< 15 September	17 September >

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) -- Trevj (talk) 11:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hua Ho Department Store and Agricultural Farm[edit]

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

No indication of WP:notability. Completely unsourced and google searches not finding anything significant. noq (talk) 23:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. I added a reference. Wikipedia's coverage of businesses in Brunei is weak. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional references can be found here. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brunei-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 23:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep sufficient referencing for notability. DGG ( talk ) 20:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - There's plenty of reliable source information on the topic to meet WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against re-creation if the show gets picked up. -Scottywong | chat _ 17:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Super Fun Night[edit]

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

Non-notable television pilot (not a series, may never be a series) which was passed over by CBS. Latest news (3 months ago, in June) was that ABC was considering "re-piloting" the project. Until this yet-to-be made "re-pilot" is picked up to series, it does not need a page. WP:TOOSOON (PROD was contested.) Logical Fuzz (talk) 23:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect to Rebel Wilson. There's a lot of people that this could potentially be redirected to, but most of the hype for this pilot surrounds Wilson and it's essentially a vehicle for her so I feel that it'd be best served as a redirect to her. I did a search and found a few sources, but the coverage is very light and considering that this hasn't even begun filming yet, it's too soon to make an article for this show. Once they start filming it could get more notability, but right now there just isn't enough out there. Other than a few trivial mentions in articles that predominantly cover Wilson there just aren't very many articles that give in-depth coverage of this upcoming pilot.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, at least through the end of 2012; delete if there is no additional news about the series' status after then. The new pilot was announced very recently (just a few months ago) and the series could not possibly have premiered by now. There are also countless examples of movies, TV shows and other media that have not yet premiered and yet have pages; the fact that a show has not premiered yet has no bearing on its notability. A redirect is not appropriate here since this is as much a Jenny Slate "vehicle" as a Rebel Wilson vehicle, and as a former SNL cast member Slate is arguably more notable. Jeffrey McManus (talk) 15:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a big difference between an article about television series which has not yet premiered versus an article about a television pilot which has not yet been made, may never be made, let alone ever be picked up to series. This article is the latter. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 16:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe true, maybe not, but that's not the only reason to keep the article at least for now, and since there are more than a few references to it elsewhere, I'd argue that's sufficient to pass the notability test. If the series doesn't actually pan out then it should be deleted, but there should be no rush to do this. Jeffrey McManus (talk) 18:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Plenty of "plots" and "pilots" never make it to syndication. Until a network picks it up, it's just a collection of ideas, frames, and dialogue. Does not currently meet WP:GNG for a pilot/series as it has been passed on once by CBS, and speculation as listed is that ABC is only "considering" it. "Where's the beef?" WP:TOOSOON Яεñ99 (talk) 03:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 23:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - No prejudice to recreate if the show does, eventually, get picked up. But at the moment its WP:TOOSOON to really consider the pilot to be notable. Rorshacma (talk) 18:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - An early reference is Hollywood Reporter January 26, 2012. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[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. -Scottywong | comment _ 17:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ancient History (novel)[edit]

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

Delete due to lack of notability in accordance with WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. Initially redirected to author was reverted. Cindy(talk to me) 22:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak keep - while I could find a couple of bits and pieces, this one doesn't look to have been as widely considered as Women and Men (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Women and Men). There is a little bit in this book, this book and this book. There is also a Kirkus Reviews entry here - not sure whether this is sufficient (Kirkus is included in the list of journals cited by WP but I can't find a definitive statement about its reliability as a source). I did find a few other blog-style reviews (like this) but not a whole lot else. There might be more but I could only find passing mentions beyond that. Am a bit on then fence but am generally in favour of Keep, so that's what I'll put down. That said, there are no sources currently listed for the article so that would have to be fixed - the original author has completely failed to meet the burden of proof, despite claiming to be a long-term IP editor who has only recently joined WP. The attitude of that editor toward Cindy has been poor (to say the least), given the total lack of effort they have putting into sourcing their long tracts of WP:OR. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 06:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Article creator here, so you know my vote:

As I said in my response to Cindamuse (on my user talk page, since Cindamuse didn't do the Wikipedia thing of discussing the issue on the article's talk page itself), I was going to be gone until today (Rosh Hashanah). Gone as in 100% gone. My attitude was what she earned: she took extremely drastic, one-way action, not even bothering to tell me her reason for erasing my edits (except in the redirect history "Edit summary" remark that got hidden by the redirect). A boilerplate there "may" be a problem with guidelines is not a reason.

