit]

LYNX Red Line (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article was created as a duplicate of the pre-existing LYNX Purple Line article instead of moving the page to reflect the new name of the line. Once deleted, the original article will need to be moved to reflect the change in naming. Patriarca12 (talk) 23:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Close - AfD is not the place for Housekeeping moves. Bearian (talk) 01:08, 29 October 2009 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

University of Reading Science & Technology Centre[edit]

University of Reading Science & Technology Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable part of campus at the University of Reading, no independent sources to demonstrate notability. There's no reason to have a separate article, any usable content can be merged to University of Reading. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - Subject does not appear to require its own article. Merge into University of Reading and/or Whiteknights Park. Snottywong (talk) 22:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: to University of Reading. Not independently notable. Joe Chill (talk) 23:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• merge as usual for these. . DGG ( talk ) 01:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the main page; no need to dwell on this one. TerriersFan (talk) 23:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Retain: There is plenty of precedent (see Oxford Science Park or Cambridge Science Park, or Category:Science parks) that suggests this kind of university private sector technology transfer hybrid is regarded as notable. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 11:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But this one is not a science park in the same sense - it is just one building, not a collection of science-based companies. It is no more notable than any university department. So, merge per others.YobMod 12:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The facts you base this call on are not quite correct. The subject of this article is a collection of science-based companies, albeit in one large building. The UKSPA, which represents the interests of science parks in the UK, certainly lists it as such. It isn't a university department in the normal sense of that term, so a notability comparison based on university departments is comparing apples with pears. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 12:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I've now added a cited reference to the UKSPA's entry for the Science & Technology Centre, plus one to UNESCO's listing of it, which means this article now satisfies the need for secondary sources. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 13:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extra references don't hurt, but the ones you added do nothing to establish notability and aren't really the sort of references that work well with WP:RS. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The policy I was looking to satisfy was WP:ORG and its requirement for secondary sources. The two I quoted were from a UK trade association and UNESCO, neither of which strike me as being 'unreliable'. Admittedly neither says much about the subject, but that isn't the point when trying to satisfy's WP:ORG's quite reasonable requirement for some verification of notability independent of the organisation itself. As that policy says, once notability is established, primary sources can then be used to fill in the detail. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 12:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, those other articles aren't really a credit to the notion that we ought to have articles on every "science park" a university creates. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't argue with that one. Perhaps we shouldn't have articles on science parks, but that is a bigger question that needs to be addressed somewhere other than here. Picking them off one by one isn't the way to do it. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 12:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:34, 3 November 2009 (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. NW (Talk) 22:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Bernstein[edit]

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

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

This was prodded; I deprodded for a more substantive debate. Subject is a former bankruptcy judge (bankruptcy judges in the U.S. work for the court, and are not presidential appointees); author of one law school textbook. Sufficiently notable? bd2412 T 22:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - Per WP:JUDGE: "Judges who fail specific notability guidelines (such as WP:BIO, WP:POLITICIAN, etc.) are nevertheless notable if ... they are non-temporary members of a high court..." The definition of a high court is given at WP:COURTS. I can't find any reliable sources that establish notability of this person. Furthermore, as far as I can tell (without being an expert on the judicial system), U.S. District Courts are not high courts by Wikipedia's definition. Therefore, notability cannot be established. Snottywong (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:JUDGE is, at present, neither policy not guideline. It's a proposed guideline in draft form. Its contents in its present state should not be relied upon to support a position. It does not reflect a community consensus. That's not a criticism of it; that's inherent in any proposed guideline that's still in the process of being thrashed out. I request that Snottywong reconsider his opinion without reliance on that page. TJRC (talk) 16:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citing an essay indicated he agrees with the sentiments of that essay, and those sentiments are part of his reaseon for !voting delete.YobMod 12:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. I can't tell if he was citing it as an essay or as a guideline; it may be clearer to you. I have no problem with his Delete position (I come down the same way myself, below), I just would like to make sure he's not doing so based on a a policy that does not actually exist. TJRC (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 06:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 06:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete. In terms of the possibility of inherent notability, I regard US bankruptcy judges as being somewhere between U.S. District Court Judges (who, being presidential appointees, confirmed by the Senate, and having lifetime tenure, I feel are inherently notable) and U.S. Magistrate Judges (who are appointed by the courts themselves, have 4- or 8-year terms, and can even be part-time; and who I feel are not inherently notable). I come down on the side that, given the terms of years and the non-presidential appointment, bankruptcy judges are not inherently notable. The position helps, but there must be something significant beyond it: an oft-cited opinion; a major case; or some work outside the bankruptcy court. In this case, there's nothing special about Bernstein's career as a bankruptcy judge, and the only extracurricular work is authoring a textbook and teaching law. Unless there's something very special about either, I don't see anything making this worthy of retention. I could be convinced otherwise if there's something more to it. TJRC (talk) 16:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't know Bernstein's name personally, but the Southern and Eastern districts of NY, along with Delaware, are strong bankruptcy areas. Putting inherent notability aside, there's an overwhelming possibility that any Southern or Eastern District federal judge in NY is going to have some major cases that grant notability to the judge. Shadowjams (talk) 05:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - Bankruptcy judges are federal judges, and while the nom is correct that they're not Article III judges they are substantially more rare and important than Administrative Law Judges. As per TJRC's comment, bankruptcy judges get 14 year terms and are not Article I judges (they serve at the pleasure of congress and not the president) and can only be removed for very specific reasons. All of that's an aside beyond the fact that the Bankruptcy court judges are fairly small and I would suggest possibly inherently notable. On this specific individual, his contributions to Colliers might be enough in any other context to secure his notability. Shadowjams (talk) 05:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per TJRC. Notability guidelines are to indicate that sources should be easily found, even if not in the article. This marginal case would need sources to actually exist to be notable. If he is inherently notable, where are the sources? This is not just non-notable, but unverifiable.YobMod 12:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Here are just a few reliable sources demonstrating notability: author of a "Must Read" Decision, author, 1590318129 author again, ISBN 0333969022 contributing author, law review author, author. The textbook authorship alone would satisfy the criteria for most academics. I am surprised there are calls for delete at all with a subject like this. Shadowjams (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no convincing demonstration of notability per the guideline. Eusebeus (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. District judge is not a high enough level, his textbook appears to be non-notable (e.g. only in 42 libraries in Worldcat), and there's no evidence that he passes any of the other WP:PROF criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I disagree with the premise that a U.S. district court judge is not at a high enough level. Given that it's a Presidential appointment, requires Senate confirmation, and has a lifetime tenure, I regard such judges as being inherently notable, the draft guideline WP:JUDGE notwithstanding. However, the subject here is a bankruptcy judge, not a district court judge. I make this comment in case future AFDs refer to this discussion for support for the premise about district court judges. TJRC (talk) 19:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. speedied Nja²⁴⁷ 10:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CTP Green Slips[edit]

CTP Green Slips (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A article that is made like a common forum spam post about Viagra except instead of Viagra we are left with spam about insurance. The-Giant-Andrew (talk) 22:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)User is a recreation of banned user, so this !vote is invalid --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete It mostly seems copied from greenslipinfo.com.au so I tagged it as a speedy. It could also be a G11 I feel. --Pontificalibus (talk) 22:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The subject of the article could be argued to be marginally notable. However, the current state of the article would need a complete rewrite from scratch. Until someone comes along that is willing to do that, this article need not exist. Snottywong (talk) 22:56, 28 October 2009 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Complicity (album)[edit]

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

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

Yet again, an article with the title Complicity has been created for the fifth Sum 41 album, which has not yet been named (the title Complicity was made up by fans) or given a tracklist by the band. No release date is known, either, and the recording process hasn't even begun. This is a clear WP:HAMMER case, as the album is not covered in reliable sources and likely won't be for at least several months. I recommend that this page also be salted due to multiple recreations. Timmeh 22:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No sources are available to confirm that this album will be released, no sources are available to confirm the suspected title of the potential album. This falls under WP:CRYSTAL. I think we can all hold our breath and wait until the album is actually released (or at the very least, officially announced by the band and covered in a few reliable publications) before we need an article on it. Snottywong (talk) 22:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Still no source of any kind (reliable or otherwise) to verify the title. Some of the content was copied from Sum 41. No source for the partial track listing or "Always" being included on anything outside of All the Good Shit. Obvious issues with WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL. Fezmar9 (talk) 22:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 23:37, 28 October 2009 (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 close - AfD started by banned user w/no other delete !votes. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CSI: Crime Scene Investigation (season 10)[edit]

CSI: Crime Scene Investigation (season 10) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article is by no means ready to be turned into it's own independent article just like how many more stupid titles we can make for future seasons of Total Drama Island. The-Giant-Andrew (talk) 21:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC) The-Giant-Andrew (talk) 21:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Unlike during the previous Afd on this article, the 10th season has actually started (as of several weeks ago). It's not a future season anymore. A google search turns up tons of pages with episode guides that match the episodes in this article. I don't see why this article can't get started now. Snottywong (talk) 22:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep My rationale for deletion last time was it was created in February 2009 and the mid-way point of Season 9 of CSI, way before any of the writers even cared about S10, and was just fanfiction in article form. Now that we have actual episodes and plenty of sources there's no problems here at all. Agreed with nominator that some low-popularity and kid's series do not need season articles, but network primetime series are a whole different animal. Nate • (chatter) 00:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are few valid citations for these episodes other than Twitter and blogs and people saying "I am right, wait and see". It upsets me rules are made and not enforced for citations, and it will be the demise of Wikipedia and any hope of being respected as a reliable resource for information. Triste Tierra (cannot log in at work) 24.176.191.234 (talk) 20:51, 30 October 2009 (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 - default to delete. It would be impossible to gauge a consensus that would stick, given this divided discussion. Both sides made good (and bad) arguments. Therefore, no consensus is the only correct outcome. However, this article is unique in that is was previously deleted, and that the 'status quo' is for the article to not exist. No consensus is just that - a closure that doesn't change anything, a closure that returns to the status quo. I just don't see consensus here to overturn a previous AfD decision, even if it didn't meet the strict requirements of CSD G4. (Note: this default to delete has nothing to do with BLP concerns or recent controversies.) \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 20:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Modified to no consensus, deletion overturned at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Human disguise

Human disguise[edit]

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

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

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

This is a procedural relisting of a CSD G4 deletion that was overturned as a result of a discussion at deletion review. A variant of the article (Human suit) was originally deleted per this discussion at AfD. Although the history of the deletion is complex, and a history merge has been performed, these facts are not particularly relevant to the present discussion. The article has been improved since the original deletion. The original reason for deletion: "[that it is a minor] plot device with no apparent real-world notability", could still be argued, however. As this is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Salt and then drop into the black hole at the galactic core Seriously, this page was disingenuously created to circumvent the then-active AfD on Human suit and is not even a content fork, it's a content mirror. I thought this was done with but a DrV was launched after the speedy and then closed without me ever so much as being notified! Please just delete this mess! Simonm223 (talk) 21:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page existed before hand, they just copying information over. A human disguise is better, since some of the examples mentioned aren't actually a human suit. Totally different AFD here. Dream Focus 21:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The original one was deleted because of religious people upset by part of what was original there, and all swarming in to say delete, before the article had time to develop into what it became at the time of its unfortunately deletion. But, whatever. There are plenty of notable series that have a character who disguises themselves as a human, so its a notable enough subject matter. And I did find books mentioning it in the last AFD. Dream Focus 21:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question I have read every one of the "delete" comments in the original AfD, and I cannot see any evidence at all that they were from religious people. Can Dream Focus direct us to the evidence? JamesBWatson (talk) 11:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Read the last AFD. Search for the name "Jesus". That bit on the list I believe bothered many people. Dream Focus 11:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It didn't bother me, and wasn't the reason for the delete. The abuse of DrV here is a huge problem that needs addressing. Verbal chat 11:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong, Speedy Delete and salt as per the very recent AfD of the exact same article. I have nominated this for a speedy. By the way, dream focus is both wrong and offensive in his summary of the previous AfD. Having been involved at both articles I'm very annoyed that I wasn't notified about the unrepresentative DrV. This article has no RS that establishes it as a notable concept. This is exactly the same AfD, changing one word doesn't change the lack of RS, notability, etc. This disruptive behaviour is going too far. Everyone at the previous, same AfD should be notified and it should be linked in a box at the top as normal. Verbal chat 21:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have removed the speedy; ((db-repost)) does not apply because the article was undeleted and listed at AfD as a result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 21#Human disguise (closed). New content has been added to the article so speedy deletion does not apply. Cunard (talk) 21:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The supposed new content is rubbish, and similar to content that was in the prior article. It is substantially the same. Verbal chat 21:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I was one of the main proponents of deletion and I am an Atheist. Verbal is likewise not known for a strong religious PoV (I am unaware of Verbal's personal religious convictions). Accusations that AfD was flooded by "religious" people thus demonstrably false. The original issue was the fact that the article was WP:FANCRUFT with no indicators of WP:GNG Simonm223 (talk) 21:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Disguise if there is any valuable information in this article to merge. Otherwise delete. Snottywong (talk) 21:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snottywong's suggestion is good as long as there isn't a bloody Human disguise stand-alone article afterward.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonm223 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 28 October 2009
• Strong Keep Clearly notable. This new article is ripe for expansion. The use of human disguise by greek gods, satan, in science fiction, and biblical stories is very well established. There are plenty of sources on google books and google news discussing the significance of the meme. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Care to provide any RS for that? Your cut-and-paste move during an AfD and then DrV on the copy is a clear abuse of process. Verbal chat 22:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they're in the article and I'm trying to add more, but it's time consuming to revert your vandalism and disruption. Please stop or you will have to be blocked for the duration of the AfD. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have not provided any RS that "human disguise" or "suit" is a notable concept, what you've given is WP:OR and primary sources that the term is used in books, etc - but not that it is notable. Verbal chat 22:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article is being vandalised by Verbal including this edit removing sourced content [1]. He's welcome to make his case for deletion, but if he can't restrain himself from vandalising the article admin intervention may become necessary. Please restore the article content that he removed (after adding a speedy tag and then a bunch of other tags when that was removed by another editor). This is getting ridiculous. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have a look at WP:NOTVAND and the links I gave in the edit summary. Justify your additions on the talk page please, I have challenged them. Verbal chat 22:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and salt per above.  Btilm  22:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete content fork (that it's an end around on AFD is annoying, but what are you going to do?), basically original research. It isn't an encyclopedic topic; it's a coat-rack for trivia.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but trim- there's enough for at least the material to remain. Perhaps not as a standalone article, but at least in some form. Umbralcorax (talk) 23:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I've not found any critical coverage of this as a separate topic in any reliable sources. (The search was well worth doing, though, because it did throw up sources for similar topics: why don't we have articles on Gender disguise, or indeed Fictional device? Editors interested writing articles on fantasy, science fiction, or literary themes might wish to explore that further.)

