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

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation of a sourced and coherent article that meets notability standards. Mkativerata (talk) 22:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JointController[edit]

JointController (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Borderline incoherent text written by a WP:SPA and an IP seems to be about something which I cannot find any clear evidence exists as any particular thing. Could be recreated if someone could find definite sources. Mangoe (talk) 20:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or move to Joint Controller? - but needs massive amounts of editing - this one is a bit of a loss as is [2] [3] [4]. A joint controller can be one of two main things. In medicine it can be an electrical or fluid-mechanical knee/ankle joint in an artificial limb for amputees. In robotics it is the systems used to control the joints in the similar limbs to the amputees as well as other joints. As most robots use electromechanical systems for operating their joints I am assuming the mention of robots in the article is referring to these. A JointController is an entry into a software program which calls the functions to enable joint control [5]. Chaosdruid (talk) 18:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing there really. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:22, 11 August 2010 (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 nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 05:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Orlik[edit]

Anna Orlik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

not a high-enough (career) ranked or accomplished enough player for a WP bio Mayumashu (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn Discussion needed on better keep/delete guidelines for tennis bios per this talk [6] Mayumashu (talk) 17:23, 5 August 2010 (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 Mike Cline (talk) 16:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

St. Olaf's Church in Tyrvää (book)[edit]

St. Olaf's Church in Tyrvää (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Very recently released book which fails WP:NBOOK. SnottyWong ^comment 18:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as per nom. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 23:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Keep for reasons given below. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 14:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The book has been criticised among others in two main daily papers of Finland Helsingin Sanomat, Turun Sanomat and by Yle, the Finnish National Broadcasting Company. The Church was burned down by a pyromaniac and the whole process of reconstruction of the church had a huge attention in Finnish media.--Abc10 (talk) 05:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with St. Olaf's Church in Tyrvää. Fails WP:NBOOK but would be interesting addition for the churc's article. Pitke (talk) 06:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Apparently doesn't after all, my bad. It's a keep case. Pitke (talk) 05:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Noteworth book about a noteworth rebuilding of the church. --Ufinne (talk) 07:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:ITSNOTABLE SnottyWong ^confer 14:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Talk about churchs's history very well. Aku506 (talk) 11:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:ILIKEIT SnottyWong ^confer 14:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I see no justification for claiming that the book "fails WP:NBOOK".
  1. It meets the general criteria (=one or more of the following criteria: [...] has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience – see Abc10's comment. This criterion is without doubt met.)
  2. The exclusionary criteria aren't met: the book is available in over a dozen libraries [7][8], has an ISBN, and is catalogued by the national library. Not self-publicized. Not an academic book. --PeeKoo (talk) 19:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The nom has given absolutely no justification for deletion. "Very recently released book" has nothing to do with our guidelines and "fails WP:NBOOK" is simply a WP:ITSNOTABLE statement with no reasoning to back it up. Having coverage in the publications indicated by Abc10 showing passing WP:GNG.--Oakshade (talk) 02:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as WP:CSD#G10. Jujutacular ^talk 03:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Kamal[edit]

Bill Kamal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

(({Subject is non-notable, most of the article is a very badly sourced "attack", in my opinion. Being a television meteorologist is not inherently notable; neither is an allegation of a single crime. The only intact referencing this article supplies is an anonymous posting on a television message board and a link to a U.S. Federal Bureau of Prisons entry, which may or may not be the same guy. The name is different. If we're going to abide by BLP's "edit conservatively" advice; the undue weight given the allegations of criminality in this article should be a red flag in itself.))} Deconstructhis (talk) 18:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete. - Potentially libelous unsourced BLP. Two of the links are dead; no internal footnotes. Carrite (talk) 19:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete as an attack page. Even if it wasn't, he still isn't notable. Battleaxe9872 ^Talk 21:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• nommed for G10 WP:TROUT for no one else noming it as such Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Trout slap"? Heck, at least when I found it I tagged it for deletion immediately; what's that say for the miscreants who edited it before me? It's been around for five years.[9]. Sometimes we're operating quite a zoo around this place aren't we. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 02:40, 5 August 2010 (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. Mkativerata (talk) 02:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My Internet Browser[edit]

My Internet Browser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

WP:NN software. The two refs provided are a blog and a download site. No G-hits found for the product (plenty for the term). Toddst1 (talk) 18:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No references show notability. Miami33139 (talk) 04:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is less notable than my coffee mug, which also exists. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 07:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's a Gecko-based browser for Czechs by Czechs. The home page and both references are in Czech. There is no sign (not even a claim) that it is notable outside the Czech republic. The English Wikipedia does not need an article about it. (It might be appropriate to mention it under Gecko (layout engine)#Usage.) Cheers, CWC 13:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No refs and nothing in English, time to delete it. Jusdafax 01:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 05:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Connecticut workplace shooting[edit]

2010 Connecticut workplace shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Wikipedia is not the news. How notable will this be in 25 years? Stonemason89 (talk) 17:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Noteable event in the history of Manchester, and the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.51.242.134 (talk) 13:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Manchester yes. United States, definitely not. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete per nom. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 17:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability is not temporary. A shooting killing 9 people will have plenty of WP:RS and easily meet WP:GNG. Compare this recent event. Lugnuts (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This story is developing, and the article should be given ample time to reflect whether or not it is notable EmanWilm (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - all office shooting and what not is included in wikipedia. All articles with at least 5 dead are in wikipedia. keep this. 174.16.190.154 (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - the number of deaths alone makes this notable. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - notorious killing should be covered. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. How do you determine the notability of an event that took place 25 years ago? If the event had wide and significant in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources when it took place, it is and will remain an event with wide and significant in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources, also 25 years later.  --Lambiam 21:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep debate is too hasty. Let it wait for a few months; it just happened yesterday. hbdragon88 (talk) 22:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow keep - How the hell does this get to AfD this fast? Terrible challenge, there is absolutely zero chance this will no clear the notability bar... Carrite (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - I think we should keep it. A man killing 8 people and then turning the gun on himself is pretty important. This also made national head lines. The Israel and Lebanon thing has a larger Wikipedia page! In that only 4 people died, in this we got 9 dead! This will be remembered 25 years from now! KEEP THE ARTICLE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by CJISBEAST (talk • contribs) 00:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep unusually large number of deaths for a workplace incident, and it got worldwide coverage. even though it may only be briefly notable, its not a news cycle item, but a news headline event.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep plus WP:SNOW. To answer the nominator's question: some murders are encyclopedic entries, like this one: Colin Ferguson (convict) from 17 years ago, and so should this article. patsw (talk) 04:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per Lugnuts and Patsw. — Hunter Kahn 00:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's the deadliest shooting ever in Connecticut state history. That's "how notable this will be in 25 years". (64.252.34.115 (talk) 00:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep Ocean Shores Formerly TEK (talk • e-mail) 14:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are plenty of articles about similar massacres in Wikipedia, and this one has received wide coverage in the media.--Victor Chmara (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Severe Edit All shootings of this type disproportionately reward the shooter. The killer's name and likeness should be deleted from all public media, while the victims' lives and stories ought to be given full coverage. The newspaper coverage of Columbine, Virginia Tech, and now Manchester is a disgrace--especially the way they pandered to the Virginia Tech shooter's craving for fame by posting his SELF PORTRAITS on the FRONT PAGE, as he KNEW they would do. CSI and FBI profiling units ought to sieze such a killer's possessions, down to the last paper clip, and only release them when a court would decide who owns the rights to them--such as the victims of such heinous acts. My Father knew Leo Held, another man who killed people in his workplace (Piper Aircraft) in a similar fashion. He was not there that day, but most likely would have been among those killed had he been on the scene. TAKE AWAY THE PRIME MOTIVATION FOR THESE KILLINGS, WHICH IS FAME, A DESIRE TO BE REMEMBERED. These nobodies deserve to remain that--nobodies. Let their bodies be siezed as well, for full forensic examination, complete dissection to discern any abnormalities. This would complete an appropriate erasure of their being in this world. WorkinMan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 56.0.84.25 (talk • contribs) 16:16, August 6, 2010

What does the above ranting and raving have to do with whether or not this article should be deleted? (64.252.34.115 (talk) 03:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Maybe a Wikipedia policy consideration, it's appropriate. For instance, we modified BLP policy for famous living people. I would say if the media wants to enact these rules, fine: Wikipedia should be a follower, not a leader. If WorkinMan has a problem, I would suggest arguing on a policy page.