Anyway, it was reviewed in the NYT [1] behind a paywall. I'm not a subscriber--I assume it's acceptable to take the dust jacket quote from that review that shows up in many of the later McElroy novels? I will if people insist. It was the subject of academic analysis in the Review of Contemporary Fiction, special Joseph McElroy number (1990, vol 10, #1, I think). Again, I will give exact citations if people want. (I'm sure these should all make it into the article eventually, and I expect I will do so at some point. I just think it's silly doing so up front, for the reason stated below. I'm also assuming that no one thinks I'm flat-out lying, inventing imaginary sources that I hope no one is ever going to look up.)

I find it puzzling that once an author himself becomes notable enough--say by making it into the Colby World Authors reference work, or by publishing a major highly praised novel like Women and Men--his other novels have to be individually justified. Tell me now, because my intention is to work through all his novels. I agree that the Ship Rock and Preparations for Search chapbooks deserve nothing more than redirects to Women and Men. Indeed, demoting the P4S description as a novel was one of my first edits. I mean, how many reviews did Don DeLillo's first novel get? Nobody knew he was DON DELILLO at the time.

For those unfamiliar with World Authors, each volume covers a five year period, and each author gets several small print large size pages. Half of the article is typically a quoted autobiographical summary, the other half is a condensed summary of his fiction. McElroy appeared in the 1975-1980 volume (before Women and Men was written). I had added this citation to the author's page.

Choor monster (talk) 13:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: your point - "I find it puzzling that once an author himself becomes notable enough--say by making it into the Colby World Authors reference work, or by publishing a major highly praised novel like Women and Men--his other novels have to be individually justified." - unfortunately, that's exactly right. Each subject must be verifiably notable with significant coverage of its own. If it is not sufficiently notable on its own then the details can be included in the article for the author himself. Where a novel has received its own significant coverage, then an article for that novel might be justified. Have a read of WP:N and, specifically, WP:NBOOK. The author does not necessarily inherit notability from his books (his products), nor his books from him. There are exceptions for authors who have received "de-facto coverage" (my words) because of the significance of their work. But that's not really what we're talking about here - he is notable (I don't think that is in question) and we are now dealing with whether some of his individual books are individually notable. Not that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is a good argument, but there are plenty of authors who have articles who have written a number of books, only one or two of which have been considered individually notable.