  On the other hand, I agree that "Human disguise" is a recognisable literary theme and there may be room to discuss it as a subsection of a larger article, such as Fantasy tropes and conventions. Would a merge be a reasonable compromise?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is a gender disguise? A merge is worth considering, but keep in mind this is a new article and likely to be expanded. I think it's appropriately broad as it is, yet still coherent, but I'm pretty flexible if there's a better way to handle the subject. The fantasy article you mention focuses on aspects in fantasy writing, while this one deals more with sci-fi, cartoon animation, and religio-mythological concepts. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's the thing in older literature such as Shakespeare where the girl dresses up as a boy to go and seek her fortune, or in Woolf where a character swaps gender during the story.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 07:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(later) Since this has turned from being a normal AfD into one of our regularly-scheduled battlefields between the Article Rescue Squadron and the Article Extermination Squadron, and there is now no hope whatsoever of a good-faith debate about sources, I have stricken my remark and wish to bow out of the whole matter. Regardless of how this is closed, I look forward to seeing it at DRV shortly.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - "Human disguise" is a notable and encyclopedic subject, with lots of possible references, while "human suit" seems like a concept from a cult. Bearian (talk) 01:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep many of the examples are clearly of very considerable importance, & show this as an element in a fiction. DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original research. This doesn't appear to be an article at all but a list of various unrelated instances in fiction and other literature. If the supposed link is a recognised literary theme then there should be reliable sources that identify and describe it - yet none can be found. I have no confidence that anyone has linked together Men in Black, The Old Testament and The Illiad in this way outside of the article. Guest9999 (talk) 05:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite simply not true. Science fiction writer and critic Stanisław Lem often depicted aliens as incomprehensible and was critical of other writers who simply depicted aliens as humans in disguise. Gary Westfahl, a prolific science fiction writer and critic who does not yet have an article, discusses it a bit in an article here [2]. This is a very well established trope. This is a very new article, so it's not surprising that it's taking time to developa dn is starting out by picking the low hanging fruit: noting from reliable sources where this plot device and theme has been used. A reasonable discussion of the name and how best to handle the content is fine. But frankly, the rush to an AfD hasn't provided much time to properly develop the article. The idea that no one has ever discussed this type of plot device is silly and some of the cites in the aritcle already show that it has been discussed in relation to cold-war themes, feminism, science fiction writing, etc. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment to my ear, "human disguise" is a neologism. i would prefer "list of fictional characters disguised as humans" with little content. i am also leaning towards delete as OR, but i do see some value in the idea here.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 14:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because the Evil reptilian kitten-eaters from another planet want us to delete the article so they can hide in plain sight. Seriously, the title could change, but the subject is fine. Miami33139 (talk) 18:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you provide an WP:RS showing the notability of the subject? Verbal chat 20:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The term "disguised as humans" clearly shows usable source material on books.google.com and scholar.google.com. Miami33139 (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• COMMENT Can the previous AfD be linked in a box at the top per standard procedure, and can all previous participants in the very recent AfD please be notified. Verbal chat 20:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure. Go ahead and add the box, and go ahead and notify the participants. Make sure to use a neutral message.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I can't say that I'm aware of the history of this articles interaction with WP:FTN, but this might be seen as WP:CANVASing - you may wish to redact it or modify it's tone. Artw (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It's correct and added to an already existing discussion of this article, at an appropriate noticeboard. You've already taken this to ANI and been smacked down for it, so stop peddeling this disruptive line please. Verbal chat 20:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've notified everyone (I think) involved at the previous AfD, and the FTN. Verbal chat 21:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Good, but, what does the Fringe Theories Noticeboard have to do with an article that purports to be about a literary and religious motif? I don't understand the purpose of notifying them.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed... and how is the phrase "abuse of process" to be considered neutral? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep They walk amongst us! Messy article, but it seems to cover a theme that recurs sufficiently to justify an article and could be whipped into shape (I'm adding Rescue accordingly). Artw (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• delete I can't see this article being anything more than a list of examples which is probably not notable. Also seems to be a recreation of the human suit article. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 20:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE Besides picking up the human suit article, the rest of this is just a list of every random thing that ever appeared in any context in the guise of a human being. I see no possibility of anything non-trivial or unobvious being said. Mangoe (talk) 21:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it is a recurring theme in multiple notable works of fiction and the like. I do like Mercurywoodrose (talk · contribs) suggestion of turning it into a list, but not outright deletion. --kelapstick (talk) 21:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have an RS for notability? Verbal chat 21:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are multiple reliable sources on the page that talk about the use of a human disguise, that plus it's frequent repetition as a theme in science fiction is enough for me to consider it notable, you are however welcome to disagree with my assessment. --kelapstick (talk) 21:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It is original research it is. Crafty (talk) 21:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - A Google News search reveals 17 pages of articles that use the exact term "human disguise". I have not gone through all of them, but there is at least two New York Time articles, one mentioning the device in science fiction, and another in fable/legend. Seems like reliable sourcing is out there, unlike for the more alien term "human suit". Cheers! Scapler (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The section "In religion and mythology" (which does not seem unrepresentative) is an irrelevant and fanciful bit of artificial knowledge that could not exist anywhere by any means other than desperate Googling to sustain a Wikipedia entry's notability. It is thus WP:SYN at best, and the rest of the article has been put together by the same method. Even a couple of academic lit crit articles on the motif would not make it a notable subject (they would just provide a couple of footnotable sentences for an article on a notable subject like Literary representations of the human form or some such). Wareh (talk) 22:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it is well sourced now and it's a notable topic with plenty of room for expansion. Jonathunder (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is not an article, but a list, and one that interprets "human disguise" so broadly that this is a collection of indiscriminate information. Besides which it's simply misleading--an article that claims that the Greek gods in the Iliad are doing something similar to the aliens of Men in Black is peddling nonsense. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - one or two sentences from the first paragraph may be reasonable to merge into the disguise article. The rest of this is a list of trivia, and the article serves no purpose other than collecting more trivia entries. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete seems to me like a prosified list of examples... an encyclopedia article should explain a topic, discuss it meaningfully, summarize published opinions on the topic... I don't really like the idea of an article that can do nothing but list 50 examples of the topic, and not talk about what it actually means. That's just trivia. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 00:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- not a real unifying article, just a grab bag of examples. Not a notable enough idea to warrant an article of its own. Auntie E. 00:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt this quite obvious end-run around WP:CSD#G4, and we need to start thinking about sanctions for stuff like this. Black Kite 01:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt: still no indication that a coherent topic exists without editor WP:SYNTH to create it. Article consists entirely of stringing together WP:PRIMARY sources with the occasional secondary source clearly using the word pair in their ordinary English meaning not as a term of art (e.g. "invisible or in some human disguise"[3]). Article in its current form was created as a clear end-run around original AfD. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 01:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment and sources - Some sources which actually talk about it as a subject, and thus do not require OR and synthesis to make a subject from: "Alien invaders in the movies tend to fall into two types. There are monsters from outer space ("The War of the Worlds," the forthcoming "Independence Day") and infiltrators ("Invasion of the Body Snatchers") who slip in using human disguise"[4] and "The Pagan deities often assumed a human disguise; and, when angels appeared to the Jews, it was always as men"[5] In these sources, instead of simple having examples and making up the subject, the subject itself is discussed. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 01:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment on lack of sources: bare use of the word combination "human disguise" in a very few sources does not amount to "significant coverage" (it is "trivial" coverage as that word is defined in WP:NOTE). Where are the sources that discuss (in something even resembling depth) the significance, history, etc, etc of 'human disguises' in literature? It appears that there aren't any -- therefore there should not be an article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete on the basis that, without sources really exploring this concept as a literary theme, it's just a pile of trivia in disguise. The current "in criticism" paragraph is completely off-topic; the quote is not about aliens literally disguised as humans, it's about fictional aliens that act too human because of a failure of imagination on the author's part, a very different thing. Everything else should get cut from the article as being primary-sourced trivia, but then there'd be nothing left. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: As a broad theme in literature, film, and television, I'd think it's clearly notable. Gods, angels, demons, monsters, aliens, and robots (Disneyland animatronics), and even other human beings (e.g. Hannibal Lecter in Silence of the Lambs, or the Mission Impossible crew) have worn human disguises. It's an unsettling topic that asks uncomfortable questions about how we know whether someone's really a human being, even what it means to be a human being. Whether the article's going to be done well or not is a separate matter, but surely it should exist. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 02:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and salt pure original research, unnotable topic, and trivia, and already deleted once. This recreate and rename should not fly. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Sizzle Flambé. Hobit (talk) 02:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Surprised keep. I wasn't expecting to want to keep this article, but looking at it in its current state, it already makes a reasonable claim that this is a notable concept. There are plenty of instances in fiction and mythology of gods, supernatural creatures and aliens that masquerade as human; arguably enough to say that it is a trope worthy of having an article about. There are issues with original research here, but it should be possible to find third-party sources that discuss this concept. Robofish (talk) 02:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I, like Robofish above, was surprised at my thoughts here, although obviously for different reasons. This is an extremely popular meme, as the article notes, and is all over the place. However, that is all the article notes, and therein lies the issue. Every (or nearly every) source only proves that this exists and is used, but I didn't see a single source that was actually covering the topic of human disguises. Notability requirements are for coverage in third-party sources, not mentions. I have not seen nor can see a source that is itself about human disguises/suits, and that leads me here to delete. Being a popular concept in media is grounds for inclusion in TVTropes, not here. Barring evidence of coverage and discussion of the actual subject, this article is essentially one giant "In popular culture" section. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge, per Snottywong's suggestion: I don't have a strong opinion on the subject matter, but as an article, it's fine. Snottywong might be onto something though that it would be more appropriate if merged with "Disguise".--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 04:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We could call this an "article disguise." It's a fairly random list disguised as an article. But the disguise is thin indeed. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and I liked the "Human suit" title. I consider the work that has gone into this article since it was first deleted under the other name, and in consideration of the term finding wide use in reliable sources and many books (Who didn't actually look?). The article will benefit from continued expansion and further sourcing as the term exists, whether Juman suit, Human disguise, etc., is used, and has a fascinating notability. All that need be recognized is the article's delightful potential for improvement and how it can be made to serve the project. What can be improved through normal editing does not belong at AfD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: yes I "looked" (I even quoted one in my 'delete' opinion). The "work" that "has gone into this article" was part of the basis for my opinion. The reliable irrelevant sources and 'much fluff' does not support notability (search results are no indication of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" -- that requires citing specific sources whose reliability and depth of coverage can be assessed). Mere "use" does not equate to "significant coverage". I recognise the article's "delightful potential", which I why I would like to see it removed as expeditiously as possible. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Nice that you looked. Other editors have looked and formed opinions quite the opposite of yours. That the original nominator of the previous article finds his concerns addressed speaks volumes [6]. The beauty of community is that we do not all have to agree. I do not expect you to agree with me... and I will respectfully disagree with you. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. For all the reasons given above and more. Rob Sinden (talk) 12:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The notability of this concept has not been established. Some of the examples listed are clearly notable but there is no indication that reliable sources have discussed these examples in terms of the more general concept. Our inclusion of them is a breach of WP:NOR. The manner in which this page was created, and the technicality through which DRV overturned the speedy deletion is a more general problem that must be fixed. This was a clear end run around an ongoing AfD.PelleSmith (talk) 13:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the content. Certainly, it could use more work, but as discussed at the DRV its creation was not technically a violation. This article is much larger and better sourced now than the human suit article I nominated for AfD was at that time. It touches on what makes humans different from other animals and ways that distinction has been imitated and treated in various ways in fiction, religion, myth, philosophy, and movies based on them. I would suggest mention of The Stepford Wives, which uses a human disguise as a major plot device. Merging to disguise or human and conversion to a list are both ideas with merit, but I think it's somewhat beyond a list at this point.   — Jeff G. ツ 13:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was a copy paste move of an article that was about to be deleted at AfD, a clear violation. The Stepford Wives are humanoid robots, not a disguise. Verbal chat 13:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • And thankfully that concern has been eminently addressed through the course of normal editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy merge of the few bits that would fit into disguise. We actually had consensus for that and the process had started. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What consensus? If it the article is kept, don't "merge" a small token bit over to another article, and then delete the rest. We could perhaps make an article called List of non-humans that have impersonated humans, or something of that sort, for the bulk of information, and just have a short description of a human disguise here. Dream Focus 19:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source for such a list would have to be something other than the current article, in order to avoid very idiosyncratic (WP:OR) or incorrect content. To source the inclusion of the individual items on such a list would mean finding reputable secondary sources that clearly put each item within the context of a recognized category. Even if such a category has a meager existence, the present article goes well-beyond any recognized topic of WP:RS discussion and simply does not correspond to its contents, but rather includes items willy-nilly based on personal criteria or Google gleanings (WP:OR). Wareh (talk) 19:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep and dont merge. Stunning rescue work by Child of Midnight and Dream Focus. This is shaping up to be a most excellent article. As an amateur classist Ive read the Iliad several times, along with some of the best regarded commentary by Bespaloff and Weil. But Id never worked out how someone like Diomedes was able to wound several gods – hes not even as good a fighter as Achilles. It makes so much more sense now I know he was just damaging their human suits! FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete and salt - blatant effort to circumvent the normal deletion review process. This is the same old article, just as unencyclopedic as ever, if not worse; and this kind of attempted end run is violative of process as well. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's very difficult to make a good argument that this article was created in circumvention of the normal deletion review process since it was recreated following a deletion review. Perhaps you've been misled by Verbal's canvassing and distortions? Is there a different deletion review process you wanted it to go through? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed this whole situation when it was at DRV, and it honestly seemed like the closest thing to a bad faith action was the G4 speedy deletion that prompted the DRV. I want this article deleted, but at least its proponents seem to be operating within the rules. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 14:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't see a problem with a cut-and-paste move (not allowed) while an AfD, which is clearly heading for delete, is in progress? The starting a DrV on that illegitimate copy rather than a request to restore and rename the original article? And the DrV didn't even get input from those involved on either article? I see several problems with that. Verbal chat 15:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article was originally deleted based on the AFD which hadn't even been closed yet, that was never disputed in the DRV. DRV isn't required to get input from any particular group beyond the people who happen to show up for the DRV. Perhaps I shouldn't have cleared CoM of any questionable actions, but the deletion of the article he started was very problematic, especially as the person who made the deletion apparently never explained it. There was a lot of confusion. I'll assume good faith and say it was confusion all around. If there's more "confusion" and it leads to a third AFD in the near future, I'll start to think maybe there's some circumvention going on... but I don't see the need for jumping to any conclusions just yet. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 21:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep very well researched article. I am very concerned by the many "usual" bad faith comments in this AFD also, "which [should be] ignored" by the closing admin. Ikip (talk)
  • Do you have RS that establish notability of the concept (significant coverage of the concept in third party sources?), and do you have any rebuttals to the delete arguments, and do you have any policy reasons for keep? This is not a vote - as you often tell others. "Well researched" is blatantly unsupportable. Verbal chat 22:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• PLEASE NOTE That the article has got worse since the AfD started, with many unsupported sections and sections that are not supported by RS, such as blogs or primary sources. Editors are resistive to any change or discussion, and are arguing that their OR trumps wikipedia policy. Verbal chat 22:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I DISAGREE and suggets that editors take a look at the articles history to see for themselves rather than taking Verbals word for this. Also the all-caps is very silly. Artw (talk) 00:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this is just a collection of film and book trivia with little to no encyclopedic value at all - mostly seems to be made up by the editors. As has been said above, the notability of this concept has not been establsihed at all. --Teaearlygreyhot (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Excellent article; insufficient reason to delete. Badagnani (talk) 23:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break[edit]