But has nothing to do with this AfD. Ufwuct (talk) 14:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the law of unintended consequences, if we were to attempt to delete information on people who have committed evil acts, the lack of data could just as easily promote fascination, and end up with the opposite effect, as well as drive people to not trust reporting by newspapers, etc. people are polymorphously perverse, and no forcible attempts to change human nature has an entirely desired effect. i dare anyone to stop the interest in pol pot, adolf hitler, josef stalin, mao tse tung, all of whom could easily be considered as great attention seekers. also, not relevant to afd, as consensus here says we can have this article if notable enough.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Major media coverage, major event in CT. JNW (talk) 03:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Borderline for a news event but I think it makes the cut. Widely reported. Shadowjams (talk) 05:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I think a snow keep closure is inevitable here. And for the question about how it will be remembered in 25 years, I can see there are some other issues like racism involved in the case so it might as well be a example, in some 25 years, on how racism affects peoples' lives. Or deaths. Maashatra11 (talk) 05:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Lots of coverage on other similar events. If Wikipedia's policy is modified in the future to go back in and remove events like these, so be it. For now, this is a keep. Ufwuct (talk) 14:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The event is receiving significant coverage in the media. Maybe this event will have been forgotten in 25 years, but that is mere speculation. --darolew (talk) 16:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Given the nigh-unanimous support for keeping this article, it might make sense to apply WP:SNOW and close this discussion early. --darolew (talk) 16:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree EmanWilm (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2010 (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. Mike Cline (talk) 16:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mezzo Band[edit]

Mezzo Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable band. Assertions of notability ("one of the most successful band (sic) in Maldives") cannot be verified. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete simply no notability here, spam. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seems to be no shortage of this type of Wikipedia article. Not every band is notable. Jusdafax 01:26, 11 August 2010 (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gunner Glad[edit]

Gunner Glad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Completely unsourced, non-notable baseball player. Minor leaguers, with rare exception, aren't notable enough to have articles. There is no indication that this player is at all notable. — Timneu22 · talk 16:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BASEBALL/N, espicially the sixth bulletin. Battleaxe9872 ^Talk 17:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Minnesota Twins minor league players per WP:BASEBALL/N. I have trouble with the nominator's assertion when they state that there are "rare exception" to minor leaguers having their own article. There is a category full of career minor leaguers. Thats more than "rare". Sourcing is possible. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minnesota Twins minor league players are only for current minor-league players.Battleaxe9872 ^Talk 19:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm aware of that. He is "current". Is he not? --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 20:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • My apologies. Battleaxe9872 ^Talk 20:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • No problem. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I take great exception to your taking exception. Do you have any idea how many minor league players there are? And then how many have articles? It's extremely rare that players are notable as minor leaguers to have an article. — Timneu22 · talk 20:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't consider it "rare". Sure there are a lot of minor leaguers and sure most don't meet the general notability guidelines. But rare is a far stretch in my opinion. Nearly every Triple-A player has an article. That, to me, doesn't make it rare. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's also a WP:WAX argument to say because it is rare, we should delete the article. We should be following WP:GNG. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 23:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Rarity wasn't my argument in the first place. My argument was that this guy isn't notable. So the point is moot. — Timneu22 · talk 00:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as Category:Minor league baseball players is concerned, many of those articles are miscategorized. The category is in place for many pages where the individual made the majors, though the category clearly states it should only stay for MLB players if they did something that would establish minor league notability on top of major league. Sometimes minor leaguers get promoted and the category doesn't get removed. When I have more time, I'll keep scouring them to remove the category. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I was going to say merge, but I think there should be some sort of prospect status to these players, lest we have a paragraph about every single player in the minors, from AAA down to the DSL's. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Minnesota Twins minor league players. Remove him if he retires and doesn't make the big leagues.Alex (talk) 00:49, 8 August 2010 (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. Courcelles 04:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paddy McLaughlin[edit]

Paddy McLaughlin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Youth player for national side, yet to make professional debut. Fails WP:ATHLETE Quentin X (talk) 14:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 20:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as after a reasonable look I found no indication of passing the WP:GNG. Although I would like to remind those who are voting or !voting that failing WP:ATHLETE is not, in itself, a convincing argument for deletion. In contested AfDs, nor is merely quoting relevant policies. --WFC-- 21:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom -Drdisque (talk) 02:14, 5 August 2010 (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. For the most part, the keep side was producing vague and/or unproven claims that have no bearing on her objective notability as specified by the guidelines. At the end, however, DGG mentions some sources that may be used to establish notability. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Sonberg[edit]

Lynn Sonberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Fails WP:BIO with no sources forthcoming. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete - This claims that several of her books are bestsellers, but it's quite vague. I'm finding no other sources on her, really. — GorillaWarfare ^{talk-review me!} 14:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Subject of this article is a noted literary agent and author of 13 books on health and nutrition. Your Struggling Child... was listed in the bibliography, however, she was not the author. The original editor may have intended to use the book as a reference. Cindamuse (talk) 14:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noted where? — GorillaWarfare ^{talk-review me!} 15:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - could not find independent reliable source to establish notability. Does not pass WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG.--209.207.95.65 (talk) 15:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Comment - Vapid stub about obscure writer. Carrite (talk) 16:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've snooped around enough to come around to Weak Keep on this... 551 available copies by the author on ABEBooks indicates to me a sufficient level of mainstream notability. Sufficient career achievement to indicate that a decent bio can probably be written on the author someday... Carrite (talk) 04:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete per GorillaWarfare. I tried several searches on this author (him? her?) and could not find anything about the person, a la J. D. Salinger. That having been said, there are a lot of Ghits, so there might be something out there, but I've given up. Bearian (talk) 20:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Further research shows that Lynn Sonberg is president/editorial director of Lynn Sonberg Book Associates; writer and producer of over 150 titles for major publishers, including HarperCollins, Random House, St. Martin's Press, Perseus Book Group, Penguin USA, Holt, Simon & Schuster; specializing in nonfiction collaborations, mostly health, parenting, business, and personal finance. The subject is also a speaker and panelist addressing writer's conferences. This author is far from obscure, working in a very specialized field. If you click on the book source link above, you will find some information on her involvement in the publishing industry. Cindamuse (talk) 21:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I still stick by my position. All of the sources you say can be found by clicking on the books link are books by the author, not third-party sources on her. You say that she is not obscure in her field, which would suggest that she meets one of the guidelines in WP:AUTHOR, but I see no sources forthcoming to prove this. If you can find some sources, I might be willing to change my vote. Til then, delete it is. — GorillaWarfare ^{talk-review me!} 23:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm not wowed either. Carrite (talk) 23:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response. AfD is not a voting process, but rather dialogue pertaining to policy. There can be 20 keeps and one delete, but if policy indicates delete, then that criteria will prevail. That said, the overriding policy is covered in WP:AUTHOR. It doesn't matter how many online articles are found, however, they are most certainly available. What is significant is her contribution to the research, study, and publication in the field of health and nutrition. If you look further within the list of books provided, you will find sufficient information regarding her contributions and books that have become bestsellers. The sheer number of books written and produced, in addition to her participation in writers conferences (providing guidance to other writers) eliminates the concern of obscurity.

The policy located at WP:SOURCES indicates types of reliable sources.

The word "source" as used in Wikipedia has three meanings: the piece of work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times). All three can affect reliability.

While references are not currently included, policy criteria provides for deletion when articles can not possibly attributed to reliable sources. This is not the case with this article. Citations culled from reliable sources simply have been neglected by previous editors. Cindamuse (talk) 23:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Response to the response I'm pretty sure we're aware of the policy. The thing is, I still see no proof of notability. We've seen no proof of her peers/successors "widely citing" her work or regarding her as an important figure; no proof of her originating a significant concept, theory, or technique; no proof of her creating or co-creating significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews; and no proof of her work (a) becoming a significant monument, (b) being a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) winning significant critical attention, or (d) being represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. Show me proof of this, and like I said before, I'll change my vote recommendation. However, the volume of her writing and the participation in writers' conferences is not enough to meet WP:AUTHOR. — GorillaWarfare ^{talk-review me!} 01:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, I've seen no "citations culled from reliable sources" that have "simply have been neglected by previous editors." It would be helpful if you could link to examples of these things you mention -- simply saying they exist is not quite enough. Thanks! — GorillaWarfare ^{talk-review me!} 01:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply. With respect, AfD is not a voting process, but rather a discussion to recommend a course of action. See WP:AFDEQ. Citations can not be seen, because as I stated above, they haven't been written on Wikipedia yet. The presentation of citations has been neglected by previous editors. Citations can easily be written though, using the sources I've provided.
  Links have been offered to publishers, along with a collection of the author's works, which are in and of themselves, reliable sources of the author's notability. The author has created significant and well-known work in the areas of specialized health and nutrition. The first book on the link I provided was a national bestseller with over 250,000 copies sold. If not well-known to you, I would think authoring 150 books would qualify as significant. It's puzzling to me that this accomplishment is not being recognized and considered. Reliable sources include those that are found apart from those on the Internet. Policy states that the works themselves, along with the creator and publisher are considered reliable sources. There are several found both online and offline. It doesn't seem that anyone else wants to perform an exhaustive search.
  Again, policy criteria provides for deletion when articles can not possibly be attributed to reliable sources. This is not the case with this article. I think I've provided enough information here. I really don't want to click through every link for everyone and copy|paste the content here. I'm not personally involved, I just thought to offer the sources. Notability has been appropriately established. No harm; no foul. I think I've provided all the information I can on this subject. Cindamuse (talk) 03:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I apologize if the word "vote" made you think I think it's a voting process. I changed it above to "recommendation". As for the rest of your comment, where are the sources you've provided? As far as I've seen, you've only mentioned the Google Books link. Unless I'm missing something, I see no reference to a national bestseller on that link. The fact that there are no citations is no bother to me -- citations are easily made. It's the fact that there are no reliable, third-party sources that I have seen so far that does bother me. I'm not asking you to click through every link and copy/paste the content -- if you could just provide some of the URLs or anything, we could go through ourselves. As for the policy stating that the work itself, along with the publisher and creator, is a reliable source, I believe you're misinterpreting that. They are reliable sources for content -- for example, if you wanted to know the date that the book was published, you could look at the copyright page and cite that as a source. However, those sources are not considered reliable sources when determining notability. If you look at the general notability guideline, it says "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." It is the independent sources that this article is lacking. — GorillaWarfare ^{talk-review me!} 13:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Running titles by Lynn Sonberg published in the last 30 years on WorldCat returns 3 works of juvenile fiction and around a dozen titles on foods and health, plus translations. Sufficient career achievement to merit inclusion? Maybe. But that's not a normal Wikipedia standard... The existence of a bunch of books published by a mainstream publisher aren't considered adequate — even though for music releases they would be... Where does that leave us? With a bad stub about an obscure author... Carrite (talk) 04:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep at least as a children's author. 549 copies of A horse named Paris still in libraries 13 years later is notability. It was reviewed in the selective sources "School Library Journal" v. 34 (Sept. 1987). and The Horn Book v. 63 (Mar./Apr. 1987). Whether she's notable as a writer of popular nutrition books I'm not clear about--but they have been translated into several languages, which normally is a good indication of notability. . One of the titles, The Health Nutrient Bible was reviewed, in the selective sources " Library Journal" v. 120 (Dec. 1995), and Booklist 92 (Dec. 1 1995). By our usual standards, reviews are RSs for proving the notability of authors. DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 11 August 2010 (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. Mkativerata (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Wallace (author)[edit]