Like I said, I find it puzzling. To me, if a book article can't grow beyond a stub, not reach even an inferior article consisting of lists, is a questionable article. Even one person having that much of an interest counts for something. (I am, of course, excluding self-interested promotion.) My interest is strictly personal--I've been reading him for 30 years--heck, I have no idea even where the accent is in his last name. So, yes, I take it for granted that everyone has at least heard of him as the most famous novelist that no one has ever heard of.Choor monster (talk) 14:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, fair enough. Like I suggested, I think there is enough to justify this one - just have to be careful creating articles for his other less-well-known work. Stalwart111 (talk) 03:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Extended content
For the record, the standard burden of proof applies to all editing and Cindy was well within her rights to remove (or suggest the removal of) un-sourced or insufficiently sourced material. Your response (on your own talk page, not hers) was not particularly "good faith". I understand other things were in play and it was probably a general lack of civility all around (from myself included). Having a discussion about it (like this) is far more productive. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 23:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC).Reply[reply] The actual removal was over-the-top unacceptable. It was shoot-first-aim-later, and we've all seen how well that played in the news last week. The Wiki consensus is to tag the article, and not take one-way action. This allows for the article itself to be improved to meet the burden of proof, rather than having this all take place in some irrelevant place. Cindy's suggestion to first develop articles in private is quite reasonable for things which are going to take quite some time to type in sufficient proof. But to delete/hide/erase as the first reaction? No way. Yes, this is productive. Had Cindy tagged the article I can't imagine having a reaction other than "whatever".Choor monster (talk) 14:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Choor monster (talk) 14:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Yeah, also fair enough, and you're entitled to your opinion. Cindy took action she thought was in line with her responsibilities to the burden of proof (action not different to that we see every day). The material was unsourced and came with a note to suggest that wouldn't be improved while you were away. To be frank, I likely would have done the same thing. Anyway, sources are being added and this AfD is being resolved. Stalwart111 (talk) 03:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Nothing about my original article was close to WP:SPEEDY, except for A7 and A9, which do demand upfront evidence of notability for various things other than books. (You can skip the joke that "postmodernism" is "patent nonsense". Whether it is or isn't, this article isn't "postmodern".) Which means that lack of notability for things other than those A7, A9 topics can be fixed in slow motion. As such, the only proper action is AfD call. And there was no such "note" accompanying the article: after I wasted an hour on Sunday just trying to find out what happened (guess what: the "how to get to the redirect page itself" instructions did not work, but something else did), I reverted the vandalism--yes, it was vandalism, since it was not in accord with WP:SPEEDY--I then left a note saying I was going to be back. Had Cindy posted an AfD, I would have known what her actual issue was, instead of having to dig it out of the hidden history edit summary. And that wasted hour would have been filled with links to reviews and academic articles. Instead, my time limit arrived, I had to go, and so I left a note saying I wasn't going to be back until a few days later.Choor monster (talk) 19:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] I'm replying below in "fisking" style to a long paragraph, since it's getting complicated and confusing. The words immediately below are Stalwart111, the one more indentation is Choor monster. I don't think WP:SPEEDY deletion was proposed at any point so I don't think that is at all relevant. Of course it wasn't proposed. You don't propose speedy deletions. You just do them, without discussion or vote. Which is exactly what Cindy did, deleting my content and replacing it with a redirect. As I have pointed out here, books without notability information are NOT on the list. What? Speedy deletion is proposed by placing one of the speedy deletion templates on an article. This allows the speedy deletion to be contested. This was not done in this case (either proposal or content). Cindy might have acted "quickly" (as is expected of editors) but I cannot see where she has 'prodded' the article for speedy deletion. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Oops, you're correct. I was thinking of administrators--and I thought Cindy was one already with here impressive wikiresume. They are allowed, make that, expected, to act unilaterally and remove patent nonsense, copyright violations, and the like. Peons can make a request. Exactly. And without sources to verify the content you added, how can anyone verify that what you added is anything other than patent nonsense? That's the whole point of WP:V and WP:BURDEN - to source material before it is added, not after (the chronology is very clear). By your argument, I could just have easily added an "article" which claimed McElroy's book is about circus animals who stumble upon the ruins of an ancient civilisation while searching for bananas. But don't worry, I know it's the truth and people should just assume the book is my source. The argument is totally contrary to the basic principles of WP. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] The article had no references, no categories, did not attempt to establish notability and contained one single link. Absolutely correct. Which means the article was perfect for an AfD vote. The point is that maybe the topic is notable, maybe not, a week is given to establish notability in the article itself (and not, say, on somebody's talk page). As to why this is WP policy for books and not certain other things--well, that doesn't concern this discussion. It was turned into a redirect, with an explanation, which you reverted without an explanation or any attempt to address the issues raised. I put my explanation in the place Cindy put her weasel words non-explanation: my talk page. Nothing explicit, but more than enough to let anyone know that given a week--as per AfD rules--it wasn't going to be difficult. And indeed, when I came back, people who apparently were unfamiliar with McElroy found links and other references. You know, part of the fun and power of wiki crowdsourcing. You then posted a comment on your own talk page saying you would not be able to add anything to the article and that it should just be left alone until your return. I said I was going to be away for two days. No more, no less. I said the redirect was unacceptable, but other than that, I gave no "orders". The reality is that this article, and your other one, would have been better developed in your own user-space until you had sufficient time to develop them to the point of inclusion - this is the course of action suggested under every edit window when you edit. There is no such suggestion anywhere on any page I edit, short of people like you and Cindy manually typing the suggestion in. Below every edit window: Please note: When you click Save page, your changes will immediately become visible to everyone. If you wish to run a test, please edit the Sandbox instead.. It's the first of three notes along with one about verifiability and another about copyright infringement. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] The Sandbox? You're joking, right? The Sandbox is for trying to figure out some WP display trick, not storage of yet-to-be-articles. And you know this. At this point, I don't think you're even trying to maintain credibility. Since I wasn't trying to run a test, why would I use the Sandbox? I was trying to start an article, no more, no less. Cindy made a different suggestion, one I may take into consideration, but not one found on every edit page. For example, I've made scans of my other McElroy first editions covers (that aren't on amazon.com), and based on feedback regarding the AH cover I got today, I'll prepare them according to recommended WP policy, and not post them until the appropriate article exists.Choor monster (talk) 13:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] I don't know where you're going with this. The Sandbox is the most basic form of userfication and is regularly used to develop draft content (length is irrelevant). The sandbox itself also includes links for creating your own sandbox and links to the "Welcome" page which gives instructions on how to use more complicated userfication options. I would have thought the inference was obvious - if your material is not ready for Wikipedia, try developing it somewhere else until it is. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Also, though I'm all for adhering to the principles of WP:BITE, the article was created by an WP:SPA with two days editing experience. Though there should be an assumption of good faith, unfortunately, it is common for new editors to simply add their own opinions or ideas to WP without consideration of any guidelines, suggestions, requirements or manuals of style. Should that all have been explained on your talk page? Sure, maybe, and I'm sorry you didn't get a pleasant welcome. This is all entirely irrelevant. You are defending Cindy's speedy deletion, and pointing out that the article was horribly inferior doesn't change the fact that it was not suitable for speedy deletion. There was no speedy deletion. Please see above. As for the removal of content, again, please see WP:V - "Any material that requires a source but does not have one may be removed". That's not particularly ambiguous. Un-sourced material may be removed. The material was un-sourced and it was removed. I will happily defend that. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] But this is not what Cindy did, and it is what you are defending. I challenge you to carry out your words. Start going through the thousands of plot summaries out there on WP, with no source given, and blanking them. And defend your actions to the death. Please, no excuses. Plot summaries are sourced: the book itself. There is a reason there are all sorts of citation-needed tags out there. The shoot-first-aim-later to unsourced material removal is applied for WP:BLP. For everything else we're supposed to work together towards a consensus. As is, there is lots of material that no one insists on citations for. The first sentence of this article, for example: "Ancient History: A Paraphase is Joseph McElroy's third novel, published in 1971." I'm expected to footnote this, citing "McElroy, Joseph, Ancient History: A Paraphase (1971), thirdness claim in last sentence of jacket cover back flap"? No one does this, no one insists on it, since otherwise there would not be any time to actually write articles about books. Really, read WP:WHYCITE. Consider the Joseph Leftwich article. From the article's creation, almost 8 years ago, it had the wrong year of his death, until the other day when I discovered he was McElroy's father-in-law, and in browsing around, came across Leftwich's obituary somewhere, and on-line version of a reliable print source. I'm sure the original article creator had a source (I in fact recognize his name from my past WP experience)--it may have even been a print source listing his years inside a book--but we'll probably never know. I certainly gave references and a link to the correct information. And no, I was not driven to do so by any discussion here. It's just plain common sense. Just like it's plain common sense that plot summaries are sourced by the book itself. Again, not really sure what you are suggesting. You said it was speedy deleted when it was clearly not. Removing content which is not properly sourced is entirely appropriate. It wasn't just the "plot summary" that was not reliably sourced - the article had no sources at all. Again, "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it". This is all a bit silly really. You are arguing with the person who showed up at both AfD's and found the sources required to help justify keeping both - thus helping you to meet your burden of proof. You added un-sourced material to Wikipedia, it was removed and you reacted badly. You are flogging a dead horse and I can't really see why. Time to move on and do some constructive editing - this time with sources. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] But paying no heed to guidelines and then claiming you "reverted vandalism" in line with guidelines is a bit cute. You can't honestly expect people to believe you read WP:VAN in its entirety in time for your 15th edit before having read basics like WP:V which is linked from every edit window. I don't think you were "reverting vandalism" (your reversion made no mention of vandalism, nor did you use the vandalism tool) - you were restoring your content because you didn't like that it had been removed and I don't think you understood (at that stage) why it had been removed. I understood why it had been removed: Cindy put nnbook in her edit summary, the one hidden by the redirect. It is correct that I did not like it, but since I knew the truth--McElroy's books are notable--I knew that Cindy was acting out of an arrogant ignorance, of the "I-haven't-heard-of-this-guy-or-any-of-his-books-and-his-page-is-pretty-shabby" counts as proof of non-notability--I simply reverted it and left my brief note mentioning, don't worry, the books are notable on two counts, but since the timing was such I wasn't going to be able to do anything whatsoever on my end of the burden for two days, I left a note saying so. Just because you couldn't find something doesn't mean it was "hidden" on purpose. The "burden" is all "your end" as the original editor. Please have a look at the essay, Verifiability, not truth. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Yes, the burden is on my side. I've never said or implied otherwise. I've not complained about that one bit. Meanwhile, Cindy, however, went too far. I'm not the only one who thinks so. Her second speedy deletion of the entire content was reverted by an uninvolved third party who accused Cindy of wikifascism in the edit summary. Then she did the proper WP thing, and put in the AfD.. "Hasty removal", perhaps, but continuing to use the term "speedy deletion" when not referring to "speedy deletion" (which clearly was not used) is misleading and mischievous. If you understand WP:BURDEN then you understand why Cindy did what she did. If you still don't understand why your material was removed then you have missed the point of WP:V and WP:BURDEN entirely. You are, of course, entitled to your view that she responded with haste. But even that uninvolved editor agrees her actions were "in accordance with the letter of WP guidelines", though "knee-jerk". Stalwart111 (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] I think you have since discovered WP:VAN and "I was reverting vandalism" looks like a good justification for acting the way you did. It is not. Removing un-sourced content is not "vandalism". In future, I would strongly suggest you use the sandbox or userfication options available to you if your article is not yet ready for the main article space. It would allow you to avoid going through all of this again. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 00:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC).Reply[reply] I had a year's anonymous experience in the early days of WP. I created several dozen articles on a range of topics. Back in those days the rules were more fluid. And yes, we had vandalism back then. I made no mention of it at first since it didn't occur to me, and if it did, I believed, as I stated it above, Cindy was ignorant, not malicious. But since you have been making such a point about how you and others are so experienced and know all these WP rules (unlike me at the time), well, you've convinced me that violating them by erasing and burying the erasures under a redirect when the topic is clearly not subject to speedy deletion is intentional, malicious, and disruptive. Really, you can't have it both ways. For the record, it is clear that Cindy quickly changed her mind, realized the articles were not suitable for speedy deletion, and then did the appropriate AfD calls. Women and Men itself is so well-known that the AfD ended almost immediately, while Ancient History is dragging on.Choor monster (talk) 14:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] AfD is an entirely appropriate response to an SPA that reverts removal of un-sourced material. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] You keep saying "un-sourced material". I do not think you know what that means. Most of my initial article was sourced: the book itself. You are confusing "sourced" with "footnoted". Un-sourced; without sources. By extension it was also, obviously, not footnoted either. Your material had no sources. Your argument that WP:V shouldn't apply because you understood the book well is inaccurate, at best. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Again, there was no speedy deletion involved. You flat-out ignored the instructions and guidelines provided as you were making each one of those edits then reacted badly when another editor enforced the rules. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] No, Cindy did not enforce the rules. She took a unilateral non-policy article deletion (in the form of a redirect that hid the original material) WP:V - "Any material that requires a source but does not have one may be removed". It was removed. That's an obvious enforcement of the rules as far as I'm concerned. Again, you can argue that it was "hasty" or "knee-jerk" - that's fine. But it was absolutely in accordance with policy, whether you like the policies or not. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Again, removing poor editing is not vandalism or a "violation" of the "rules". It is what is expected of all editors. Your basic argument boils down to, "the rules shouldn't apply to me because what I am (was) writing is the truth!", which is a patent fallacy. You injected your own opinion into an encyclopaedia without the required references and it was removed. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] No, I did not inject my own opinion. Most of what I wrote was sourced, in the completely obvious location: the book itself. Really, is there a single reader of the original article who would suspect that I made up the fact that the narrator is named Cy, short for Cyrus, because I didn't put in a footnote to the book? But a footnote reassures said reader that he could, if he wanted to, track down my source of information, whereas before he was helpless? I injected *facts' into WP:* Ancient History*s narrator is named Cy, for example. I believe we don't find out until page 183, when Cy recounts his fateful conversation with Doug. That it's short for Cyrus, and not Cyril (both mentioned in the book), is something we find out later. Do I need to cite the page were Dom is called a "New York Jewish liberal", lest people think I made that up too? What's required is verifiable* material. That is what I have been following. As it says on WP:V, "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." It does not say it must be verified/cited/footnoted before you can add it. I've stuck to the truth, yes, but more essentially, I've stuck to verifiable truth. Sorry, but you didn't verify anything with reliable sources. "Knowing" the "truth" in your own mind and arguing that people should assume your interpretation is accurate is pure WP:OR. The lines before the one you quoted - " Verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that information comes from a reliable source. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors". If it doesn't have reliable sources, it's not verifiable. As such, your opinion of the book (and, again, not just the plot summary - nothing had sources), regardless of accuracy, is WP:OR if it can not be verified. If you want to critique, review or summarise books in your own words rather than by summarising previously published information then Wikipedia is not the right place for it. I think you understand you are way, way, way off base with this one. I think you know what you were supposed to have done in the first place and you're flogging this dead horse for the sake of pride, or something. You made a mistake; frankly a fairly inconsequential one in the scheme of things. Learn from it. Move on. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] You have now found some references and it will most likely stay. You should have done that to begin with, but at least now you know for next time. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] What has been added is evidence of notability. I did not "find" them: I knew all along the book reviews existed because they're cited on the jacket covers of his novels. I knew academic writing on McElroy and his novels existed because I've read them too over the years. I had read Plus in the early 80s, and Lookout Cartridge in the mid-80s, but I did not know McElroy was taken seriously until I read Steven Moore's ecstatic review of Women and Men, mentioned below, and knew I had to read everything by McElroy at that point. And since this was in the days before on-line bookstores, wikipedia, and so on, it was a bit slow getting caught up to speed. The special Joseph McElroy issue of The Review of Contemporary Fiction came out in 1990, and I was off and running. Like I said, I know for a fact that McElroy and his novels are notable, and I've known this because of the sources that have been telling me so for decades now. The fact that I don't type in these sources right away does not mean they do not exist and that the material is non-notable and non-verifiable. It simply means notability and verifiability are a priori questionable, which means the WP process of discussion and consensus forming are to take place, as opposed to high-handed one-way actions like speedy deletion. In short, your claim that the plot summary was WP:OR is patent nonsense.Choor monster (talk) 13:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Again, sorry, but that's not accurate. And I didn't limit my comments to the plot summary - the original "article" did not have one single source, was your own interpretation of the book (regardless of the accuracy of your interpretation) and was WP:OR in its purest form - original thought backed up by personal experience. "verifiable before you can add it" and "material that requires a source but does not have one may be removed". It wasn't verified by reliable sources and it was removed. Not "later", not "when I get around to it". Before. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Ancient History will stay because its notable. Let's not bite the newbies when they get upset, there is oh so much for them to legitimately get upset at.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 00:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] In addition, I find Stalwart's complaint about my "long tracts of OR" completely off-base. (Long??? I've just started with a stub so far.) Summarizing a book is not OR. My statements about the book's content can all be verified in the obvious location. What were you expecting? The Cliff's notes? As I mentioned on the talk page (with an explicit example), I am shying away from sharing my opinions about what's going on in the book. I am also aware that McElroy is a difficult writer, and I can make mistakes, and not notice an ambiguity, say. But such fine detail isn't what Stalwart was complaining about. Choor monster (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Summarizing a book is original research (see WP:OR) if your opinions (factually accurate or not) are not verified by reliable sources. If the statements can be verified (and I am more than happy to accept that they can) then add references for each of the opinions - your own opinion (regardless of how well you personally understood the book) is not a reliable source. So someone else has to have said it before we can include it. If you had had your critique of the book published by the New York Times then we mere mortals (WP editors) would be citing your interpretation as a reliable source. Sucks sometimes but they are the rules the WP community sticks to. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 23:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] This seems to be a bizarre misreading of WP:OR. Plot summaries do have a reliable source: the book itself. The problem comes with difficult books that are not presented in easy-read narratives, with deliberate, understated goings-on. An important subplot is resolved by the author referring to something happening to the man with the Irish thornproof tweed, and the alert reader is supposed to smile, remembering the previous mention of his tweed 400 pages earlier. In this case, William Gaddis The Recognitions has a guidebook, but I find it bizarre that something like that needs to be third-party referenced. On the other hand, I recall reaching the ending of Jonathan Franzen The Twenty-Seventh City thinking one major character had been murdered, but then I learned according to Wikipedia, it was suicide. Really? Well, actually, that makes more sense physically in the book, but it makes very little sense descriptively, at least to me. And there is no question with things like Agatha Christie The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, where the book says in plainest English that X was the killer, both in the book and in her spoiler-laden autobiography. There is at least one book out there claiming X was taking the fall for Y, and the contents of the book is a very close reading that supposedly proves Y is the killer. If that book or the like did not exist, Wikipedia cannot mention the alternate theory. All I mean is that I feel comfortable with writing up the above Gaddis example as "objective" from the text itself, I might write up something like the Franzen example thinking I'm being "objective" but instantly upon being told of the other reading concede my blind spot, and I will always think of the Christie example alternative killer theory, no matter how well argued, is pure OR. Postmodern writing specializes in playing up the reader-involvement-deduction angle, but that doesn't mean there's no core that can be presented without references beyond the text itself. For example, I assume in Ancient History itself, I could describe Dom as "Maileresque" without references, but I acknowledge that it's a grey area, which is why I waited until I looked up a reference. But the fact that Dom fell out of a ninth story window and lived is objective fact within the book, and I don't need to bother finding some critic or reviewer who mentions it.Choor monster (talk) 14:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] A strict reading perhaps but not a misreading - "Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources themselves." The book can be added as a Primary Source (with care) but it wasn't to begin with and still isn't. 5 out of the 7 paragraphs don't have sources - not a deal killer but it should be improved. Stalwart111 (talk) 03:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] I'm sorry, I find this completely nuts. Every paragraph of the plot summary or character description requires a footnote? Seriously, Every Possible Reader KNOWS knows the source: the book itself. What's prohibited as unsourced OR are things like the alternative theory of who killed Roger Ackroyd--a very clever reading between the lines that takes a book to spell out. In this article, the referenced Tabbi article interprets Ancient History as McElroy slaying Mailer the father-figure to make room for his own novelistic style. THAT is the sort of stuff that must be referenced. (Frankly, I find the Tabbi article more confusing than McElroy himself.) Look at Underworld. One footnote, for an inference that someone grew up near a certain location. Look at Gravity's Rainbow. Three footnotes in the very long plot summary. One to someone who counted 400 characters. One to an interpretative statement about what drives the plots and subplots. And one to GR itself, although why that of the dozens of plot points needs a footnote escapes me. I'm not interested in wikilawyering this, since whether or not I was guilty of WP:OR is irrelevant to whether AH is notable enough. I'd say that the guidelines need to be rewritten. I mean, go ahead, tag the article as saying it's unclear where I found out Dom was Jewish from.Choor monster (talk) 19:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] That there are other articles in worse shape is irrelevant. WP:V (would strongly suggest you have a read) is very clear (on line 2) - "[Wikipedia's] content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it" (original emphasis). You can disagree with the success of WP:V, you can propose changes to it and can rally against it. But I would venture to suggest you'll have a tough time building consensus against it. I would also venture to suggest you'd have a far easier time of things by working on bringing your articles up to scratch, given they obviously can be, rather than trying to "fight the system" because of your initial misunderstanding. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 00:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC).Reply[reply] I am not mentioning the other articles to suggest they are in "worse" shape. I believe that they are in fine shape, and it is articles like these that I have been looking at for my role model. (Well, Underworld needs more plot summary.) For your information, nothing you quote seems to be a problem: McElroy's Ancient History is previously published information. Everything I state about the plot and the characters in the book (as others have stated in the other book articles I mentioned) comes from the book itself, unless stated otherwise (the Norman Mailer comparison). Under no circumstance will I include personal speculation, like what Cy does after the novel's end, no matter how harmless, logical, seemingly "necessary" to the book's storyline it appears, unless I come across a third-party (or McElroy himself in some interview) who makes the same speculation. And I state this aware of the challenge that since in postmodern fiction, ambiguity often trumps clarity, this is not as easy as traditional fiction. Choor monster (talk) 14:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Extended content