I just want to remind everyone that AfD is not the place to discuss whether an article is good or bad - those are (personal) opinions and should not impact an article's status. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I thought that this subject might be covered in the The Encyclopedia of Fantasy but can find nothing there. I have asked User:DeafMan aks David Langford whether the new edition of The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction will cover it.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete i had suggested content be changed to a list format, and retitled. while someone could someday make a nice simple list of fictional nonhuman characters or mythological nonhuman characters disguised as humans, this article is so overwhelmingly original research as to be impossible to fix. to keep this article, we would need multiple, secondary sources commenting on primary sources that discuss in depth the idea of "human disguise" across the entire spectrum of forms as listed here. its been said before: this is not a place to publish your ideas, no matter how interesting (and this could very well be the core of an excellent essay or book). I even think my attempts at fleshing out Aliteracy could be considered OR (and would not be offended if it was afd'd, though i would be sad of course), as i progress in my understanding of WP.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, especially "across the entire spectrum of forms as listed here." Without that, the topic this article's on is an WP:OR invention of the article's author. Wareh (talk) 17:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you've set up a catch-22. When it's a mere list, it's objected to on the basis that it's just a list; when it discusses some of the examples, and gives sources, the objection is that it synthesizes the material into a discussion. And now you object because it isn't a complete discussion--a standard few Wikipedia articles can meet What the actual article is is essentially a list in paragraph format, with supporting references.I am really a little puzzled by all this, since i think it's a fairly good article--certainly a fairly good one as a basis of further improvment, which is all that is asked for. This is not a FA discussion. DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any "List of..." article, in order to belong in the encyclopedia, should be a list of phenomena in a category that has been recognized by reliable sources. I do not think a list has to be complete--it can be a tiny work-in-progress sliver of a larger category. What I do think is that the larger category has to demonstrably exist in the scholarly/reliable-source world. So, for example, this article includes the Iliad, not because its gods have ever been considered by a reliable source to be part of a wider category of human disguises, but because the editor liked the idea of human disguises and googled for disparate uses of certain phrases which no reliable source has ever related to each other. That's what makes it WP:OR: the category itself of "human disguise" (defined so broadly as to include the various subject matter of the article) is an invention of the author, and no reliable source can be produced that defines it with the same scope. When a commenter below says, "I have seen it numerous times in television shows and movies," in justifying a keep vote, to me that underlines the rationale for my delete vote: the fact that you or I, as a consumer of pop culture, have noticed something apparently connected within certain boundaries, does not make it a WP:RS-supported object of knowledge. Wareh (talk) 19:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• comment I've re-added the Not a ballot hat, as removed by Verbal. There is sufficient psuedo-canvasing (or posisbly actual canvasing), disruptive editing, groundlerss accusations of policy breaches, non-policy reasons given for deletion, weord all-caps outbursts etc here and on related pages that I would assume the reason for it's presence is pretty self explanatory. Artw (talk) 18:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• And let's leave it to avoid further obfuscation and 3RR issues. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. The article covers a recurring literary theme/device that is notable and well-sourced. The active canvasing by Verbal (as linked by Artw above) and the disruptive editing by the same user, deleting valid sourced references added by ChildofMidnight, are especially disturbing. Such actions create the appearance that AfD is viewed as a competition or that there is some personal grudge-match going on. This is not how an AfD discussion should be handled. I suggest that the closing admin disregard votes cast by individuals canvased by Verbal. Cbl62 (talk) 22:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that I've tried to get Cbl62 to justify these accusations against me, and further discuss them, but he doesn't seem interested in either justifying them or refactoring the above personal attacks. Verbal chat 20:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response to Note. Quite to the contrary, I did provide justification for my comments and engaged in a lengthy discussion of the point on Verbal's talk page. As is his right, he chose to delete the discussion. The following diff], as cited by Artw above, appears to me to be canvasing. Indeed, in this recent diff, even Verbal conceded that: "Apparently my edit here above is inappropriate canvassing." I have also expressed to Verbal my concerns with his removal of referenced edits by ChildofMidnight. I have further raised with Verbal the issue of his having thrice reverted the "not a ballot" template from this discussion. See here, here, and here. I have no desire to antagonize Verbal or pick a fight, but the manner in which this AfD discussion has been handled suggests that a lot of personal "ego" is being attached to winning or losing the debate. I think it would be a good idea for all involved to take a deep breath and let the process run its course. The differing camps obviously feel strongly about the way the AfD has been handled, and things undoubtedly could have been handled better by both sides. I urge all involved to put "ego" aside. I have no stake in the article, have never edited it, and have no connection with it. Based on my read, it looks like a solid start on a notable topic. We can have differences of opinion, but let's keep things civil and lower the volume of the rhetoric. Cbl62 (talk) 20:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the topic is notable, can you please provide WP:RS for the topic, as that would end a lot of the discussion here. As to the "lengthy discussion", it was very short and you refused to justify your attacks. I'm fine for the AfD to run it's course, but using ad-homs and false and unjustified accusations of canvassing and vandalism are not hallmarks of grown up debate, and present an untrue picture of events. Artw reported me to ANI for what he calls "canvassing", but his interpretation was roundly rejected. Verbal chat 20:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the notability of the article is sufficiently established by the references in the article. This is a recurring theme in, among other places, classical literature, mythology and science fiction. You disagree. Not so unusual. We are entitled to have different opinions. As for accusing you of "vandalism," this is simply untrue. I made no such accusation and ask you to point to a diff supporting the statement. Also, I cannot find the ANI discussion where you assert that Artw's canvasing interpretation was "roundly rejected." Could you provide a link so that I may consider the comments made there? Cbl62 (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cbl's reply is also misleading, the conversation was on his talk page, and he kept editwarring it onto my talk page- leading to a 3RR warning. He removed the short conversation after the warning was given (by an uninvolved party) and I had requested calm. I gave several pointers to policy, and asked which I had broken with specificity. He refused to discuss, so I asked for the comments to either be refactored or removed. He still refuses. Verbal chat 20:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please, Verbal. Stop this. I have not accused you of "vandalism," as you assert above. Nor have I engaged in edit-warring, as you also assert. I simply have a different point of view on this. Cbl62 (talk) 21:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed, but Verbal has actually now reverted the "not a ballot" template for a fourth time. See here. Cbl62 (talk) 20:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