Jim Wallace (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Fails WP:BIO. No third-party independent sources establish his notability except for his WorldCat Identity which does not do the trick. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Finding no third-party sources. The sources cited on the page are pretty useless too. The reviewer that is cited seems like a hobbyist. — GorillaWarfare ^{talk-review me!} 14:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- Mostly for lack of independent sources, although its not common for lesser known authors to have articles. Better independent citations would change my vote.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the article pretty much makes the case for his not being notable. sources not found to support notability. This series is obviously notable, but the individual books did not get independent reviews as far as i know, and i would only consider authors of them notable if they went on to do other works, or were already notable when these came out.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:19, 5 August 2010 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Graver[edit]

Fred Graver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Seems to fail WP:BIO. Non-notable life, not really noticed by third-party sources. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Finding very very little for third-party sources. Also, if this is not deleted, it should at the very least be heavily revised. Much of it fails WP:NPOV, and several of the edits are by Special:Contributions/Fredgraver -- should be checked for WP:COI and WP:OR. — GorillaWarfare ^{talk-review me!} 14:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Wow, missed that one. Cindamuse is right, he does seem to meet notability. I still stand by my point that it needs to be revised though, because it's heavily WP:POV and WP:OR. — GorillaWarfare ^{talk-review me!} 23:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. I had to dig for it in the article and then through research. I agree with the Macworld columnist, this is a rather dry article for a comedian. LOL Cindamuse (talk) 23:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The subject of this article is a highly notable television producer and writer. He has been nominated for nine Emmy Awards, having been honored with three in his role as writer on Late Night with David Letterman. He is a distinguished member of the Writers Guild of America and is currently nominated to the council. Please see this article for more of his background, including media comments regarding the quality of this article. Cindamuse (talk) 15:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Cindamuse. Edward321 (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of successful English Channel swimmers[edit]

List of successful English Channel swimmers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This article was created a year ago (under the title English Channel swimmers; it was just moved to the current title today) and has, since its creation, consisted entirely of a table listing ten people. The problem is that this is just the first ten people to swim the English Channel, out of over 800 successful swimmers according to the reference cited here, and English Channel#By swimming (which details several of the more notable crossings) indicates the number of successful swimmers actually totaled nearly 1,000 by 2005. So what we have is a page that lists likely fewer than 1% of what it should, and nobody has shown any interest over the past year in expanding it, and if someone did spend hours copying the full list of successful swimmers, we'd have a table listing a thousand people, of which a small handful might not be completely obscure. I don't see the value in any of that, but my prod was removed. (No objection if someone wanted to merge the list of the first ten swimmers into the English Channel article, though.) Propaniac (talk) 14:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep & merge in content from English Channel. I declined this prod as this appears a reasonably well-defined list which may well be of interest. There's no reason why it should list all swims, just the more notable ones -- there is an disproportionately long and detailed section in English Channel#By swimming which details various records associated with these swims, and could be merged into the list if a comments column were added. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  No reason except for the fact that the title (which you chose) is "List of successful swimmers" not "List of notable swimmers." These are not the same thing. Propaniac (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a silent "notable" in most article titles, and before you raised this AfD I did suggest that you could move it again to the title of your choice, if you saw fit. The fact that the title needs tweaking or the contents better defining don't seem to me good reasons to delete perfectly adequate content. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I prodded the article because I do not believe Wikipedia should have a list of every person who has swum the English Channel, and I do not believe we should present content about a few swimmers in a way that suggests they encompass that entire list. (I suggested multiple times, including in this AFD, that the existing content could be relocated to an accurate heading.) I started the AFD because your misleading words and actions indicated to me that you disagreed with those beliefs. Since it seems we do in fact agree on those two facts, and nobody else has disputed them, I withdraw this nomination and invite any uninvolved party to close the discussion. (I have also started a discussion at Talk:List of successful English Channel swimmers#Criteria for inclusion in hopes of establishing criteria for which swimmers should be listed here, if not all of them.) Propaniac (talk) 15:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm very surprised that we apparently have no article about the history of people swimming across the English Channel, since that's been something that people have aspired to, and continue to, somewhat like climbing Mount Everest or going to the North Pole. Even an article about the first crossings of the English Channel, by swimming and by air and, more recently, by tunnel, is notably absent. Might as well redirect to English Channel until someone wants to write an article, but as Espresso notes, the section there is disproportionately long. Considering the historical and strategic significance of the English Channel, I hate to see it become a repository for sports trivia. Mandsford 15:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, definitely a topic of interest, just requires expansion to demonstrate the notability of the achievement. Definitely don't just delete, perhaps consider inserting into main English Channel if no volunteers to write a decent lead. Crazy-dancing (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Highly notable, although I don't see why it is restricted to first 10 people. Oh, I created this, why wasn't I notified it was up for deletion? The main article is already crowded and cluttered, the information THERE should be moved HERE, and formatted properly. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Uh, it's not restricted to the first ten people. If you were the one who created it, you're the one who listed the first ten people and then stopped. (And you weren't notified because it's suggested, not required; there was certainly plenty of lead-up to the AFD if you had the article on your Watchlist.) Propaniac (talk) 15:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article duplicates content in English Channel, it is misleadingly titled (these are no more "successful" than the next ten), and it is an arbitrary number (why not the first 5 or the first dozen or the first 100?). Edison (talk) 03:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title changes are discussed at the talk page, we don't delete over title disputes. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I've added more prose to the article and a few entries to the table, and will continue on some expansion after I cast my vote here. The topic of swimming across the English Channel is certainly a notable one, one covered extensively in the press, and one deserving an article separate from its parent. While it may not be reasonable to include all of the nearly 1,000 people who have successfully made the crossing, a list of the earliest crossings, record breaking crossings and other notable crossings would be entirely appropriate. Good chunks of the material from the English Channel article section covering swimmers should be shifted to this one. Alansohn (talk) 22:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We can certainly have a list of the most significant as here; personally I see nothing wrong with having 1000, It's a recognized major accomplishment, and if so many people manage to do it, all the better. We will not run out of space. DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wow-- the improvements by Alansohn have turned this into a well-sourced, first-rate article. This isn't the same page that was nominated two days ago. I'd give the man a barnstar except that I still haven't figured out what that means. I'd add that there's no need for a list of the first 1,000 crossings of the English Channel, since there's a link to all the crossings [10] provided within the article for anyone who cares about such things. I do think that the 1,000th swimmer should get some coupons from McDonald's as a reward. Mandsford 19:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep extremely notable topic —Chris!_c/t 00:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep per all the reasons above. Maashatra11 (talk) 09:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow keep. Let's take this AfD out of its misery -- suggest a snow, or that nom w/draw it.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Silly disruptive nomination over the title of the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Come on. Don't be so closed and shy. How do you really feel about it?  :) --Epeefleche (talk) 03:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I just want to point out that, as the nominator, I withdrew the nomination 6 days ago as soon as the misunderstanding about the disputed prod was clear, and I invited any uninvolved party to close the discussion. It's right up there in bold. And obviously since the article has now been improved into an actual article and not a random scrap of information, I'm still happy to invite an early close, if anyone would like to do that instead of launching silly, whiny attacks about it (or instead of starting new articles that make no sense and then abandoning them). Propaniac (talk) 13:10, 10 August 2010 (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. Courcelles 04:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stanislavski in Practice[edit]

Stanislavski in Practice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable book. — Timneu22 · talk 13:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: this book isn't out yet, it's being released in September. It may or may not be notable in the future (it's published by Routledge, which is nothing to sneeze at), but at the moment this looks like autobiographical spam. Hairhorn (talk) 14:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is an article being used to promote a book, yet to be released. It appears that the author of the book created the article. The article is a violation of policy, which requires that articles are not to be used as a means of promotion. Cindamuse (talk) 15:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete + Speedy, same reasons as above Crazy-dancing (talk) 15:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Advertisement Carrite (talk) 16:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia should not be used as a promo tool. Jusdafax 03:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brien woolford[edit]

Brien woolford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

It does assert notability - don't think he is though. Chris (talk) 13:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete I don't think "is famous from his videos on youtube" is a credible assertion of significance., and there is certainly no other indication of importance. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:46, 4 August 2010 (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. Consensus is that the subject does not have the requisite coverage in reliable sources. Mkativerata (talk) 18:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eskrima De Abaniko[edit]

Eskrima De Abaniko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Article was actually marked for deletion per WP:PROD by JamesBWatson but the tag was subsequently removed although arguably the article's content is very similar to before. It has no references, and as a result has been changed many times by IPs with no way of checking if those changes constituted vandalism or not. Attempts at finding references pertaining to the specific title have failed, and the subject's notability is also questionable. Jay-Sebastos (talk) 13:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - See huge unsourced list at: List of Eskrima systems. I'm inclined to tread lightly here. Article is unwikified and unsourced, but the subject may be of merit — which is what this is all about. Carrite (talk) 16:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I agree that if it is of merit it should be included however I have tried my best to find sources relating to the subject and have failed. I can't even find any mention of it apart from on wikipedia. Perhaps it is just an undocumented art practiced by an obscure cult or something and therefore is not notable enough to be included and is not of merit per WP:N? Jay-Sebastos (talk) 11:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article gives no reason why this art is notable and I could find no independent sources that indicate notability. Astudent0 (talk) 12:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The current article is only two sentences. When I look at earlier versions, there's vandalism and still no notability is shown. My own internet search failed to turn up any reliable sources that show this art meets WP:MANOTE. 131.118.229.18 (talk) 16:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There appears to be an Eskrima strike known as Abaniko[11] but I can find no evidence that a system has been named after it. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I find no sources that show this system is notable. Papaursa (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete contains original research.