For the record, the standard burden of proof applies to all editing and Cindy was well within her rights to remove (or suggest the removal of) un-sourced or insufficiently sourced material. Your response (on your own talk page, not hers) was not particularly "good faith". I understand other things were in play and it was probably a general lack of civility all around (from myself included). Having a discussion about it (like this) is far more productive. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 23:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC).Reply[reply]

The actual removal was over-the-top unacceptable. It was shoot-first-aim-later, and we've all seen how well that played in the news last week. The Wiki consensus is to tag the article, and not take one-way action. This allows for the article itself to be improved to meet the burden of proof, rather than having this all take place in some irrelevant place. Cindy's suggestion to first develop articles in private is quite reasonable for things which are going to take quite some time to type in sufficient proof. But to delete/hide/erase as the first reaction? No way.

Yes, this is productive. Had Cindy tagged the article I can't imagine having a reaction other than "whatever".Choor monster (talk) 14:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Choor monster (talk) 14:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, also fair enough, and you're entitled to your opinion. Cindy took action she thought was in line with her responsibilities to the burden of proof (action not different to that we see every day). The material was unsourced and came with a note to suggest that wouldn't be improved while you were away. To be frank, I likely would have done the same thing. Anyway, sources are being added and this AfD is being resolved. Stalwart111 (talk) 03:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nothing about my original article was close to WP:SPEEDY, except for A7 and A9, which do demand upfront evidence of notability for various things other than books. (You can skip the joke that "postmodernism" is "patent nonsense". Whether it is or isn't, this article isn't "postmodern".) Which means that lack of notability for things other than those A7, A9 topics can be fixed in slow motion. As such, the only proper action is AfD call. And there was no such "note" accompanying the article: after I wasted an hour on Sunday just trying to find out what happened (guess what: the "how to get to the redirect page itself" instructions did not work, but something else did), I reverted the vandalism--yes, it was vandalism, since it was not in accord with WP:SPEEDY--I then left a note saying I was going to be back. Had Cindy posted an AfD, I would have known what her actual issue was, instead of having to dig it out of the hidden history edit summary. And that wasted hour would have been filled with links to reviews and academic articles. Instead, my time limit arrived, I had to go, and so I left a note saying I wasn't going to be back until a few days later.Choor monster (talk) 19:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm replying below in "fisking" style to a long paragraph, since it's getting complicated and confusing. The words immediately below are Stalwart111, the one more indentation is Choor monster.