I've self reverted, but I'd still like the tag to be justified on the talk page.Verbal chat 20:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt - WP:INDISCRIMINATE says WP isn't the place for "plot-only description of fictional works." Similarly, I don't think that it's the place for an indiscriminate list, derived from otherwise-unrelated fiction & non-fiction works, just because all contain a common reference to a gimmick (minor in most, major in some). If, at some point in the future, multiple secondary sources all decide to cover the topic, then it will be worth an article. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well... since this is not a plot-only description of a fictional work, your arguments puzzle me. I am confused by your declaring this article as an indiscriminate list,when the lede spells out exactly what the article is about and shows that it is specifically not indescriminate. Since multiple reliable sources have been offered as sources, I am further puzzled by your summation that we might wait for a future when all sources must deal with this subject in the same or greater detail than an article in Wikipedia. That is not what WP:N states. That is not what WP:V mandates. That is not what WP:RS guides. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Given that it is substantively a "plot-only description of a fictional work" (sprinkled with a few bare-mentions in secondary sources), the argument would appear cogent. The "future" in question is one where "significant coverage" (not bare mention) is found in third-party sources. For the coverage to be "significant" it will, of necessity, have to include some in depth discussion of the device/motif of a 'human disguise' for a non-human. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Contrary to your opinion, the argument is not cogent, which is why I posed my puzzlement to User:DoriSmith... but not to you User:Hrafn. Your opinions have repeatedly been made quite clear. User:DoriSmith above declared this as a plot-only description of a fictional work, and yet did not state the fictional work of which it was felt to be a plot-only description. IUser:DoriSmith above declared the article as an indiscriminate list, when the lede spells out exactly what the article is about and shows that it is specifically not indescriminate. User:DoriSmith suggested we might wait until ALL available reliable sources deal with this subject in the same or greater detail than an article in Wikipedia. That suggestion is contrary to WP:RS, WP:V, WP:N, WP:DEADLINE, and WP:WIP. Since multiple reliable sources have been offered as sources... sources which deal with the subjects of the article in a more-than-trivial fashion, your continuing to claim they haven't or that they are all bare mentions is not helpful. And unless User:DoriSmith is an alternate account of yours, perhaps you'll please let the editor then speak for themselves should they wish. Cheers. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• User:MichaelQSchmidt, maybe you should try taking a look at what I actually wrote, and maybe then what I said would become more clear. For instance:
  • I did NOT "[declare] this as a plot-only description of a fictional work""—what I said was that, to me, this article has similar issues to those that are covered by WP:INDISCRIMINATE (see the word "similarly" up above?). I believe that if a single plot-only description of a fictional work isn't allowed, then grouping several of them together into a single article (via WP:SYNTH or WP:OR) should, similarly, not be allowed either.
  • I never said, "we might wait until ALL available reliable sources deal with this subject in the same or greater detail"—again, you've misrepresented what I did write, which may be why you're having trouble understanding it. What I wrote was "If, at some point in the future, multiple secondary sources all decide to cover the topic, then it will be worth an article"—that is, if/when multiple reliable secondary sources all publish something on the subject, then at that point we'll have resources with which to write an article.
  • My perception of your rebuttal is that you're saying my policy-based belief that articles require sources that cover the concept itself is incorrect/inappropriate/inapplicable/inflated and that the article does have multiple reliable published sources. Which is it? It can't be both, as they contradict each other.
  • As to "indiscriminate": "mythology, religion, science fiction, and cartoon animations" (along with metaphors, comic books, television shows, fantasy, non-animated cartoon characters, and video games, all mentioned later) involving "gods, angels, Satan, demons, monsters, robots, or aliens" (along with lemurs, fairies, and mermaids, mentioned later)—honestly, I think "indiscriminate" is a reasonable description.
  • Additionally, some of the article is just plain nonsense, e.g., "Recently New Frontier returned to the cold war theme, using the character of the Martian Manhunter"—explain, please, how the 1961-1963 Kennedy administration (which is what the "New Frontier" article, linked to, is about) is either "recent," or is a "return to the cold war theme"? How about what JFK had to do in general with the Martian Manhunter?
  • Please, try to stay civil and focus on improving either your arguments or the article. Apparently, you skimmed what I wrote and then attacked the subsequent strawman. Hrafn simply noted that, at the least, he was able to understand my point where (as you stated yourself) you could not. Accusing one of us of being a sockpuppet of the other solely because their reading comprehension is above yours is not a case of assuming good faith. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please note that the New Frontier link has been amended so that it points to the correct article. Artw (talk) 03:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep due to rescue effort. Good job, gang!  :) Also, I hope everyone had a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is clearly a notable phenomenon in pop culture. I have seen it numerous times in television shows and movies, and it isn't just for some obscure sci-fi films. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan321 (talk • contribs) 09:02, 1 November 2009

• Delete Coatrack article, fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I've never seen such a disjointed collection on this subject except here. Wikipedia is not the place for original essays. Also, bar one word that has changed, meets CSD G4 criterion.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Pure original research. Laundry list of unrelated fictional elements. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt, and hunt down and destroy any zombies formed from its corpse This is really an inadequately stealthy attempt to recreate the human suit article, but ignoring that, it's still worthy of deletion. There is no effort whatsoever to identify this as a literary trope that anyone cares about; it's a list of examples for which there is no article. And probably the reason there is no article (besides the aforementioned attempt to recreate deleted material-- i.e., the author didn't care) is that the notion of disguise is so basic that there is nothing notable you can say about it that isn't either said under disguise itself or in any more specific article (e.g. avatar and incarnation). Mangoe (talk) 19:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This page provides good information on a genre of literature that is all too common (especially in recent years). Im suprised such an article hasnt been done sooner. Id like to see more contribution to this page to help improve it, but the topic should certainly be kept and expanded. - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 19:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have some WP:RS that show this concept meets WP:GNG? Verbal chat 20:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't collected sources no, although i have no doubt you could easily find some. The topic of demons, angels and similar taking human form is a very well established genre. Shows like "Touched by an Angel" and dozens of similar modern literature or tv shows not to mention the thousands of different literature going back thousands of years all centering around this topic. It is not just a passing side note in some literature but rather a central device in more literature/tv than i could ever hope to mention. To me there isn't much doubt regarding its notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Debeo Morium (talk • contribs) 21:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The trouble is I and other editors have not been able to find any sources that show this topic passes the WP:GNG; they have not been easily found despite efforts. Which part of which notability guideline do you think is met? Verbal chat 21:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think the problem here is that your looking for papers titles "Human Disguise" or similar (perhaps a rename of the page is in order?). My searching on google has shown much literature of course regarding this genre. but the question is if there are reliable sources that address this topic in literature. While i doubt youll find a paper by the above title there is a great deal of sources which talk about the various literature within this genre. Often times as a side note they may make reference specifically to the aspect of "human in disguise" (usually not by that name). I think its just one of those topics you need more eyes on to really get a good set of sources going and bring it up to wikipedia standards. I don't doubt much that the notability exists and the guidelines can be satisfied if the right attention is given. - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 22:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think what Verbal is looking for is any work of analysis (a thesis, of at least minimal notability) that dwell on the subject specifically, instead of just mentioning it in passing. I have also looked for this, and have come up empty. As per WP:NOR we are not allowed to create our own analyses of primary literature, and all the refs I've seen so far are primary sources. There's the problem. Hope this helps.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • My understanding of the guideline is that a paper where this is the main topic isn't needed for the subject to be notable. It needs to be more than a trivial reference in a single paper, sure, but it doesn't need to be a whole paper on the topic.. to quote WP:GNG "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." From what i can tell this will easily be met. Ultimately i don't plan to get in there and do all the research and edit the article. This is just my assessment of the topic. I wouldn't be surprised the more eyes you get on this the more reliable the sources you find will be. The hard part here is finding the sources which are more likely to refrence this topic even if the paper itself isn't specifically about it as a whole. - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 22:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • The alien section is the only section of this article that I have worked on to any great extent, and where possible I have used sources that establish aliens in human disguise as a common theme in SF. I beleive we have good coverage there, and should the article be deleted I will be attempting either to roll the work there into Infiltration section of the Alien Invasion article or create a spin off article. However I don't see any reason why the other sections could not be sourced similarly, and may they may already be so - I haven't been keeping up to date on the latest updates outside of the aliens section. At any rate, the claim that the article consists only of examples and that there are no sources establishing themes are false at least for that section. Artw (talk) 01:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Could you describe how your additions were appropriate to an article named "Human disguise" as opposed to "List of times thing that were not human were disguised as human?" IE - how are you not synthesising a list of times something happened to an article about how those things are connected? Hipocrite (talk) 01:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Synthesis would be combing material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources - the alien section most certainly does not do that since the thematic link is explicitly stated. What certainly could be improved within the article, which at present is a bit laundry-list-ish, is the discussion and sourcing of the theme as a whole across the various sections. It's not there yet, but theres no reason to believe that the article can't be improved in that direction, but article writing and researching sources proceeds at a slower pace than, say, wiki-lawyering or article disruption. Artw (talk) 01:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Your case would be more convincing if you could find sources that discuss more than one instance at a time, therefore establishing the theme. Otherwise, this is OR. --Ramdrake (talk) 01:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Yes, there are sources in the article that do that. In particular I would look at the two sources I just added, both of which examine disguise as a theme in fnatastic literature.[7]

[8] Artw (talk) 02:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That's still not it. These are just mentions in passing. It fails "significant coverage", and represents only one source.--Ramdrake (talk) 02:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think possibly you're getting your notability guidelinbes and your OR guidelines mixed up. That and also being deliberately obtuse. Artw (talk) 02:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • From WP:NOTE: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. (emphasis mine). I wouldn't argue that your references provide "significant" coverage, now do they? Also, could we please skip the ad homs?--Ramdrake (talk) 02:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Id like to reiterate my earlier quote from WP:GNG "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." The resources already added seems to cover significant coverage to me. - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 03:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is where we disagree: I don't see a source providing significant coverage of this subject as a theme. Yes, there are primary sources that mention it, and secondary sources which also mention it in passing, but no source so far which does what WP:NOTE requires.--Ramdrake (talk) 03:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • A fuller quote from the first reference there: "Disguises also aid in crossing racial barriers, often represented in science fiction through the use of aliens in space or robots. Sometimes humans attempt to pass as the other: a red-dyed John carter impersonates a martian in Edgar Rice Burroughs ... more often, aliens and robots attempt to appear human. In Ray Bradbury's The Martian Cronicles, Martians employ psychic powers to masquerade as Americans, while The Man Who Fell to Earth uses contact lenses and a mask. The ability of The Thing (1982) to appear human leads to paranoia, which is also behind the testing of robots if The Terminator and the androids in Blade Runner. Fears about being unable to identify the Other are gender-inflected in Stanislaw Lem's "The Mask" (1977)" - That would appear to be some not insignificant coverage of a theme. It's certainly not "in passing". Artw (talk) 03:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The second reference I gave there, BTW, is pretty much a survey of secret identies, and starts with gods in disguise and covers dopplegangers, the non-human superhero Superman and science-fictional shapeshifters. Again, this is not trivial coverage or in passing. Artw (talk) 04:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All the new references are fine and dandy, and there are no doubts dozens more around. But any attempt to gather them together without a Reliable Source is Synthesis. The article is in a sense an attempt to create a neologism, and we don't do that here. PhGustaf (talk) 20:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Pure synthesis. No reliable source adresses the topic as a whole, making the article Wikipedian editors original synthesis, as opposed to a real article. Hipocrite (talk) 00:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "Topic" that exists only as an unsourced synthesis based on individual instances (and, in a number of cases, on a poor understanding of those instances). Deor (talk) 01:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• As outright redlinking is always an extreme last resort that no one prefers, this article as titled could be a reasonable spelling for some searching for an article on say this book and as such has at least redirectable benefits as a blue link. After all, I frequently type lower case items in the search bar which take me to funkytown the article I am searching for. In any event, as far as human diguises go, I am looking forward to V (2009 TV series) this week! Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sure, writers have made up stories about aliens etc. disguised as humans. And with six billion people on the planet, there are articles/books that use the words "human disguise". However, there is no secondary source that bothers to discuss this topic as a topic. Angels in human disguise, monsters in human disguise, robots in human disguise – but no WP:RS discusses the topic of "human disguise". The article is WP:SYNTH. If the supporters of the article really want it, please change it to a "List of..." and just list the examples with links to relevant Wikipedia articles. Johnuniq (talk) 07:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it boils down to "these things that use a human body as a disguise" but then veers off in so many directions that the article makes little sense, and is heavy on the synth. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Secondary Source City Three secondary sources have been added which deal with this topic in a non trivial way, and three more have been placed on the talk page for possible future integration. Three of these are near the top of our RS hierarchy as they're from University Presses . Angels and demons: what do we really know about them? for example has two pages of discussion focussing on Angel's human disguise , with proper reference to scripture. Several of the sources are largely focused on the human disguise aspect as can be seen from the titles, e.g. Human Animals: Werewolves & Other Transformations. I encourage all open minded editors who have voted delete to re-evaluate. There's hopefully no question that the many sources now establish this article is notable by any reasonable interpretation of our policies. About the only remaining valid argument is synth, specifically that no secondary source addresses the topic with the same breath of coverage as this article. But its part of an encyclopaedias function to collate different secondary sources, so naturally we are going to have a wider scope than any one source. This is part of the reason why reliable sources acknowledge we sometimes have the best available article on certain subjects. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Secondary source ghost town: these sources provide only bare mention of the concept of human disguise, in discussing related topics. No "significant coverage", no detailed treatment of the topic. Reaffirm 'delete' opinion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Secondary Source Ghost Busted! The bare mention criticism only seems to apply to the Brothers and Beasts: An Anthology of Men on Fairy Tales source used for Kitsune and there seem to be sources in the Kitsune article that treat the human disguise concept in more detail. If youd like to chose one out of Angels and demons: what do we really know about them or Retrofitting Blade Runner or The History of the Supernatural then when Im back online tommorow I'll try to illustrate in detail how the coverage is non trivial , with quotes that you should be able to verify from google books! FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You are absolutely spot on Feyd! Good job, I feel even more confident in my position to keep on this one. Thank yoU! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Classic WP:SYNTH violation and original research. Take away the involved synthesis and the topic no longer has a claim of notability. Skinwalker (talk) 01:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't think anyone will argue that the article doesn't need work, but that isn't a reason for deletion. Keep and improve it. If it needs to be renamed, then rename it. If it needs to be trimmed, trim it. If it needs more/better sources, source it. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Allow me to sufficiently summarise the whole thing: is the topic worth discussing? Yes. Please spare us from wikilawyering and use that energy to fix the article. This AfD page is 78 kilobytes long. Abolish AfD. --Sincerely, a jaded regular, wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Is this a serious comment or sarcasm? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 07:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Deboringize and Transwiki to tropeswiki. --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC) I simply cannot resist making a pretty much valid transwiki call, correctly request insertion of humor, *and* doom us all to hours of distraction all in a single 5-word post.  ;-) [reply]
  • && Hoist by my own petard (note time in signature) --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, valid and notable concept. Everyking (talk) 18:13, 4 November 2009 (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. Cirt (talk) 04:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kiera massette[edit]