Coercorash^TalkContr. 04:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. GregJackP Boomer! 05:35, 11 August 2010 (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball team names[edit]

Baseball team names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

A non-notable topic, appears to violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE. — Timneu22 · talk 12:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Definitely not useful -- it's hard to tell what the article is trying to do. Also, the layout of the article makes no sense, at least to me. This is another example of where we need a ruleset for the inclusion of lists into Wikipedia... GorillaWarfare ^{talk-review me!} 13:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I appreciate the work being put into this, but it's a bad idea. While I appreciate the intent, I don't see the need for an article or a table that explains that the Connecticut Tigers, Detroit Tigers, Lakeland Flying Tigers are named after a tiger, or that a tiger is an animal. Some athletic nicknames, like the San Diego Padres or the Tampa Bay Devil Rays, might need an explanation (usually given in the article about the team itself). Most of the teams in organized baseball (and there are hundreds in the minor leagues, as well as 30 in MLB) have names that need no explaining at all. Most of us have had the experience of putting together a table and then finding that it didn't display as it we had envisioned, after which we have to do more work to fix it. Even with it fixed, I can't see how one could overcome the problem that it's all original synthesis. Mandsford 14:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article offers a comparative presentation of baseball team names. While I agree that the article is an indiscriminate list, statements regarding usefulness or need are subjective. What may not be useful or needful for one individual may be useful to another. It may not interest me personally, but it may be of interest to others. If kept, the layout needs extensive revision. Cindamuse (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I think there's potential for a really fantastic article at this title, maybe explaining the history of baseball team names, how they've changed over the years (I doubt we'll be seeing another team called the Black Crackers, Zulu Cannibal Giants, or Rugmakers anytime soon) and how foreign team names relate to US ones. But this is a poorly-formated table that just states the obvious. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I fixed the formatting so that the article can now be more accurately evaluated. (Note to table creators: "rowspan=5" on every row of a table is not necessarily a good idea.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Explanation of names are better left to the articles of the teams. I agree with Andrew, however, when he says that "there's potential for a really fantastic article". --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 19:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Like the others above have said, this is nothing more than an indiscriminate list that doesn't really add anything to the encyclopedia. It's pretty clear that the St. Louis Cardinals and Toronto Blue Jays are named after birds, for example. If this was an actual article that discussed how and why teams have gotten their nicknames as time has gone on, that might be another story, and I'm apparently not alone in thinking that. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify Turn it into List of Professional Baseball Teams or something likewise that is discriminate and can salvage this. I agree this is not article worthy. Doc Quintana (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2010 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stahlhelm-Fraktion[edit]

Stahlhelm-Fraktion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This term is not used at all in the political discussion in Germany, it is most probably an invention by some wikipedia authors. See missing interwikis, missing sources and number of links. --Bahnmoeller (talk) 12:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC) 13:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete - Seems to fail WP:NOTDIC. However, if it is describing a particular political party, it could be expanded into a better article. Missing interwikis, sources, and links are not deletion criteria, but if the term is made up or just a definition, then delete. — GorillaWarfare ^{talk-review me!} 13:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to repeat: there is nothing with the official or unofficial name "Stahlhelm-Fraktion" in Germany. And because it does not exist you would not find any sources. --Bahnmoeller (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Comment - Dictionary definition as it sits. If the term is actually used, this fact needs to be sourced, pronto. Carrite (talk) 16:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a little history there now, which helps the cause. Carrite (talk) 04:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is a dictionary definition. TFD (talk) 18:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keepKeep It was easy enough to find the term being used; I added an English use that helpfully glosses it first, and two German uses; I see a use from 2010, but in a location that is unlikely to meet reliable sources standards, and I didn't even go onto the 2nd page of the Google search. However, it is a purely definitional article. It would be nice if one could find some German source discussing the derivation of the term and when it was first coined. I have now also found a source (English-language book) using the term in relation to Weimar-era politics and added that info - and a 2010 citation - to the article, so it is no longer either purely definitional or unreferenced. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment - Still sounds awfully like a definition... — GorillaWarfare ^{talk-review me!} 01:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete wholly non-encyclopedic, dic def. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: the Stahlhelm-Fraktion is no invention of an author but was an influencial political group within German politics in former times; article needs to be improved (members, positions, etc.). Dewritech (talk) 13:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm - the article purports that this term is in current use and relates to CDU/CSU members. I think that perhaps you are thinking of the term Stahlhelm more generally. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 02:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The term is still in use, but the origin as a distinguished group within CDU/CSU doesn't exist any more. Dewritech (talk) 07:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mistook your use of the term "former times" to mean Weimar or earlier. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 18:34, 9 August 2010 (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 is no consensus to delete in this AfD. Whether this should be kept or merged, or Brad (British Rates and Data) merged into the current article can be decided on the talk page. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BRAD Insight[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)).

BRAD Insight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Not notable company. References consist of either 1) sponsorships (i.e., ads) placed in the Guardian, 2) self-published media kits / press releases, or 3) passing mention in press releases for a ALF. Creator has a COI, using EMAP in username. 1 GNews hit (mention in passing), a few GHits. GregJackP Boomer! 12:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for reasons outlined above. Note: editor has blanked the content and moved the page to Crookstill, for unclear reasons (we're clearly dealing with a new editor). I don't know if db-author is appropriate in this case; any passing admin, please have a look and check out the history too--maybe the move needs to be undone (I undid the blanking). Drmies (talk) 13:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to make matters more easier, they moved it to Brad media first, it seems. I'm getting dazed and confused. Drmies (talk) 13:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone with buttons, please look into Crookstowe, Crookfur, Brad (British Rates and Data), and any others I might have missed as well. Drmies (talk) 13:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The author of BRAD Insight moved it to Brad media and then from there to Crookstill, despite the fact that the article does not even mention "Crookstill". The same author has also moved the longstanding article Brad (British Rates and Data) to Crookfur and from there to Crookstowe. I have moved them back to reduce confusion. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article is an example of how Brad (British Rates and Data) is used as a reference in an article about a newspaper publisher. Brad is a widely used source of information about advertising rates for British media. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the article you linked to does more than give an example; it actually qualifies BRAD, so that's good--for me, it's still a bit thin, and I couldn't find any actual discussion beyond mentions. Can you find more? BTW, I got a date with Betty tomorrow... Drmies (talk) 13:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Creator tagged the page with csd-g7 (in good faith - new editor). I removed the tag due to the afd discussion. I do not have a problem with deletion (obviously), but with the afd in process, if speedied, it should be done from here. GregJackP Boomer! 14:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge There is already an article on this topic at Brad (British Rates and Data), and we certainly don't need both. Either they should both be deleted, or else any content in BRAD Insight considered worth keeping should be merged into Brad (British Rates and Data) and BRAD Insight deleted. Of the two I marginally prefer the merge, as the subject does appear to have some notability (even though the article does not do a very good job of showing it). JamesBWatson (talk) 14:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am in favour of merging the two articles. I work in advertising and BRAD is like a bible. It is genuinely extremely notable, although I acknowledge probably only to a relatively small group. The older article, British Rates and Data, seems a little more out of date. I suggest we merge the two and given that the business is now actually known as BRAD Insight, keep the latter article? I am amazed at the controversy! Th.cam.wiki (talk) 14:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, I don't mind looking for more substantial references to back up the article or making other improvements if it's decided not to delete? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Th.cam.wiki (talk • contribs) 14:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to a merge, provided V/RS are provided. GregJackP Boomer! 14:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the process to be followed? Who decided whether a merge goes ahead and how do they do it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Th.cam.wiki (talk • contribs) 14:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nominating main article. ^Bongo_matic 23:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep...something?: First, let me say that I'm unbelievably confused about all the different pages. And I know that a lot of the pages aren't terribly well sourced. But, unfortunately, common sense tells me that if they've produce 276 editions, with over 3.8 million copies, of a directory that is used by 96% of the businesses in the field in the U.K., that this company has to qualify as notable. Looking at the sources, it looks to me like both campaign and BRANDREPUBLIC are reliable sources (although it's actually only one source, because it's the same article). They read like PR pieces, but the journals they are in are about media and PR, so that makes sense (to me, anyway). It really pains me to support keeping one of these articles, because I'm pretty much an immediatist/deletionist. Common sense, though, tells me that there must be some way to source this...I have no idea, though, which of the articles should survive.Qwyrxian (talk) 01:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article seems to be of some importance - common sense also tells me that 3.8 millions copies means notability! I agree the references aren't the strongest but I think they do illustrate the notability of BRAD Insight. For example, if the re-launch of your product is featured in all the relevant industry publications then doesn't this mean something (even if it was a press release)? The references back all the factual elements of the article. I think it's really important that Wikipedia isn't cluttered with advertising junk but it is equally important that notable businesses are featured. I argue keep, and delete the old article. Mia.JRR (talk) 15:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC) Also, the references to the Guardian Media page have been criticised but I don't see why - a) they factually back up the assertion that the business has partnered with these events b) the fact that Guardian Media group (nobody is going to argue its notability!) partnered with them show's that they are a notable player in the industry, right? One last thing: if the old article was 'longstanding' as said above, then doesn't that mean that notability has already been established and it's just a matter of checking the content of the new article and deleting the less interesting one?Mia.JRR (talk) 15:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC) — Mia.JRR (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete or merge We don't need two articles on the one business. Peridon (talk) 18:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep something I agree - we do not need two articles on the one business. However, I think that one should remain. Notabitility criteria seems, to me, to be met - 3.8 million copies have been produced and BRAD appears to be very well known by those in the industries. When searching for the company in Google I also found that universities seem to use the resource. Perhaps a more careful search would yield a reference illustrating how the resources are used by them? The creator perhaps ought to look at this possibility. Claude.drm (talk) 08:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as apparently a major information service. I am unable to divine the motives of the originator: did they set out to write a straightforward article, and then start acting oddly when notability was questioned (a not uncommon occurrence) ? Was the intention of the names to insult the company, or us, or ??? If kept, this article will need watching. DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was a classic "I give up" reaction after trying to move it to save it. Brand new editor. GregJackP Boomer! 04:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, it's certainly a notable product/service and it's much better than the Brad (British Rates and Data) article. Barnabypage (talk) 14:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted. Chris (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zebra Rodeo[edit]

Zebra Rodeo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

original research on band which shows no notability. no coverage in independent reliable sources. nothing satisfying wp:music duffbeerforme (talk) 11:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - Per ((db-band)). Not finding any third party sources whatsoever. The only real claim to notability is that an EP by the band supposedly reached number 6 on the top 20 chart of a small community radio station, 4ZZZ. — GorillaWarfare ^{talk-review me!} 13:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2010 (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 because all issues that gave ground to this nomination is resolved, thanks to hard-working participants. (Non-admin Closure) Fleet Command (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

World War III: Black Gold[edit]

World War III: Black Gold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This article is devoid of any secondary source as well as any primary source except for the video game's manual. Apparently it has been like that for two and half a year now. It also fails to establish its notability; even the article itself confesses this issue by calling it subject a "relatively unheard-of computer game". Fleet Command (talk) 11:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I'm finding some reviews of the game that could be used for third-party sources: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], etc. Seems to fit the significant coverage clause of the notability guideline. I think it is notable enough to warrant an article, and the problem with it being unsourced is easily fixable. — GorillaWarfare ^{talk-review me!} 14:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Objection. I thank you for finding these, GorillaWarfare but ... I'm afraid these might not be enough. Er... You see, the majority of the article is in its Plot section and its plot section a close paraphrase of what article admits to be "World War III: Black Gold Manual (found on World War III website)". That's why I haven't withdrawn this AfD yet. When the majority of the article should be deleted/rewritten (for the aforementioned copyright reason,) well... shouldn't we delete it right now, per WP:SNOW? Fleet Command (talk) 18:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fleet, forgive me for asking, but did you look for sources before bringing this to deletion discussion? Marasmusine (talk) 12:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well... Yes, I did. But... I am awfully unskilled in finding sources for computer games. I don't know how comes that you guys find such good sources but I always find nothing eye-catching. On the other hand, I don't understand how comes that while such good source-finders as you guys exist but articles like this must remain tagged as unsourced for years until a guy like me AfD it? Fleet Command (talk) 17:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per precedent to keep all boxed, sold-in-stores PC games. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? Really? You guys have a consensus to keep all articles related to all sold-in-store games? Perhaps you'll be kind to provide a link to that consensus... er ... just for information? Fleet Command (talk) 11:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I saw this too -- I've been wondering the same thing... — GorillaWarfare ^{talk-review me!} 13:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Significant coverage from IGN, Gamespot, etc as linked to by Gorilla, shows that this topic is notable. Marasmusine (talk) 12:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. And your rewrites made it unbeatable. Withdrawing this AfD now... "Where have you been all these years?" asks the article! Fleet Command (talk) 17:04, 7 August 2010 (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 - Simply no support for nom's position on this one Mike Cline (talk) 12:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of battles by casualties[edit]

List of battles by casualties (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

I suggest deleting this article as, even though sourced in respect of separate data, the entire tables, which are not sourced per se, consisiting of a mixture of separate numbers, constiute violation of the following Wikipedia rule: WP:SYN. Rubikonchik (talk) 11:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Just to make sure everybody undrestands correctly, the violation of WP:SYN consists in the fact that no sources are available for the made up tables.Rubikonchik (talk) 13:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC) The further debate goes, I realize in fact that not only rule: WP:SYN is violated, but also rule: WP:COATRACK and rule: WP:FRINGE. Please, do consider application of all the three rules in your answers. Rubikonchik (talk) 22:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I disagree that this violates SYN. Simply having a multitude of sources, some of them conflicting, does not constitute synthesis or original research; rather, basing a conclusion off of these facts would be (thus why the header of the SYN section includes the words "that advances a position"). Merely presenting the statistics (especially in a range when the refs are inconsistant) is simply a NPOV way of presenting the facts without advancing a position. See also User:Bahamut0013/CSIOR. bahamut0013^words_deeds 11:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I am not a fan of wikilists of numbers because I have always found them on the verge of wp:syn but I also realise that the deletion of all of them would be a catastrophy of epic proportions in Wikipedia. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 11:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep seems like a reasonable way to organise this information. The numbers themselves and how to source them can be worked out on the talk page, but the list's concept is sound. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I don't think it violates WP:SYN or any other policies/guidelines. Jenks24 (talk) 13:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep and here's why. Now that this is a sortable table (something that wasn't possible until the last year or so), this could simply be called "list of battles". This is what a list on Wikipedia should aspire to, which is sourcing each and every item on the list. I'm glad to see the deletion proposal being booed off the stage, although I agree with one point made by the nominator, which is that "casualties" is an ambiguous concept. Even the article itself has the caveat that "Figures display numbers of all types of casualties when available (killed, wounded, missing, and sick) but may only include number killed." I'm sorry, but that is not helpful-- pick one or the other, dammit. No, AfD is not for cleanup, but I'm glad when it shakes people out of the complacency about a mess. The people who are interested in maintaining the list need to do some serious thinking about which direction to go next. If it were entirely up to me, the number would be limited to those killed in battle, with a separate column for total number of killed and wounded. Mandsford 14:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I added that sentence, and the problem is that most sources simply list all casualties. If I were to remove all the entries for which I did not have a source that listed only the number killed, or separate numbers for killed and total casualties, the list would be eviscerated and have fewer entries than it did before I started building it up. While I agree that what you're saying would be better, if the sources for that are out there, I don't have them. – Joe N 17:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A good way to organise the information. I imagine there are a lot of people who want to know which battles killed the most people, but they don't want to go trawling around Wikipedia or the rest of the net trying to find the answers. If this should be deleted, then perhaps List of natural disasters should be too—but it shouldn't—because it is useful. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 17:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I am under no illusion that this list will ultimately be kept primarily through the votes of users who have never written a comparable list and do not understand its intrinsic difficulties. The reason why a useful and objective list of battles by casualties is virtually impossible is a straightforward one: a list can only be sorted by one value for each entry, but for most battles in history casuality numbers are wild guesses, so the order of any list will always heavily depend on which estimate is preferred over all the others. You take another set of secondary sources and the whole order could be, no, will be completely different. It is a useless exercise, as useless as list of largest empires by population where the listed number for the Persian Empire is singled out for no obvious reason from ten other figures which were relegated to the footnotes. But undoubtedly people will finally have convinced themselves that the established order is a bit more objective, and so we will have another list which does not reflect historical truth and accuracy but merely the bias of the latest editor who bothered to edit it. This list is Wikipedia in its best trash sense. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overwhelming keep and speedy close The list is obviously useful to wikipedia editors and encyclopedic, and should be included on wikipedia. Figures that included should from academic, reliable sources, in order to satisfy Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Just because only wild estimates are available does not mean we should not include it, as it reflects the current state of scholarship (or else all our astronomy articles will have to go, lol).Teeninvestor (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I do not agree with the nominator's claims of 'synth" "coatrack" or "fringe" and see the list as an appropriate one, presenting historic and encyclopedic information in a manner which helps organize it and facilitates search. Edison (talk) 04:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. For a list, it is unusually well referenced, to a point where the article could be nominated for a featured list with a fairly little work. I do not understand on what is the WP:SYN accusation based, as "mixture of separate numbers" is rather silly when every single number is backed up with a valid source. Estimates may vary, it is normal - this is the way science often works - but in no way is presenting the numbers a synthesis. Furthermore, I cannot see how WP:COATRACK and WP:FRINGE apply (first is an essay, not guideline). What is the "tangentially related biased subject" in case of this list? What fringe theory do solidly sourced non-commented numbers promote? --Sander Säde 09:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (nominator's explanations).

1WP:SYN

The list per se is not referenced. What is referenced are different numbers in each line. By the way, different sources provide different numbers and different values for those numbers. There is no value-number unity even in the separate numbers, and even less in entire tables. The synthesis of these numbers results in the freely made up by editors tables. This perfectly responds to the WP:SYN definition and requirements: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.

2 WP:COATRACK

As far as WP:COATRACK is concerned, there is clearly an error of mixture of different values represented as one in these tables. It includes sampling bias, in which some numbers and values pertaining to this or that type of casualties are more likely to be included than others. This is parallel to a typical spectrum bias consisting of evaluating the ability of a test in a biased group of values, which leads to an overestimate of the sensitivity and specificity of the test. Alternatively, the bias of an estimator is the difference between an estimator's expectation and the true value of the parameter being estimated. Omitted-variable bias is the bias that appears in estimates of parameters in a regression analysis when the assumed specification is incorrect, in that it omits an independent variable that should be in the model. therefore, in present article, what is the independent variable in these tables? Can anybody answer? We are also dealing here with (i) systematic bias which is characterised by external influences that may affect the accuracy of statistical measurements and (ii) data-snooping bias which comes from the misuse of data techniques. As a result, due to the preferred sources by one editor, Berlin battle may appear as the one with most casualties and eventually imply that all of them were German and all dead, which is not necessarily true. The same applies to all other entries.

Therefore, taking into account all of the aforesaid, here again, it fully correpsonds to the definition of coatrack articles which can be created purposefully to promote a particular bias, and they can accidentally evolve through excessive focus on one aspect of the subject.