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

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

The author added a ((hangon)) tag to the article after it is was prodded, so I shall take that to mean it as a removal of the prod tag. Nominating this as a procedural nom. The original prod statement was "No indication of notability." NW (Talk) 21:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I did not find significant coverage, and nothing in the article convinces me that I should have found some. Drmies (talk) 21:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• A very very saddened delete, because the lady really looks good. On the serious side, though, no verifyable RS are listed and I doubt any could be found. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 23:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Gonna go delete here. The Lingerie Bowl doesn't help for WP:ATHLETE, nor does it seem to fall within WP:PORNSTAR. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not notable. --Quartet 14:03, 29 October 2009 (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. Cirt (talk) 04:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderland (Sea of Treachery album)[edit]

Wonderland (Sea of Treachery album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. This article does not come out until 2010.  Btilm  21:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Per WP:NALBUMS, unreleased future albums are not notable except in extraordinary cases, where an abundance of reliable sources are available to establish notability. Snottywong (talk) 23:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 23:41, 28 October 2009 (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.

American Klub e.V.[edit]

The result was Speedy Delete (A7). Alexf^(talk) 01:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Klub e.V. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article fails WP:CLUB.  Btilm  21:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete. Fails WP:CLUB. Seems to be a club that meets in a bar. That's not notable. No independent references, can't verify. Probably merits a speedy. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Note: author placed Template:Newpage on the article, and while a quick look at their contribs shows no sign of familiarity with guidelines for inclusion, I hope that the nominator takes that into account before marking articles for deletion. BlazerKnight (talk) 22:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete A7 (club). So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete both. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Norton level crossing[edit]

Norton level crossing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fenwick Level Crossing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

• Delete - I've cleaned up this article a little bit from its original incarnation, but I still don't feel its anywhere near notable enough for inclusion! It just seems to be a random level crossing, out of many hundreds we have in this country! Jeni ^(talk) 20:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I've included Fenwick Level Crossing in this nomination, just about to tag the page. Jeni ^(talk) 20:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both: Fails WP:LOCAL, WP:TOWN, and WP:V. Obviously non-notable geographic feature. Cannot find any sources whatsoever per WP:GOOGLETEST. --Triadian (talk) 03:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both: there are (were) literally thousands of level crossings in the UK alone. Mention in an article about the line they are on is the most that is needed (usually by inclusion in a route diagram). Mjroots (talk) 08:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both: no sign of notability not different to thousands of other crossings in the UK. MilborneOne (talk) 10:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both. What next? An article about every railway bridge or signal box? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both, they might merit a mention in the article about the lines they are on or a list of level crossings in South Yorkshire but not full articles. Thryduulf (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both as NN -- There are thousands of places where railways cross roads or rivers, but we really do not need an article on every one: a level crossing is no more worthy of an artiucle than a bridge under or over a railway. A few will be notable, but this should be rare. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:51, 29 October 2009 (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. NW (Talk) 22:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noreen Heron and Associates[edit]

Noreen Heron and Associates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Obviously a promotional article, but brought it here instead of nominating it for speedy deletion as it does assert notability, although I'm not convinced it's sufficient. Cassandra 73 (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete spam. So tagged. Assertion of notability is a concern for ((db-a7)), but spam is pretty cut and dry. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Eastmain (talk) 23:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- Eastmain (talk) 23:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]
• Keep, on the basis of the references from reliable sources. Of course, the references to the company's own website do not by themselves establish notability. -- Eastmain (talk) 23:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. See http://www.heronpr.com/press.html for links to scans and reprints of articles which back up some of the claims (and note that some of those articles do not show up on the website of the publication where they appeared). Today's Chicago Woman doesn't seem to have anything about her online at http://www.tcwmag.com/?search=Noreen+Heron&x=1&y=1 (in fact, the magazine's search doesn't seem to work), but http://www.heronpr.com/se-chicago-pop.html lists three articles which mention her. Of the references in the article, three are the same newspaper story about his skills at multitasking. See also http://www.heronpr.com/irish-pop.html , http://www.heronpr.com/uic-pop.html and http://www.heronpr.com/se-chicago-pop.html -- Eastmain (talk) 00:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A PR firm maintains a list of news briefs where it pushed some journalist to mention them. Wow! Nice case where several sources still don't make for decisive notability. Miami33139 (talk) 18:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from nominator: the Chicago Tribune article is about Ms. Heron rather than the firm; it's her tips on multitasking rather than coverage of her or the firm's PR activities. I realise the distinction may blurred here but as the article is about the firm and not a BLP, I think the article would have to establish notability specifically for the firm to be kept. Cassandra 73 (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. None of the coverage from reliable sources - really, only one source, reprinted several times - is actually about the business. They're about the CEO's struggle with work life and motherhood, and only incidentally mention where she works. Publicity businesses only become encyclopedia subjects if they meet the most stringent tests of notability, because they're publicity businesses, and presumably know the publicity value of Wikipedia coverage. This business does not. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. So should the article be moved to Noreen Heron? == Eastmain (talk) 20:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Not sure that being interviewed for a story on "how I juggle a career and motherhood" meets WP:BIO either. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is virtually no media coverage of the PR business itself, or of work with the listed clients, and rather little coverage of Ms. Heron. I can't see this meeting WP:N. Transmissionelement (talk) 16:37, 3 November 2009 (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. NW (Talk) 22:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Index of Lebanon-related articles[edit]

Index of Lebanon-related articles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Most likely a category. Damiens.rf 20:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Actually this procedure is found in almost all other countries as well and is very useful. We cannot treat this on its own, but as putting Lebanon in line (in par) with all other country listings of similar logic and nature. Check for example these country indexes:

An American continent page

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Canada-related_articles

Asian country pages

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Japan-related_articles (check each letter expansion)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_India-related_articles

African pages

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Egypt-related_articles

European page:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Portugal-related_articles

Oceania page:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Australia-related_articles

Lebanese and many other pages were designed exactly as many others. In fact see how many countries have these lists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_country-related_topics Why should we deprive Lebanon of such an easy reference that can be expandable even further. The index works exactly like a dictionary would whereas categories are thematic and much harder to locate and arguably very time consuming. Admittedly some searchers go by subject, some other searchers go by alphabetical order. The only way a category would work this way is if ALL Lebanese subjects are categorized with Category:Lebanon category which is not what we want to do. I suggest this Index of Lebanon-related subjects stays as is and even improved further with even more easy-access alphabetcal entries leading directly into the Lebanese pages, because it is very useful for many who don't want to go into the hassles of tens if not hundreds of segmented categories. Both systems can live together side by side. There is no need to exclude a system which is applied to so many other countries. I suggest a strong keep. werldwayd (talk) 01:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Although "easy reference" is not what I would call this or any of the other "Index of ______-related articles", which read like long blue paragraphs, I'd probably grumble even more if each of these entries had its own line. Some people find this to be more efficient than other forms of navigation, and it's clear that this and others have been maintained since 2007. I know that the argument might be made that a category serves the same purpose, but "category Lebanon" is fragmented into 22 subcategories, which then split into sub-sub-categories, and even sub-sub-sub-categories; which kind of defeats the purpose of having a category in the first place. I look at this as a list of Wikipedia articles about Lebanon, without the dreaded "L-word". Mandsford (talk) 13:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are two reasons why new lines for each entry are not used. ONE: Almost all country-related lists are done this way. We are just copying a Wikipedia style that has been applied elsewhere TWO: It is a space-saving device specially if there are a lot of entries. If each was on a new line, the list would look 4-5 times longer. For a list with say 20-30-40 suggestions, it would be ok, but not if there are hundreds of entries werldwayd (talk)

That makes good sense. The more I think about it, the more I realize that separate lines would go on for page after page. Mandsford (talk) 02:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is basically a list; categories and lists are complementary, and there is no reason not to have both. Lists have the particular advantage of providing some information about the material in which they appear, thus facilitating identification and browsing. Browsing is a key function of an encyclopedia. As a general rule, for topics like this, if there is a category, there should be a list. To justify deletion, there must be some very special reason. DGG ( talk ) 02:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Of course this is a list and not a category and lists are all around Wikipedia. I cant find any sensible reason for this Afd except multiplying the number of edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.89.188.61 (talk) 21:03, 2 November 2009 (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 20:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence regarding Bigfoot[edit]

Evidence regarding Bigfoot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article is a blatant content fork with Bigfoot I redirected to Bigfoot and it was reverted, after discussion third opinion sought and third opinion suggested AfD Simonm223 (talk) 19:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• A redirect is not appropriate, because this is not a likely search term. On doing my research for this !vote, I've found that Wikipedia's coverage of Bigfoot is, frankly, a total mess. We have Bigfoot, Evidence regarding Bigfoot, Bigfoot in popular culture, Formal studies of Bigfoot, Bigfoot trap, Patterson-Gimlin film, Yeti and goodness knows what else. We need, at most, Bigfoot, Yeti and possibly Patterson-Gimlin film. Basically, what's called for here is a much smaller number of articles, each containing much more information.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! Fewer articles, more dense information, less POV splitting. Right now Bigfoot is the "skeptical of bigfoot" article and Evidence regarding Bigfoot is the "credulous of bigfoot" article. I wasn't even aware of the X in pop culture article (I hate x in pop culture sections, let alone whole articles) or of the Formal studies... and Bigfoot trap articles. Patterson-Gimlin film is notable enough to have its own article. We need to fix this somehow but I'm rather indifferent to how (merge, delete, whatever). Simonm223 (talk) 20:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While this page needs to be cleaned up in places I really don't see any reason why it should be deleted. It's a relevant expansion of Bigfoot (see Talk:Bigfoot/Archive05#Bigarticle for why) and I believe it has enough interesting and valuable information to merit its existence. The Bigfoot stuff, and the 'paranormal' stuff here is a bit of a mess, granted, but to condense it into one topic would be a huge loss of information. K602 (talk) 01:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the Bigfoot article, but please keep in the correct scientific framework. None of the "evidence" is scientifically confirmed zoological proof that there is a "Bigfoot" - a claim of "evidence" in the form of a standalone article suggest a confirmation of something that has never been proven. Warrah (talk) 01:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Proper split performed per WP:SIZE and WP:SPLIT. Problems with the POV of the sub-article are reasons to fix the sub-article, not to delete it or shoe-horn it back into the main article. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The bigfoot is too large to consider even a fraction of this referenced material. Reading both bigfoot and the evidence article reveals bias in each article. This needs to get fixed, but that won't happen via attempting to merge or redirect. I'd say that the other articles mentioned should be summary sections in the main bigfoot article, not in the see also section. Miami33139 (talk) 18:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the article was split from Bigfoot to conform with WP:SIZE, (discussion here) and returning it there would simply raise the problem again. If there is POV in either article (I haven't read either for two years so I don't know) then correct it. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per TexasAndroid and Totnesmartin's comments above. My thoughts exactly. -- œ^™ 17:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Legitimate spinout article to keep the main article from growing to large. Any POV problems can be dealt with by discussion and proper sourcing. Edward321 (talk) 14:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a POV-pushing fork of the main article. It doesn't need to be merged back, it needs to be deleted, so arguments about the size merging would require are misplaced. DreamGuy (talk) 17:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've already said it wasn't a POV fork but still you bleat POV fork. don't you read anyone else's comments, Dreamguy? Are are you just one of those people who think their own opinion is the truth? Totnesmartin (talk) 22:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep For size reasons, as it is an extremely important aspect of the article Bigfoot.--Windowasher 23:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: Size matters. Not a POV fork - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There is much interesting material here worth keeping. Merging with Bigfoot would create a too-lengthy article. If there are POV problems here, the proper response is to improve the article, not eliminate it. Plazak (talk) 03:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge and redirect. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Urbanate[edit]