3 WP:FRINGE

Along with the above explained bias appears also WP:FRINGE - description of ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study. Examples include conspiracy theories, ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have little or no scientific support, esoteric claims about medicine, novel re-interpretations of history and so forth. Some of the theories addressed may be hypotheses, conjectures, or speculations.. It goes without saying that this article with its biased lists includes numerous speculations about interpretations of history, and namely numbers of casualties and their relevant values, nations who suffered the most or the least, etc...Rubikonchik (talk) 10:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, your argument for SYN doesn't apply because the list doesn't imply a conclusion. It merely says what the sources said, A and B, without introducing C. And merely having conflicting sources doesn't imply that the list should be deleted, or we'd be AfDing 90% of the articles on anything notable; for the most part, ranges are given when significant discrepancies are found.

I think you missed the point of COATRACK, unless you are implying that the author deliberately sought to subtly manipulate the data for some sort of nefarious scheme... what, I couldn't tell you. A bias in the data collection does not imply coatrack (which is a deceptive subject), that's merely a cleanup issue and not an AfD one. I see on the talk page that no attempts have been made to address this issue, which is simply shameful to suggest burning down a dirty house before cleaning it.

I think the FRINGE argument is just silly. If you think the statistics are wrong, then provide some reliable sources of your own and have them corrected. To say that the Battle of Berlin was a bloody affair is certainly not a deviation from the prevalent view (BTW, I'm not sure why you argue against an implication of German dead when the article doesn't differentiate the nationality of the casualties; such an implication simply doesn't exist, and the article gives a number not too far off).

Sounds like effort would be better spent repairing the supposed shortcomeings, rather than fighting to kill it with fire. bahamut0013^words_deeds 11:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My argument does apply because the list items are sorted from maximum to minumum casualties, including other criteria. There is always a conclusion looking at any table - the most casualties took place in X or Y. When I'm speaking of conflicting sources, I'm referring to the sources in respect of separate numbers. The tables as they are present in the article, by way of the aforementioned WP:SYN should be also examined under a larger scope of WP:OR. What we need for these tables and lists - are the sources and references for already existing tables and lists with a clear compatible and applicable to this article criteria (nominal unit). Please, revisit the Wikipedia:No original research.

In respect of the WP:COATRACK, here again, please revisit the relevant Wikipedia page with explanations and instructions. Pursuant to the existing wording of the aforesaid rule as of today, a bias does imply a coatrack. You may certainly propose to change the rules in accordance with your interpretation.

Regarding WP:FRINGE, personally, I don't think calling my argument "silly" gives you more credit, but anyway, looking at these lists and tables, one clearly sees speculation on multiple historical issues - what fully corresponds to the current definition as per WP:FRINGE. Here again, please revisit the current wording of the Wikipedia rule in this regard. Unless it has chaged since yesterday, it didn't become silly since it was adopted by a good number of Wikipedians. As for the numbers, for example, just type in Leningrad casualties in Google and see how many different numbers appear. Why namely the one retained in the list was considered? The same applies to all the other entries. Do you want to check all existing sources with all different numbers and count an average for all entries?

I'm not really fighting, just applying Wikipedia prescriptions. The scope of the article seems simply impossible to attain, although your proposal to improve is very interesting, but HOW and WHAT exactly?.Rubikonchik (talk) 13:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sorting defaults to chronological order, not by casualty. If a reader draws a conclusion on thier own based on raw data, how can that be considered biased? If you claim that the data is being manipulated to lead to a certain conclusion, then go ahead un-manipulate it. I also have to note that most of the numbers are taken from a small handful of sources, making SYNTH harder to prove when they are uniformly drawn.

I think it is rather you who needs to re-read COATRACK. The opening line defines it as a misleading article purporting to be about A, but really is about B. There's no interpretation there. This article is exactly what it purports to be: a list of battles by casualties.

Again, you seem to be twisting the guidelines. FRINGE refers to actual fringe theories, not disputing references. If source A says that 200,000 people died in a battle and source B says that 250,000, does that make one depart from the standard and commonly excepted norm? There is no real norm for such wide ranging estimates, and 50,000 is well within the margin of error, depending on how recent the conflict was and how well it was recorded historically. Now, if one of them was claiming that two million Japanese were killed at Iwo Jima, that would be a fringe theory (I doubt a million men could even fit on that island). I also note again that most of the sources appear to be reliable and respectable sources.

Ultimately, I think that would belong on the talk page, but you'd have to enumerate where you think the list is inaccurate or misleading, and then make discussion and consensus on what to display. I might suggest posting upper and lower limits, as well as a typical average. bahamut0013^words_deeds 16:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your argumentation seems irrelevant. Please, reread my lines just above, there is no source for these tables and lists, there are sources (and unfortunately all giving different number indications) for each separate entry, but again, what is proposed to be deleted is this article containing these invented and synthesized on WP lists and not the separate numbers in each article regarding this or that battle. And if the purpose of these lists and tables is not to draw a conclusion, then what it is? Speaking of a concrete example how people draw conclusions, please have a look at how much is written regarding only one person's conclusions in relation to this article containing invented lists and tables. Moreover, basing on these invented lists as an ultimate source for the "truth" and proper reference may create a very dangerous precedent of invented lists.

Here again, you haven't shown any exact wording you were referring to. I will do it for you. WP says: A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject. Here, the nominal subject would be an exact number of casualties (themselves undefined), the biased content is well explained just above, and since you haven't argued against it, I understand that you fully adhere to all the bias present in this article. Moreover, WP rules on COATRACK provide for the following: It is inappropriate to "even out the percentage of bias". These are considered scarves, hats, and gloves, and along with the coats, obscure the coatrack, and are also good candidates for removal.

Unfortunately you haven't revisited the relevant pages. Speaking of fringe theories, Wikipedia says The governing policies regarding fringe theories are the three core content policies, Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, and Verifiability. Jointly these say that articles should not contain any novel analysis or synthesis, that material likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, and that all significant views published in reliable sources should be represented fairly and proportionately. Should any inconsistency arise between this guideline and the content policies, the policies take precedence. Further, Wikipedia says, while identifying fringe theories, examples include conspiracy theories, ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have little or no scientific support, esoteric claims about medicine, novel re-interpretations of history and so forth. Some of the theories addressed here may in a stricter sense be hypotheses, conjectures, or speculations. Presenting a list, one speaks of exact numbers or defines a nominal common value for all entries, otherwise it's enough to mention in each separate article about each battle the appropriate number guesses and explain where do they come from, however one can't invent a common table out of it. The question whether there is or not a norm regarding the error margin is not an issue, as per WP rules a mere speculation is enough, and we definitely do have much more than mere speculation regarding these numbers and the way they are represented in the table (no differentiation between nationalities, dead, wounded, etc...). Again, you are missing the point, each entry per se is not contested here, although one can easily contest each of the indicated numbers as well. What is proposed to be deleted is the article inventing new tables, organising and sorting questionable numbers in even more, newly invented, questionable lists and tables with obscure or rather no sorting criteria.

Taking into account the presently applicable and herein explained Wikipedia policies, this article should be deleted, since, in accordance with the very same Wikipedia policies, not only it should be deleted, but it shouldn't even be modified, taking into account the present bias, absence of a commonly applicable clear nominal value, hence the very object of the article.Rubikonchik (talk) 09:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What? Are you serious? You put this up for deletion because you seemed to be against consensus at one of the individual articles? That's pretty cheap.

Your argument seems to be that a list that isn't sourced by a single reference is synth? That is absurd; as the goal for multiple independant reliable sources is one of the conerstones of Wikipedia's referencing policy. Multiple independant sources doesn't make SYTH or OR; and incidentally, several of the sources are indeed referenced multiple times, which would seem to go toward your argument. The distinction here is on the presence of a conclusion, and possibly in the case of lists, comparative judgment. But when it comes to raw data, you can't argue bias except in the case of the individual statistics being flawed. Tying them together is not inherantly biased unless the data is arranged to lead the reader to a specific conclusion. Simply put, this list doesn't violate SYNTH because it doesn't advance a position.

You've made my point for me: the list covers exactly what it purports to. There is no deception or tangental manuevering. You can claim the data is flawed or biased, but that doesn't make the article a coatrack. The lead paragraph specifically states that the numbers given are estimates, not exact numbers (incidentally, any reader with more than two brain cells to rub together wouldn't have to be told this explicitly), meaning that there is no attempt to appear A but discuss B.

Where is the lack of scientific support? Where is the reinvention of history? Where is the conspiracy theory? Where does referenced data because a fringe thoery (besides where you disagree with it)? These estimates are not conjecture or supposition, these are respected historians who arrive at them through study and research. If you dispute the individual estimates, then take it to the talk page and find a better one.

Lastly, please don't refactor the discussion. It's harder to follow that way. bahamut0013^words_deeds 19:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What? Are you serious? You put this up for deletion because you seemed to be against consensus at one of the individual articles? That's pretty cheap.

- again, wrong understanding for unknwon to me reasons. This article was put up exactly for the reasons exlained above, and namely violation of three WP rules.Rubikonchik (talk) 14:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument seems to be that a list that isn't sourced by a single reference is synth?

- yes, exactlyRubikonchik (talk) 14:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is absurd; as the goal for multiple independant reliable sources is one of the conerstones of Wikipedia's referencing policy.

- not relavant to the argumentation for deletion nomination of this article, nor is this contested at allRubikonchik (talk) 14:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple independant sources doesn't make SYTH or OR; and incidentally, several of the sources are indeed referenced multiple times, which would seem to go toward your argument.

- again you are missing the point. Not only each number entry may be contested, as already have done commentators on this very page, but what is being contested is this article containing invented lists by WP users.Rubikonchik (talk) 14:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction here is on the presence of a conclusion, and possibly in the case of lists, comparative judgment. But when it comes to raw data, you can't argue bias except in the case of the individual statistics being flawed.

- Both presence of conclusion and comparative judgment are clearly present and have been already contested and discussed by edtiors (see above for references). That's exactly how the bias comes in - through obscure, flawed and criteria absent statistics.Rubikonchik (talk) 14:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tying them together is not inherantly biased unless the data is arranged to lead the reader to a specific conclusion. Simply put, this list doesn't violate SYNTH because it doesn't advance a position

- Exactly, and the reader does reach a very specific clear conclusion, have a look at the provided above references in respect of the Siege of Leningrad article. As a a matter of fact, a reader does adhere to the advanced by this invented table position.Rubikonchik (talk) 14:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've made my point for me: the list covers exactly what it purports to.

- I'am afraid you haven't read this talk page. I'm not sure where I have made your point???Rubikonchik (talk) 14:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no deception or tangental manuevering. You can claim the data is flawed or biased, but that doesn't make the article a coatrack.

- Ok, sounds like that kind of argumentation: "whatever you say, I don't like it and won't agree just because!". That doesn't give any credit to your argumentation. Please refer, like I did, to WP rules.Rubikonchik (talk) 14:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lead paragraph specifically states that the numbers given are estimates, not exact numbers (incidentally, any reader with more than two brain cells to rub together wouldn't have to be told this explicitly)

- Again, the articles, lacks the very core, the subject, the very common value, which is even more important in statistics and comparative tables and lists.Rubikonchik (talk) 14:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

meaning that there is no attempt to appear A but discuss B.

-A & B argumentation was not argued here. It's not clear to me what's the purpose of advancing this undiscussed issue? It's about historical speculation here, please see above as explained.Rubikonchik (talk) 14:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the lack of scientific support? Where is the reinvention of history? Where is the conspiracy theory? Where does referenced data because a fringe thoery (besides where you disagree with it)? These estimates are not conjecture or supposition,

- The lack of scientific support is right there: there are no other sources of such table and lists, unless you consider WP editors established scientists. When an editor refers to this table as an ultimate source to consider a battle "the most" or "one of the most", depending on the number retained in the table, costly in casualties - the reinvention fo history happens right there. Conspiracy theory was just part of the multiple criteria definition, please reread the above given argumentation in this regard. I'm not the only one who disagrees with numbers, there are plenty of editors who disagree with numbers already on this very deletion nomination page. An estimate is a supposition per se, you contradict yourself...Rubikonchik (talk) 14:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

these are respected historians who arrive at them through study and research. If you dispute the individual estimates, then take it to the talk page and find a better one.

- I'm not contesting individual entries. Again, your argumentation in this regard is irrelevant. This is not being discussed here. I'm contesting the made up tables and lists with no clear criteria. However, numerous users have raised the question of individual entries here: indeed, the individual numbers themselves are all subject to contestation.Rubikonchik (talk) 14:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly, please don't refactor the discussion. It's harder to follow that way.

- I hope it's better to follow this way.Rubikonchik (talk) 14:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think at this point, we've come to an impasse, and more kilobytes of conversation probably won't be productive. I disagree with your rationale, find your reasoning to be a flawed interpretation of policy and guideline, and it seems that neither of us shall convince the other, nor probably sway other editors in thier votes. As a last ditch attempt, I encourage you to take a look at a few featured lists, and see if you find your interpretation of SYNTH being applied there. In closing, I will express my gratitude in that you have remained quite civil and approachable/open throughout the process, a behavior that is often sadly lacking on Wikipedia. bahamut0013^words_deeds 20:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep. Almost anyone who cares to check the numbers knows that they are estimates. But frankly, an estimate made by a good source is better than no estimate at all. —CodeHydro 14:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article needs a lot of work (for instance, on the basis of a few spot checks the figures for many battles don't match those in the article on the battle and there needs to be a cut-off minimum number of casualties for battles to be included in the article) but these issues can be resolved via normal editing and discussion on the talk page. I'm unable to see any discussion of the nominator's concerns there prior to this being nominated for deletion. Nick-D (talk) 02:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• When adding things to the list, I did not add battles with fewer than 10,000 casualties. Seeing as I added probably around 90% of the entries here, that kind of became the de facto minimum. Sorry if I should have stated that in the article, I didn't think of it. – Joe N 15:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Quite an encyclopedic topic, obviously. In World War 2 armies on both sides did keep track of how many people they had that died in each battle, so I doubt those stats are in question. For the rest, you just reference the most trustworthy source. If necessary you can add in two numbers, saying 20000-25000 if one says 20,000, and another says 25,000. This is what the Wikipedia exist for. Good job to those who created and worked on it. Dream Focus 17:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is an interesting piece of work, a compilation rather than WP:OR. However, I am not sure how useful the article is while it is sorted in date order. At present it is "list of battles and sieges with casualties", not by casualties. To fit the title, it would need to be ordered by the number of casualties, not by date. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Doesn't violate WP:SYN and is a useful and informative list. Although I do agree with Peterkingiron that I was expecting the list to be in ordered by number of casualties. Perhaps it should be renamed or the list rearranged. Either way this is the only real (and minor) problem with the article and it isn't a reason for deletion. Jenks24 (talk) 16:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((Rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron, with no explanation as to why this article should be rescued and how that could happen (per ARS instructions). SnottyWong ^gossip 18:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Nominator has clearly misinterpreted WP:SYN. SnottyWong ^yak 18:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please bother to explain how clearly was the WP:SYN misinterpreted? And what about WP:OR, WP:COATRACK and WP:FRINGE?Rubikonchik (talk) 08:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The information is sourced. The subject is significant. The items in the list have or should have Wikipedia articles or substantial parts of them. Some of the nominator's arguments for deletion are rather odd:

the assertion that although the data is references the article is not.

the assertion that arranging a list of things in numerical order is SYN; it's just this type of arrangement which is the normal counterexample to SYN.

COATRACK, but what is it a coatrack for? The challenger was not able to specify.

the assertion,confusingly listed as part of Coatrack, that the data was not compiled on a single consistent basis. (I gather this is the meaning of the statistical nonsense about hidden variables--that something else may have affected the casualty count; but this would be true only of an argument that did assign some cause to this, while this is merely a list of numbers based on sources, not an attempt at determining causation or correlation.

FRINGE, but what's fringy about battles having casualties? All the sources listed count as RS--(I cannot judge the Chinese ones, of course) The challenger says " looking at these lists and tables, one clearly sees speculation on multiple historical issues - ". However, nobody else has been able to see any. I can't. Looking at the references, the only thing that gives me a hint is the possible comparison of deaths caused by Stalin and Hitler, and the controversy of the role of the USSR in the eventual victory--and some of the links given in the argument suggest that's what is involved. But nothing in the article goes into this.

In summary, I am not sure whether to consider this a good faith nomination, or whether the nomination is the coatrack. The only other editor supporting deletion is a respected editor, though which some tendency to go off on tangents of his own--I do not question his good faith in the slightest. DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, the information is not sourced. The article contains tables and lists and those are not sourced as such. The subject is significant and nobody contests this. What is contested is the notion of subject: what is the exact subject of the article, what is the exact common value for building the tables and lists? Furthermore, sources provided for individual entries are all based on different type of criteria, research (if any at all). What is contested is the list per se, as scientifically it does not exist, at least the way it is presented on WP.
• As for the Coatrack, I have clearly specified what it is for. You haven't contested any of my arguments in this respect, hence I presume you adhere to what I said in this regard as well as to the applicable WP Coatrack rules and definition. (please see above) I am not sure where exactly have you seen and what exactly do you understand under the alleged by you "cause" requirement pursuant to the currently applicable WP rules. The definition is quite clear: Coatrack articles can be created purposefully to promote a particular bias, and they can accidentally evolve through excessive focus on one aspect of the subject.
• regarding Fringe, there again, you are reading in between the lines and there again you have referred to no WP rule whatsoever. I'll do it again for you: Jointly these say that articles should not contain any novel analysis or synthesis, that material likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, and that all significant views published in reliable sources should be represented fairly and proportionately. Should any inconsistency arise between this guideline and the content policies, the policies take precedence. The historical speculation is right in these tables, which purport establishing a ranking of undefined casualties toll, which further serves as a basis and reference by itself for other articles and editors (see above the described example with Siege of Leningrad article). Pursuant to the very WP definition, there is a novel analysis and synthesis for which no reliable source exists (I am referring to the made up tables and lists). How many different sources are there and how many conflicting views regarding exact numbers of dead, wounded, nationalities involved??? Therefore, here again, I repeat, the WP policies should take precedence and this article be deleted. However, the articles pertaining to a particular battle may each mention the number of casualties, criteria used to define those casualties, opposed views and other different estimates. One more time, and here I'm repeating the very users who commented on this page, these are all unclear common criteria absent estimates. Consequently, the very subject of the article containing such invented lists and tables is absent.Rubikonchik (talk) 09:27, 11 August 2010 (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:Issue resolved. (Non-Admin Closure) Fleet Command (talk) 06:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vigilance (video game)[edit]

Vigilance (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This is devoid of any kind of secondary source. It does not introduce any source but its only source is obviously the video game itself, a primary source. It also fails to establish its notability. Besides, I can make neither head nor tail out of its "Playable characters" section; seemingly it is talking in-universe. Fleet Command (talk) 10:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Fleet Command (talk) 12:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Just because the article doesnt have sourcing yet doesnt mean there not out there; Some reviews for reception can be found at [17], [18]. Will do a bit more digging later but i think secondary sourcing can be found. Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the references found by Ottawa4ever alone, especially since GamePro is one of the top gaming magazines out there. –MuZemike 19:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I concur. Good finding, Ottawa4ever. I'll be more than glad to withdraw the nomination once the article is fixed. Fleet Command (talk) 11:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Unless someone beats me to it, Ill be on this some time this weekend (a bit bogged down currently...) Ottawa4ever (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Didnt have too much time tonight, but ive incorporated a reception section with the two previous sources i found and removed the characteristics of each individual character until they can be verified by another source. Should be a start... Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Lovely work. Keep it up. (But don't sacrifice your valuable time on it, you'll have enough time because:) I'm withdrawing this nomination. Cheers, pal. Fleet Command (talk) 06:30, 7 August 2010 (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. Overall, the deletion arguments based on a lack of independent coverage were stronger. Arguments for keeping included WP:USEFUL and WP:POTENTIAL. While it is true that it's better to fix an article rather than delete it, it has to fulfill the notability criteria first, which it fails to do. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