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

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

Non-notable neologism invented by a now largely defunct group 'Technocracy Incorporated'. No external third party sources to show that this term has ever been used by anyone except Technocracy Inc in their literature. Borderline speedy, as even taken at face value, article does not establish why subject is notable. LK (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I started the article and have been asked to comment about this, so here goes. This is really a rerun of the previous discussion ([9]) and the reasons for keeping it are essentially the same. It is not a "Neologism" since it has been around since the 1950s. Yes, it is a concept of Technocracy Incorporated and yes, probably few people today will have heard of it, but that does not make it non-notable. The Technocracy movement was once very notable in having hundreds of thousands of members in the early to mid 20th century and the Urbanate concept was one of the group’s main proposals. Certainly technocracy is not as popular as it once was, but it certainly still exists and is not "defunct", but even if it no longer existed at all, this would still be relevant and interesting in a historical sense. For a similar example of something which is obscure, but notable, look at Atlantropa, probably very few people have ever heard of the idea, and most of those who have think it would never happen, yet the idea still exists and there are a small number of people still advocating it. I may not agree with it (see the talk page), but I would never suggest that it should be deleted just because it is a now obscure or unpopular idea. Of course you will not find hardly any references to the Urbanate concept on the Internet, because it is an idea from well before that age, most of the details are lying in paper form in documents somewhere in the US. What little that has been digitized is available from the links cited in the article. Is this a popular or widespread idea? No (though it once was, to a certain extent). Is it a niche subject? Yes. But, does that mean it must be deleted from Wikipedia? No. I think there is room enough for such articles and no justification to expunge them just because they are little known. Also, it is not true that only Technocracy Inc. uses the term, another Technocracy group, Network of European Technocrats (NET) also uses this concept (as the book search showed). I would further just say that if for whatever reason it does get deleted, I would suggest that the content be merged with the main Technocracy Incorporated article. --Hibernian (talk) 19:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Merge into Technocracy Incorporated It was a neologism when it was coined, didn't take hold and is now not even an archaism. It deserves a brief mention in the Technocracy article, not an article of its own. JQ (talk) 19:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: You could say exactly the same thing about Atlantropa or any number of other obscure old ideas. Atlantropa was of course a new term when it was coined, it never took hold and it could now be regarded as archaic, all of that may be true, but it is not a reason to delete Atlantropa, or this. --Hibernian (talk) 03:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable term which is already discussed in many other WP articles, see [10]. Johnfos (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Strong keep. The same team of tandem editors is deleting related articles to energy economics, and now the Technate article also... Led by user LK, and JQ. L.K. is currently under consideration for being topic banned as to editing economics related articles due to bias, topic ban?, and is wikihounding information related to this article also... note here on that subject --> from Economics project page. Also Noted Johnphos goes from page to page with this tandem edit group and has also been tandem editing with them as to pov and also stalks any edits concerning this subject in general. This points out the larger problem of tandem mainstream editors wanting to get rid of issues they are not in agreement with. User Johnphos's wikistalking repeated behavior. skip sievert (talk) 01:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This level of documentation would support a modern subject. I don't see why it is proposed to delete a historical one. Miami33139 (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or smerge to Technocracy article. This term does not appear to be notable outside the corporation itself. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no reason to have individual articles explaining each word of the jargon used by an obscure fringe group in the 1950s. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: What makes this group obscure and fringe? As far as the notable people involved in the group and Even a Time Magazine article from the 30's, I just recently read [11], Prove this group to be a fairly notable historical group. Why would time magazine write an article on a obscure fringe group? AdenR (talk) 05:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I really don't see any reason for deletion.AdenR (talk) 05:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Technocracy Incorporated, then redirect per Guy. Beagel (talk) 13:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The fact that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball is not at all a relevant criticism in this case. The article does not attempt to make future predictions, it is a specific engineering proposal by a group, in exactly the same way as the Arcology article is. It does not in any way claim that Urbanates will be build, nor even that they should be built. It simply outlines what the Technocracy group proposes, I made quite sure when I started the article that it was NPOV and I stand by that. --Hibernian (talk) 19:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't doubt the article's neutrality, just its notability. Without a crystal ball I can't see circumstances changing to make it notable. If there was progress in that direction, this could be an interesting Did you know? Before arcologies there was Urbanate which in some ways anticipated their rise factoid. CRGreathouse (t | c) 21:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Technocracy Incorporated and redirect per Guy and Beagel. Sifaka ^talk 00:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Only 1 real source, the 1955 digest article. This could be much more concisely described in the Technocracy Inc. page. II | (t - c) 22:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non notable, indicated source is SELF. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article appears to be an attempt to make the views of a small group seem important. That's fine, but only if independent secondary sources verify that the term has some general significance. Delete or merge to parent article. Johnuniq (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Acknowledged neologism. --Cybercobra (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Most of the sources do not discuss the term. Only publication that may do so is not independent. Own searching does not reveal any use of the term, beyond what is in wikipedia mirrors. Appears to be a neologism that has fallen out of use. Given the lack of use of the term, I do not think a redirect is apprpriate. Quantpole (talk) 10:43, 4 November 2009 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wapsi Square[edit]

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

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

This page was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wapsi Square. As far as I can tell nothing has changed since that time, there still appears to be no substantive coverage of the comic from independent, reliable sources - as required by the general notability guideline. Sources identified include this article written by a high-school friend and this blog. As was also brought up in the previous AfD the comic did win a Web Cartoonists' Choice award in 2004 The awards themselves, are voted for by the web comic creators themselves and typically receive no independent, reliable coverage. Guest9999 (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'll deal with the issue of deletion later but for now I will comment that there does not seem to be an afd header on Wapsi Square. Someone should add it, and I have no idea how. --Elfwood (talk) 13:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added, sorry about that, first time that's happened to me in about 100 nominations. Guess I must have closed the tab rather than saving or some such thing. Thanks very much for pointing it out. Guest9999 (talk) 22:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This is a prominent webcomic, as prominent as the rest of the Blank Label Comics strips. As for the Web Cartoonist Choice Awards, well, Academy Awards are voted by movie people themselves, Hugos by SF fans and Nebulas by science fiction writers. That is no reason to disregards WCCA. And it's not the only award WS has received - Skysmith (talk) 22:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I'm very disappointed to see this focus on how slim the references in the article were when 2 minutes of googling pointed out another award nomination and other places where the comic has been given recognition (I don't have time to add them all right now - just look and you'll see them). The discrediting of the Web Cartoonists' choice awards is undeserved too. Publishers weekly [has covered them and so has the New York Times, which you should know if you've read the article about them you linked to. They aren't perfect, but they are an indication of notability. Editors who focus on nominating articles on worthy topics for deletion instead of on developing articles to their full potential are, in my mind, one of the major barriers to participation in editing, something we're currently considering in the strategic planning process. The editor who put content into this article should be appreciated for contributing and encouraged with guidance on how to make it better and collaboration on making it so, not have the article attacked. By instead nominating it for deletion, you are actively contributing to the attitudes and frustration displayed here, which discourages everyone from contributing. (I was referred to that discussion in a comment on my request for comments on reader conversion here. I am not a fan of the comic and have never read it.) There's a way to deal with articles that are on good topics but need better citations and that's citations needed, not deletion. Netmouse (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The article was previously deleted - award and all - following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wapsi Square, the recreated version featured no significant changes and after searching - for more than two minutes - I was unable to find any further reliable sourcing (could you please provide links). Under the circumstances I think it was perfectly reasonable to ask for a community opinion in order to establish whether or not there is a consensus to keep the article. If there is it will just prevent the article from being deleted under speedy delete criterion G4 in the future - something it was potentially vulnerable to before this discussion. Guest9999 (talk) 00:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You "asked" for consensus but did not bother to put a notice on the talk page of the person who reinstated the article, nor on the talk page of another editor who had recently invested time into it. I suspect you didn't bother to do that the first time you nominated it for deletion in January either, but I don't think I have any way of checking that. I have added a couple more reliable sources into the article. I think wikipedia needs a less confrontational/dramatic process for highlighting articles that need references or other restructuring than proposing them for deletion. In fact we do have one, but you skipped it this time. If you thought notability was the issue, you should have used that tag instead of proposing it for deletion, or you could have tagged it as needing citation. Instead you jumped straight into the deletion process. Netmouse (talk) 16:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The editor who most recently worked on the article (User:Elfwood) started after it was nominated for deletion - although admittedly before the article itself was tagged as having been nominated due to a mistake on my part - see [12]. You can see my entire undeleted contribution history arranged by date (and filter by namespace) at Special:Contributions/Guest9999, to save you time I am pretty sure I did not nominate the creator or any other editors of the discussion last time either. Informing editors who are involved with an article is not mandatory and in fact making it mandatory has been rejected several times by the community (See Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#All authors must be notified of deletion). As well as not informing the article's creator I did not inform the editors who were involved in the previous deletion discussion - the majority of whom thought the article should be deleted - or indeed the deleting administrator. I do not believe there is anything inherently confrontational or dramatic about a deletion discussion - it is a discussion the aim of which is to establish consensus. Whether a discussion descends into drama is entirely dependent on its participants and their behaviour. Tagging for notability concerns seemed like an unnecessary step since the topic had been previously deleted as not notable, I could find no new information that would indicate notability and Wikipedia has the facility - through the AfD process - to ask for a community opinion in order to establish - among other things - if a topic is notable. Guest9999 (talk) 18:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Your reference to "the majority" of the participants of the earlier debate seems less impressive when I consider that the majority you are referring to was 2 commentators against one other participant. Hardly a sweeping majority. Notifying other major (not all) editors may not be policy, but it's certainly the polite thing to do. Netmouse (talk) 19:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I'm going to have to chime in as keep as well. It passes WP:WEB on point 2 (the 2004 Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards and the 2009 Lulu Award) and possibly point 1 (on the basis of the cited reviews and newspaper article) but I'll admit that this last point is tenuous. In fairness to Guest9999, I would point out that the article had no references when nominated, however that is not an excuse to jump straight to the deletion process. --Elfwood (talk) 00:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The article has been growing considerably from the contributions of multiple users, suggesting a reasonably large group of interested people. I wasn't around for the first deletion debate, but the editing history of the current incarnation shows it to be fairly busy for a stub article. Also, I've looked at an archival version of the previous version (URL lost, sadly) and what's there now is not a copy of the earlier page. It may be that Guest9999 has a deletion hobby, but this page seems to have more than sufficient reason to exist. Wyvern (talk) 14:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 11:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Elfwood.—Chowbok ☠ 20:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but with an emphasis that I do not think Guest9999 was out of line in making the nomination. Given the result of the prior deletion debate, this nomination is justifiable. Powers ^T 14:35, 3 November 2009 (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. Cirt (talk) 04:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MULTICUBE FP7 Project[edit]

MULTICUBE FP7 Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Part of a plan to get these projects onto Wikipedia; [13] However, this project isn't notable. Deprodded. Abductive (reasoning) 17:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete astroturfing. Miami33139 (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I wouldn't say this is notable enough. That, and the plan thing, which clinches it, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 20:10, 29 October 2009 (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.

Ain't No Sunshine (Song Michael Jackson)[edit]

The result was Speedy delete (A3). Alexf^(talk) 01:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ain't No Sunshine (Song Michael Jackson) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No real content, no evidence that Jackson version deserves its own article. Had removed prod to turn into a redirect, but on reflection "song Michael Jackson" is pretty akward. Declan Clam (talk) 17:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as clumsily named, individual versions don't get their own articles. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete for no content. So tagged. Article only contains an infobox at this time. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:44, 28 October 2009 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tarth (Deadlock)[edit]

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

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

Race within a videogame. No third party reliable sources exist. Deprodded. Abductive (reasoning) 17:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - no explanation as to why the default position (merging) for character articles is unacceptable here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect immediately The problem with saying merge is that after AfD gets closed nobody does it. Redirect it and someone can add the content. Miami33139 (talk) 19:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Redirect: We have to assume the closing admin will actually do it, and even if it were missed that's not an excuse to not suggest the proper thing. Redirects are for things people might look for or think are normal articles but we happen to have them listed in a different way. If it's not appropriate as its own article it really shouldn't be a redirect, and per our normal consensus of "what counts" as notable as sub articles, a race is no different than places/locations, abilities, characters of most games, etc. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 04:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nothing useful to merge. Target article already contains an excessive amount of fictional information. Not a useful redirect name: Tarth already exists as a redirect which can be, uh, redirected to Deadlock: Planetary Conquest. Marasmusine (talk) 10:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Deadlock: Planetary Conquest, as the topic is covered there. No reason not to redirect it as far as I can see. --Taelus (talk) 12:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From how "Other projects" on WP:DEL reads, it seems only articles suited for sister Wikipedia can be given a redirect vs other options. Makes sense. Are there standards on created redirects? I fear it would be bad precedent to welcome people to create new articles for every last sub-category or name of something within a game (or anywhere on Wikipedia, mind you) if the official response is to redirect it all... but since I very literally don't know the answer to this, a bottom line in policy or examples of how this has happened in other articles in the past would be great. Since all I could find was the vague guideline I mentioned, I'm entirely in favor of the redirect is someone can cite policy/etc. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 16:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are good points to consider, however I believe that since the article already exists and there is a relevant redirect target which contains relevant information, a redirect would be the best option. We should remember that the article may be linked on non-Wikimedia sites, and thus without a redirect we would be breaking those links. Redirects are cheap, so as long as the information exists somewhere, I think it is harmless to have the redirect. If this was proposed as a redirect to create I think your points would rule against creating it, but since the page already exists it may have external links pointing at it we don't know about. --Taelus (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough for me. Changed my original comment :) ♪ daTheisen(talk) 18:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objectionion to a redirect, after all. Marasmusine (talk) 10:14, 31 October 2009 (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 Sayram. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sairam[edit]

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

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

Disambiguation page for two totally unrelated terms. Ridernyc (talk) 16:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sayram and Sairam are close to each other (so they are related, which does not mean that there is a semantic relationship between them). Moreover, Sairam can be changed into a redirect to Sayram (spelling variant)). Apokrif (talk) 17:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Sayram. The name listed at Sairam, Aruna Sairam, can be listed as a spelling variant at Sayram, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 20:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Spongefrog. Not an unreasonable search term. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Sayram and add to the lead "also spelled Sairam". Wikipedia is not Google and does not need to provide every possible use of Sairam as a dab page or in the Sayram aricle. —Zach425 ^talk/contribs 19:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:CRYSTAL without prejudice for re-creation when it is reviewed or previewed by the media. Bearian (talk) 00:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Brothers film[edit]

Christian Brothers film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Personally, I think this fails WP:NFF; I don't believe enough is known about the film yet. IMDB does NOT know about this film. Google News shows this however I'm not really sure what to think of this source. Editors - what's your take on this? [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 16:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It's a future movie. The firing of its main star could signal the demise of the whole project. Abductive (reasoning) 17:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No notability, and if it's not even on iMDB, it may be promotional - but I'm still seeing obvious issues with WP:CRYSTAL here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], and [19]. Joe Chill (talk) 00:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment IMDB doesn't cover Malayalam film sector well, I believe. It doesn't even have basic details about some Malayalam film actors, photograph of [Mohanlal hxxp://xxx.imdb.com/name/nm0482320/bio]. This I am saying to show that, how you can take it as a criterion, when they don't cover this part of the world adequately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knight177 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This movie is finalized and will begin shoot in November. It has been reported in regional dailies and channels. IMDB do not cover malayalam movies well.

Please find some links confirming it

http://www.nowrunning.com/news/malayalam/mohanlal-suresh-gopi-amp;-prithvi-in-josheys-christian-brothers/26691/story.htm

http://entertainment.oneindia.in/malayalam/top-stories/2009/joshy-mohanlal-christian-brothers-141009.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unnipbvr (talk • contribs) 10:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • To be honest, I'd be more inclined to say keep once we actually started filming - the first lin k appears to be a blog, but the second to me indicates it hasn't started shooting yet. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:19, 29 October 2009 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soul World[edit]

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

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

This fictional place lies within a gemstone, and appeared in (perhaps) one issue of a graphic novel. No sources can be found. Prodded twice, once be me and once by Durova. Abductive (reasoning) 16:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; beside it's lack of notability, it has excessive in-universe perspective; and it has a single source, a comic book. [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 16:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to more general article (Infinity Gems perhaps). I doubt secondary sources exist, so it shouldn't have a stand-alone article. However, being sourced to a primary source isn't a problem if the material is only part of a larger article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Infinity Gems per Thaddeus B. We're actually about to start a merge drive at WP:COMICS so if people can hold off while we try and re-organise our articles that would be appreciated. We're just working on getting the last few stragglers assessed and then we plan to evaluate what we have and where it should go. Hiding T 11:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 11:42, 30 October 2009 (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. Cirt (talk) 04:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alan J. Baverman[edit]

Alan J. Baverman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Delete, notability not established despite a thin patchwork of attempts in the article. First, being a U.S. Magistrate judge does not make one presumptively notable; they are not true federal judges appointed by Congress, but rather are court employees who relieve the burden of U.S. District Judges by presiding over preliminary hearings. Their opinions are rarely reported in case law reporters and are in the form of recommendations to the actual U.S. District Judge sitting on the case.

In the case of this particular individual, the article attempts to buttress his notability by reference to matters in which he was involved. The article claims he "gained national recognition as a criminal attorney for his representation of Roy Cicola in the Atlanta Gold Club Case"; neither Cicola nor the Gold Club case have articles (The Gold Club redirects to strip club), and the only news story offered as a reference for that statement doesn't even mention Baverman, let alone establish "national recognition."

He is also called out for being sanctioned for judicial misconduct, but the only citing references are to primary source documents and a story about judicial misconduct generally that doesn't mention him at all, so there is no indication that this was ever a notable event with coverage by secondary sources. Finally, his role presiding over the pretrial proceedings of rapper T.I. is mentioned, and the cited story does describe his role at a particular hearing, but his involvement in that one event does not confer notability upon him personally; the news story mentioned him only incidentally to cover what was happening to T.I. postdlf (talk) 16:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Notability not established through reliable sources. Lara 02:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - he might be notable, it is not possible to tell from this poorly sourced hit piece. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2009 (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. Kevin (talk) 22:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Falvey[edit]

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

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

As is typical with assistant professors, Dr Falvey does not yet meet Wikipedia's standard for inclusion. His papers get, according to Google Scholar, 73, 20, 9, 8, and 4 citations, yielding an h-index in the single digits. His first paper (and dissertation), on the topic of belief, was Falvey and Owens 1994, has a brief mention in the Externalism About Mental Content article in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. This mention does not, in my opinion, put Dr Falvey over the high bar of WP:PROF. Abductive (reasoning) 16:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, much too early for an article on him, fails PROF. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WoS shows an h-index of at most 3. Also, the fact that he got his PhD almost 15 years ago and remains an assistant professor (i.e. has not been promoted from academic entry level) also suggests lack of impact. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. WP notability not yet achieved. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Temporary weak keep - More of a comment, to be honest: I work in science, but it is my understanding that h-indexes and similar things behave very differently in fields like philosophy or humanities in general (and in general their distribution is different between fields). Are they truly a reliable indicator of notability in this case? An h-index low in a field may be very high for others, and we have a publication with 73 citations, which is not trivial. --Cyclopia^talk 12:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess I have to say what I was merely alluding to before; the one paper/dissertation was more the child of his advisor, Owens, than him. This is borne out by his weak(er) record since that time. Abductive (reasoning) 12:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It may well be, but how do you (we) know that? You mean you deduce it from the fact that his latest publication record is by far not as influential? --Cyclopia^talk 12:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I abduce that by the fact that the only secondary source that mentions him or his work mentions the paper on belief. Here's the deal; in spite of the usual congruence of WP:PROF with notability, there are cases where it is simpler to just look at the secondary sources and judge directly. Abductive (reasoning) 12:27, 3 November 2009 (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. There's a valid argument made to merge this, but no particular consensus to do so in this discussion - I would suggest editorial efforts to either elaborate on the notability of this topic or merge it into Brock University. ~ mazca ^talk 22:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brock University Students' Union[edit]

Brock University Students' Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A typical student's union, with no claim of notability. Article reads like the organization's webpage, with detail only of interest to some members. All sources in the article are in-house publications, and no reliable sources can be found by internet searches. Abductive (reasoning) 16:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as no notability is asserted in the article. Aiken ♫ 16:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: no demonstration of any notability beyond that of any university's union. Relevant information should be merged to Brock University, but no need for a redirect. —C.Fred (talk) 16:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: to Brock University. Joe Chill (talk) 00:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Would not prudent to merge with Brock University since it is not an arm of the university, but rather a separate, incorporated organization. Furthermore, there are 4 sources not from in-house publications, which is more than most articles found about Students' Unions. Article meets all General notability guidelines:
  

Significant coverage: All sources link directly to relevant information, and no original research is needed to extract the content information
Reliable: Secondary sources meet the reliable source guideline
Sources:11 Sources on the page
Independent of the subject: 4 Sources included that are works produced by those affiliated with the subject.
--Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 00:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Many of your "sources" are 404d, and the rest are the university or the union itself. Abductive (reasoning) 01:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Indeed as a separate entity from the University, it would be silly to merge it there. I do question the reliability of the sources as this "Brock Press" is likely not a secondary source, but it does offer substantial information on the topic. -Marcusmax(speak) 01:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every college and university on the planet has one of these. What is special about this one? Abductive (reasoning) 01:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quoting from Wikipedia's General notability guidelines, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." There are several reliable sources that are independent of the Brock University Students' Union included, some that have been added recently, and more that can be added/are in the process of being added.Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 04:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The sources are not sufficient. Let's look at all 16 of them; 1. busu.net, 2. brocku.ca, 3. St. Catharines Standard article on student move in day, 4. the dental plan of which Brock U is a member, 5. busu.net, 6. busu.net, 7. busu.net, 8. St. Catharines Standard article on a haircut fundraising event, 9. brocku.ca, 10. busu.net, 11. busu.net, 12. busu.net, 13. Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance (OUSA), of which the BUSU is a member 14. Queens University Student Union page on OUSA, which mentions that BUSU is also a member, 15. OUSA, and 16. the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations, of which BUSU is a member. So, the only independent source is the newspaper, in which the mentions of the student union are "trivial". Abductive (reasoning) 05:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Smerge to the university article. It isn't relevant whether the union is an entity indpendent of the university, it is still clearly associated to the university. Per WP:CLUB, this organisation is local in scope and all coverage is also local (and trivial) in scope. As such, standalone notability is not established. The long list of references is misleading as it is primarily primary sourcing and not the indpendent coverage needed to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the main student organization at a major university is notable, as much as any other first-order major part of it. DGG ( talk ) 23:28, 2 November 2009 (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. Cirt (talk) 18:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Dolce[edit]

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

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

Subject is non-notable. His only activity of notability is being a participant in the reality show The Ultimate Fighter 7 which he lost in the first round. Justastud15 (talk) 03:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fritzpoll (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "He has fought nationally for the Portland Wolfpack of the International Fight League" indicates some sort of notability, but it is unsourced. Aiken ♫ 16:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree that losing in the first round of a reality TV programme doesn't lend notability, but I was concerned about the possibility of notability accruing as the result of meeting the specific sports guidelines. I looked at Mixed martial arts which seems to indicate that the organization (International Fight League or IFL) in question is professional, but hardly at the highest level of such activity (I was unable to determine quickly if UFC is considered amateur or professional, but that seems to be the top dog organization). IFL seems to me to be a regional and/or middle level organization and thus below the threshold of high-level professional sporting activities so, on the balance of probabilities, I suggest deletion. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:26, 28 October 2009 (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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hartmut winkler[edit]