14th Transportation Battalion (United States)[edit]

14th Transportation Battalion (United States) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

In accordance with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/436th Transportation Battalion (United States), non-combat service support units of battalion size or smaller have to have their notability clearly established. The information given in this unit's entry - purely barebones lineage and honours - is not sufficient to justify notability for a support unit at this level. Relevant material is available at Red Ball Express, and other articles such as 1st Sustainment Command (Theater) which detail overall support force contributions in U.S. Army campaigns. This article itself however does not justify the unit's notability. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Buckshot06 (talk) 10:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Okay, so I am a little biased at having created the article, but here is my 2 cents why this article was created and we should keep it. First, I have been charged with making public domain material from the Center of Military History available through Wikipedia. With this in mind, I sought to create expansible article from the material, such as this transportation battalion. I think the recent edits that I made to the article prove the expandability. Second, its public domain material, why not make it available on Wikipedia? Its better to have a referenced stub (which this was) then no stub at all and, in the long run, it is better for Wikipedia, because it makes yet another search term that directly brings people here enhancing Wikipedia's reputation as the first source for military information (with the CMH as the authority validating this. Albeit the search term isn't at the top yet, though I am sure it will be in several weeks). Lastly, deleting this article would be deleting Verifiable, useful information on American military force structure related to current events and a broad swath of US military history.

In the broader arguments surrounding the inclusion of military units in Wikipedia, I understand the reasoning behind excluding smaller units such as companies or flights, but independent support battalions, even United States ones, which are in plethora, are just too large to simply ignore. In this case, I stand largely as an inclusionist. Medium to Large government bodies should be one of the priorities of Wikipedia to include because they are funded by our readership and have the potential to effect the everyday lives of our readership, whether in the United States or Iraq as this unit does, therefore our readers should have the opportunity to be informed.

As I posted in my conflict of interest statement, I have no desire to edit war or prove disruptive if you find my above reasoning unsatisfactory for the consensus. Those are my thoughts, Sadads (talk) 11:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: would it be possible to convert the list-like lineage section into prose? For instance, if you use this information and find sources that discuss what the unit did to earn all those campaign credits, then there would be the bones for a decent article, which would demonstrate notability, IMO. Without this, though, it is arguable that the requirement for significant coverage is met. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My reasoning behind not prosifying the lineages: My thought behind this was that I am getting paid to edit wikipedia 15-20 hours a week, with the intention of presenting CMH resources more accurately, I might as well concentrate on something that Wikipedia has as a perpetual problem: partial or incomplete citations and broken links. The thing about the lineages is that they are certified true statements of the unit's participation in events, with 100% supporting evidence for the assertions in permanent orders and official documents accessable, in some cases exclusively, by Center historians. My assumption was A) the PD text is professionally and precisely researched, therefore has plenty of sourcing behind it and therefore breaches notability threshhold and B) if I recreated that research it would become a time dump that would not allow me to do as much Wikipedia editing as I can beneficial to the Center and to Wikipedia: increased relevant links to pd books, citation fixing and link fixing. People are less afraid to modify content once it's there, then to create new articles so I thought it would be beneficial to build stubs from PD text. Sadads (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: seems like further expansion could be made, so I'm prepared to accept that the subject is probably notable. This source by Shelby Stanton provides some details of the battalion's deployment to Vietnam between 1965 and 1972: [19]. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning towards delete: At present the developing guideline at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Coordinators/Strategy_think_tank#Possible_addition_to_MILMOS seems to indicate consensus that battalion sized units are generally notable. However, this still stands or falls on significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources (WP:N), and at the moment I don't believe the article demonstrates this. Like Australian Rupert I think there's a definite possibility of improvement if the actual combat history was expanded using other sources, but IMO the CMH as a sole or main source doesn't provide enough in-depth information to meet notability requirements for a stand-alone article. EyeSerene^talk 14:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there really anything wrong with including expansible stubs though? I mean, if I went through Army orders and referenced each and every one it would be the exact same thing as the lineage, perhaps with a little more detail but not much for example, if I referenced for every award such as the one found at http://www.history.army.mil/html/forcestruc/HRC/2007/240-28_20071102_HRCMD.pdf, you would really get any more additional information, yet it would certainly pass your standard of notability. The Lineage and Honors certificate is, basically, an encyclopedic representation of a unit's military service. Again, I understand exclusion of really small units because of their relatively low impact upon campaigns etc, but simply being mentioned as a participant in any said campaign, especially as many as are in this unit's Lineage and Honors certificate, and the size of the unit, means they had an important impact on the history of that campaign. Large units don't simply ship to combat regions and do nothing. Besides the presence of the stubs, opens the gateway for new or inexperience users to start building on something we know to be Verifiable, instead of writing articles like 63rd Aviation Brigade (United States) or 972nd Signal Battalion (United States) where we have little or no verifiable information or have no clue where the information came from. And we know some overeager soldiers will start doing OR and make some of these pages. Sadads (talk) 14:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with creating stubs, as long as those stubs establish the notability of their subject. The general notability guideline states "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", and expands on this by requiring those sources to be multiple secondary sources. In assessing notability I look for considerably more than a list - even if it is verifiable - of where the unit's been and what honours it's been awarded. To me the current article comes under WP:NOT#INFO and, because it duplicates the content already readily available on the CMH site without adding any value to it, begs the question "why do we need it?" Wikipedia is supposed to be far more than a mirror of other sites. EyeSerene^talk 20:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to endorse EyeSerene's arguments. If people would like to examine User_talk:Sadads, they will see I have pleaded him to use the enormous amount of very valuable information in CMH to create and expand worthwhile articles about really notable formations and units, not just copy out information from elsewhere on the internet. Anyone can do that, and in my view, there are much better ways a person actually at CMH could use wikitime. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:::Pleaded? I am confused, all your comments on my talk page are in my archive here. I don't see anything requesting a change in activity. Sadads (talk) 22:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC) [reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sadads#Notability_of_units_and_formations, immediately above your discussion on novels with another contributor. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article highlights the problem with using the site as a ref source. They were Cited in the Order of the Day of the Belgian Army for action at Antwerp How Antwerp was in the British/Canadian sector so how did an American unit get cited for action ? There must be a story there somewhere. There is also an impressive list of decorations which puts the seven awarded to the 506th Infantry Regiment (United States) to shame. Another question how does a military unit get a credit for a cease fire ? These decorations and credits may have be hard earned but there does seem a lot for a non combat formation. What is the criteria for the awards ? --Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See http://www.history.army.mil/html/forcestruc/campaigns.html, http://www.history.army.mil/html/reference/campaigns.html, and http://www.history.army.mil/html/forcestruc/h2u-2.html for explanations. I think those should answer most of your questions. Sadads (talk) 15:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also http://www.history.army.mil/html/forcestruc/ohpam.html#Lineage has a good explanation of the uses and development of them. Sadads (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so if I understand this correctly the decorations and campaign credits are the equivalent of battle honours in British and Commonwealth countries only awarded to all the units that were in the theatre at the time. I have no problem with that if that's how the Americans dish them out, but

I believe it does lower the notability of the award. So unless there is something else the 14th Transportation Battalion (United States) is noted for I am leaning towards Delete --Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning towards delete - IMO this unit seems non-notable due to a lack of coverage. That said I really don't want to discourage you Saddads from adding the excellent information seemingly available from the CMH. If more could be added from other reliable sources in order to establish notability then there is no issue. Anotherclown (talk) 05:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this decision and any others based on this logic, if it leads to a delete, should also lead to a thorough purging of articles in Category:Stub-Class military history articles, because many of them have as little or less WP:Verifiable information than this article does alongside your objections to notability. It appears WPMILHIST has become extreme hostile to stubs, hmmm, Sadads (talk) 11:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional Delete: If you could get a third-party reliable source besides GlobalSecurity, I'd be willing to say that there is enough notability for a battalion to keep this article. I don't mean the standard mass press release that says "unit so or so says goodbye to thier families as they deploy again" or mere news update (that's trivial coverage that every single unit will get in the local paper), I mean something that actually talks about this unit in a noteworthy sense or in a meaningful way. I'd also prefer the lists be converted into prose to make it more an encyclopedia article and less a data dump, but that's not a keep condition. bahamut0013^words_deeds 13:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional Keep:This article needs to be expanded with a unit crest added; a written narrative of what the unit's mission is and its history. Where is it stationed at? What is its chain of command? According to the article, the unit has been around for over 60 years. Certainly there must be some unit history which can be found that says something more than a list of achievements. Did it land on Normandy on D-Day? What did it do there if it did? Korea and Vietnam also.... Given the unit has been a part of the Army for 60 years is a notable achievement, but the article needs to be more informative to a casual reader Bwmoll3 (talk) 12:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment : I think my recent edits have provided enough sources for notability and expansability proof. Sadads (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly disagree with this last statement unless the lineage, campaign participation credit and decorations are rewritten to be understandable. I know roughly what some of those anodyne Vietnam campaign names meant, but only because I've been reading about the war for over 20 years. The casual reader gains absolutely nothing from those three sections - it's military gobbledigok. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:45, 7 August 2010 (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.