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

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

fails WP:PROF. All references are either to other wikipedia articles (which are irrelevant to the subject) or to abstracts of subject's writings. No third party coverage. Drdisque (talk) 14:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, fails WP:PROF. References to Wikipedia don't help. Aiken ♫ 16:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note Article is Hartmut Winkler (uppercase 'W'). Hartmut winkler (lowercase) is a redirect. Johnuniq (talk) 09:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article speaks of "one of the notable influences...", "famous works...", and more. However, I cannot locate any secondary sources that verify these claims. After viewing the refs/links in the article, I believe the subject does not satisfy WP:BIO (certainly fails WP:PROF). It appears that several users have recently arisen to insert information about the subject into various articles. For example, these edits over two days introduced some novel ideas into Black box which I removed. Also, see the material added in the last few days to Web search engine. I do not see any notable work in any of the material added regarding Winkler. Johnuniq (talk) 09:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Article has been produced by 4 editors, all of them making their first edits within a period of 10 days, and with fairly similar editing history. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a CV repository. Haakon (talk) 15:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- the article isn't in very good shape, but the subject appears to pass PROF, with an h-index of (roughly) 10 (and possibly higher if google scholar fails to capture German citations at an even greater rate than it fails to capture English citations). Book search produces >500 hits. News coverage is rather more than negligible as well. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that there is another Hartmut Winkler, "a physics professor at Vista University's Soweto campus", see [20], confounding the results. Abductive (reasoning) 08:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I saw that there was a different one, but the extent of confounding didn't seem very great. I'll be happy to change my view if I'm wrong on that. But I could add that a German full professor is likely to be presumptively notable as the standards for getting to that level are more stringent than in most other countries. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • However, WP:PROF demands a lot more than what you mentioned. For example, I see no indication that "the person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources". Johnuniq (talk) 09:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Full professors at major universities should be considered notable. paderborn is the place that makes the determination, and we just need to record it. There is no way of using G Scholar or any other citation index accurately to determine the importance of work in the humanities--it is too erratic, and the others don;t cover books. Looking at his web page [21], there are 5 published books as an author & one as an editor, each of them reviewed multiple times--and several dozen articles That's enough for notability under either WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. The reviews show the importance of the work. We could go through them and find various phrases saying how important they are, but it's meaningless--the existence of these many reviews is evidence enough. DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews are indeed secondary sources. Abductive (reasoning) 00:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep according to GS cites and arguments of DGG. Article was prodded by Drdisque 13 minutes after it was created. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:01, 3 November 2009 (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. Any content worth merging can be retrieved from the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Burden of proof (logical fallacy)[edit]

Burden of proof (logical fallacy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The article includes no references to a logical fallacy called "burden of proof". I have found no evidence that the fallacy discussed has been identified and called by this name in the literature. Consequently, this page appears to be about a peculiar neologism. (If anyone can find evidence of this so-called burden of proof fallacy in a RS, then I will withdraw my nomination. A couple of non-RS sources use "burden of proof" as a synonym for argument from ignorance.)

I considered redirecting the article to argument from ignorance, but it appears as if the current article has a different fallacy in mind. It seems more appropriate to delete this article and add a pointer to argument from ignorance on the Burden of Proof disambig page. Phiwum (talk) 13:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; this seems to be OR. It might be attempting a critique of the concept that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, which I don't believe is considered a fallacy. postdlf (talk) 16:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Notwithstanding the formulation in the article that Midgley is exposing a "logical fallacy", the article appears to be more generally about the concept of "burden of proof" in philosophy (as opposed to law) rather than about logical fallacies, and perhaps the solution is simply to move the article to Burden of proof (X), where X is something like philosophy, epistemology, theory of justification, or argumentation theory. I must say, though, that I'm inclined to favour deletion, as I'm not convinced this is a notable topic per se, and that the uses of "burden of proof" in the quotes appeal to anything beyond the everyday meaning found in dictionaries: "the obligation to establish a contention as fact by evoking evidence of its probable truth".[22]  --Lambiam 16:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I like Lambiam's idea. Rename to Burden of Proof (Philosophy). --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing !vote to delete. Fallacy already covers logical fallacy and burden of proof for philosophy. Perhaps a redirect? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What could we possibly say in an article about burden of proof in philosophy? If there are any such treatments in the literature, I'm not aware of them (which isn't much evidence of anything), but I'd wager they have little to do with the article as it stands. In any case, what sources could we use for an article on burden of proof from a philosophical standpoint? Phiwum (talk) 02:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. This article doesn't appear to be about a notable topic and a quick search did not yield any reliable sources for it. It is not at all clear what this article is supposed to be about and as Phiwum suggests, I don't think having much from this page in a burden of proof (philosophy) article would be meaningful, so I don't think that renaming at this point will help. Shanata (talk) 16:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Reversal of the burden of proof is a common and notable fallacy, issues with the present article are not insurmountable, there are several prior versions which include informaiton which appears to have been lost along the way. I think it needs a cleanup at this point rather than deletion, thogh I'm not opposed to a reasonable merge to a related topic. Guy (Help!) 22:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Could you find a single relevant source (say, in critical thinking or logic texts) which identifies this fallacy? (Note: the article refers to exaggerating one burden of proof, not "reversing" it. I'm not sure what you mean by reversing, but it sounds rather like argument from ignorance to me.) Phiwum (talk) 22:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html is where I picked it up. That site has always been my reference for such things. As I say, I'm not opposed to merging. Guy (Help!) 18:33, 5 November 2009 (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. Cirt (talk) 04:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kanohi[edit]

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

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

Long unreferenced list of elements from the Bionicle stories and toys. Ridernyc (talk) 13:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also recreation of deleted material. Ridernyc (talk) 13:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete recreation of previously afd'ed article -Drdisque (talk) 15:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The last AfD was in January 2008 and attracted one person. Consensus may have changed now. Aiken ♫ 16:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree with this statement. Ridernyc (talk) 16:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete - no more encyclopedic than the last time; fancruft at its most trivial. This belongs in a Bionicle wiki. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:54, 30 October 2009 (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Budania[edit]

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

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

Jwesley78 (talk) 06:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please give us the reason why you think this article should be deleted. Duffbeerforme (talk) 06:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete it its have information of the Budania people and their villages. User - Bhupendra

Sorry for not including this earlier:

(1) The lone citation on this page is The Modern History of Jats. I looked for this book on worldcat.org, and apparently the book does not exist. (no verified sources)

(2) The article sat with "gibberish"(?) like "rajender singh S/o Sh. Dunia Ram budania prabhu dayal S/o Sh Banwari Lal budania" for several months with no editor removing it. (uncorrected vandalism)

"Not in English" =!= "gibberish"!!!! --Orange Mike | Talk 16:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Gibberish" was not meant as an insult. Considering this article is in the English wikipedia, it's expected that the content be in English. For most English speakers, this was "gibberish". Jwesley78 (talk) 17:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(3) The topic appears to be highly esoteric, naming a gotra that is distributed within neighborhoods(?) of Jaipur city? (lacks notability)

It is not highly esoteric as said by Jwesley78. Google search on Budania word shows 24,400 hits right now. Hindi word बुडानिया shows 1300 hits in spite of the limitation that google is still not working properly in Hindi language. The clan has other variants like Burania which have not yet been explored. Technical problem here is that Hindi language alphabet ड़ which appears in the clan name has no English equivalent. The clan is found in a vast area covering the states of Rajasthan, Haryana and Punjab in India. It also found in Pakistan Punjab. Thus covers at least two big countries. Founder of the Budia state Birbal was a highly notable person in the Indian history. It also has references to great historian like Megasthenes. My point is that it needs to be expanded without any bias. By deletion Wikipedia will be at great loss. Some experts on Indian context also need to comment here.burdak (talk) 05:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently there are several tens of articles covering the various tribes and clans of the Jats people. I suppose I don't understand the significance of having an article for each "tribe and clan", but it looks to me to be "overkill". (A link for our reference: Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion.) Jwesley78 (talk) 12:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 08:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral until Jwesley78 explains something about this nomination. Alexius08 (talk) 11:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this clan is famous as a whole, its article could be kept. However, only a few members claimed fame. Delete. Alexius08 (talk) 00:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Retain - I do not understand what purpose will be served by deletion. Each clan of Jats has its own history and ethnological significance. These clans retained their ancient character in spite of all historical adverse factors. I understand that references are few because they do not have recorded history. This matter about certain clans was discussed earlier also and consensus was to retain. Slowly and slowly these articles are expanding. I will devote some tome to edit and improve the article from some other references I have got with me. Deletion will be at loss as it is connected with many other articles which shows its significance. burdak (talk) 15:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you claiming that there is no way to find proper English language sources for this content ("because they do not have recorded history")? Without the ability to cite reliable sources, this content does not belong on Wikipedia. It perhaps belongs on some other Wiki site dedicated to the Jats. Jwesley78 (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If someone could verify that the book "The Modern History of Jats" truly exists in print (and can be found in libraries such that a sufficient number of editors for this article could have access), and the book verifies most of what is stated in this article then I would agree that the article belongs on Wikipedia. Jwesley78 (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of the citation is that that's just a translation of the actual title, "Ādhunik Jat Itihasa". I haven't been able to find that either, but maybe someone familiar with Indian library catalogs can. --Chris Johnson (talk) 18:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement for "proper" sources to be in English. Having said this I have tried searching for Budania+Jat in Hindi, and only found 23 web hits and 4 news hits, with nothing from Google Books or Google Scholar. I'm not linguistically qualified to say whether they amount to significant coverage in reliable sources, and I don't even know whether Hindi is the appropriate language to be searching in, so I only offer this as information to inform the debate rather than any recommendation. I have been unable to track down the book provided as a source. Maybe someone can let us know the title of this book in its native script? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The book is in Hindi language. The title of the book in Devanagari is आधुनिक जाट इतिहास, which translates to Modern History of Jats. It is published by Jaypal Agencies, 31A,Subhashpuram, Agra-282007. Its new edition was published on 15 January 1998. I have got a copy of the book with me. Budania in Hindi is बुडानिया. It is searchable on google and has 1280 hits right now. It shows its notability. I do not think that content in English is the only criteria for notability. If this is the case then the purpose of Wikipedia will be defeated. burdak (talk) 03:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1280 hits on google for the book does not show "notability" for this article. BTW, in a search for this book I found this wiki: http://www.jatland.com/home/Main_Page that appears to be devoted to the Jats. Jwesley78 (talk) 12:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Nominator has raised content issues, which can and should be resolved without a deletion debate. The book whose existence is doubted is used as a source or reference in nearly 100 articles, so if it does pose a problem there's a much broader issue to look into. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hullaballoo, you may have overlooked issue #3 on the "notability". Jwesley78 (talk) 21:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. Neither being "esoteric" nor relating to a limited geographical area is an indication of a lack of notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I'll confess to a non-familiarity with Indian or Hindu culture but if I read the article correctly it's about a rather large clan, one of a large number of similarly large clans. No notability for the clan is asserted other than that it had several (arguably) notable members. There's no inherent notability in families or surnames, whether or not famous people have been associated with them, and as no other claim of notability is made the article doesn't pass WP:N. (See also WP:MILL.) Delete. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To quote Wikipedia:Reliable_sources, "if an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it". Jwesley78 (talk) 06:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the books are in Hindi, and not on internet, then they are not reliable? As an extreme analogy: Is the Bible reliable? - BrijD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.200.59.36 (talk) 14:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BrijD, I'm not sure which side you're trying to support. Jwesley78 (talk) 17:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is about archiving knowledge.

One cannot simply go about deciding what is notability and what is not, on the basis of a few , admittedly sincere people, whose sincerity though may be misplaced( in this case_).

What is notable for one , may not be notable for others.

As people who wish to know more about this clan, will search as an increasingly 'first option' is to look at Wikipedia.

If Wikipedia does not contain a page on Budania, does that mean this important clan should cease to exist or change its name.

Strong Vote to keep!

Ravi Chaudhary

~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravi Chaudhary (talk • contribs) 16:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wikipedia is "about" archiving knowledge, but not all knowledge. Only knowledge that is verifiable and notable (among other things). Although, the terms "verifiable" and "notable" appear to have a much weaker meaning than I thought! And, of course, the Budania clan can continue to exist even if its article is deleted. :-) Jwesley78 (talk) 06:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This might help: WP:DIRECTORY. These "gotra" articles appear to each be a "directory" entry, with no individual "gotra" being particularly notable. Are each and every one of the gotras "notable"? Which ones are or are not? Jwesley78 (talk) 15:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that any information which adds to the list of all the possible sources of information about the world and its constituents, should be considered good knowledge, especially for an encyclopedia. - BrijD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.200.52.128 (talk) 13:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - if we cannot find any further sources. A single volume is not the verifiable, significant coverage required to qualify for notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep The subject seems to be notable and has some sourcing. More work needs to be done to improve the sourcing which may be tricky because of the language barrier. But deletion doesn't seem helpful. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. After thinking this over and reading other editors' comments, I think the article should be kept (assuming the source checks out as being valid). It's not particularly "notable", but neither are U.S. High Schools and many of them have Wikipedia articles. The strongest reason lies in the lack of sources and, in my opinion, the inability for many editors to have access to this source (since, according to Worldcat.org, there's not a library in the world that holds this book). More sources should be added. Perhaps citing http://www.jatland.com would even be acceptable. Jwesley78 (talk) 18:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. As the main concern here seems to be with whether a source that is used in nearly a hundred articles can be accepted as reliable I would suggest that it would be better to keep this for now, but maybe to have a wider discussion at WikiProject India or the reliable sources noticeboard about whether this is an acceptable source. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:20, 30 October 2009 (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.