I don't think WP:SPEEDY deletion was proposed at any point so I don't think that is at all relevant.

Of course it wasn't proposed. You don't propose speedy deletions. You just do them, without discussion or vote. Which is exactly what Cindy did, deleting my content and replacing it with a redirect. As I have pointed out here, books without notability information are NOT on the list.

What? Speedy deletion is proposed by placing one of the speedy deletion templates on an article. This allows the speedy deletion to be contested. This was not done in this case (either proposal or content). Cindy might have acted "quickly" (as is expected of editors) but I cannot see where she has 'prodded' the article for speedy deletion. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oops, you're correct. I was thinking of administrators--and I thought Cindy was one already with here impressive wikiresume. They are allowed, make that, expected, to act unilaterally and remove patent nonsense, copyright violations, and the like. Peons can make a request.

Exactly. And without sources to verify the content you added, how can anyone verify that what you added is anything other than patent nonsense? That's the whole point of WP:V and WP:BURDEN - to source material before it is added, not after (the chronology is very clear). By your argument, I could just have easily added an "article" which claimed McElroy's book is about circus animals who stumble upon the ruins of an ancient civilisation while searching for bananas. But don't worry, I know it's the truth and people should just assume the book is my source. The argument is totally contrary to the basic principles of WP. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article had no references, no categories, did not attempt to establish notability and contained one single link.

Absolutely correct. Which means the article was perfect for an AfD vote. The point is that maybe the topic is notable, maybe not, a week is given to establish notability in the article itself (and not, say, on somebody's talk page). As to why this is WP policy for books and not certain other things--well, that doesn't concern this discussion.

It was turned into a redirect, with an explanation, which you reverted without an explanation or any attempt to address the issues raised.

I put my explanation in the place Cindy put her weasel words non-explanation: my talk page. Nothing explicit, but more than enough to let anyone know that given a week--as per AfD rules--it wasn't going to be difficult. And indeed, when I came back, people who apparently were unfamiliar with McElroy found links and other references. You know, part of the fun and power of wiki crowdsourcing.

You then posted a comment on your own talk page saying you would not be able to add anything to the article and that it should just be left alone until your return.

I said I was going to be away for two days. No more, no less. I said the redirect was unacceptable, but other than that, I gave no "orders".

The reality is that this article, and your other one, would have been better developed in your own user-space until you had sufficient time to develop them to the point of inclusion - this is the course of action suggested under every edit window when you edit.

There is no such suggestion anywhere on any page I edit, short of people like you and Cindy manually typing the suggestion in.

Below every edit window: Please note: When you click Save page, your changes will immediately become visible to everyone. If you wish to run a test, please edit the Sandbox instead.. It's the first of three notes along with one about verifiability and another about copyright infringement. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Sandbox? You're joking, right? The Sandbox is for trying to figure out some WP display trick, not storage of yet-to-be-articles. And you know this. At this point, I don't think you're even trying to maintain credibility. Since I wasn't trying to run a test, why would I use the Sandbox? I was trying to start an article, no more, no less. Cindy made a different suggestion, one I may take into consideration, but not one found on every edit page. For example, I've made scans of my other McElroy first editions covers (that aren't on amazon.com), and based on feedback regarding the AH cover I got today, I'll prepare them according to recommended WP policy, and not post them until the appropriate article exists.Choor monster (talk) 13:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know where you're going with this. The Sandbox is the most basic form of userfication and is regularly used to develop draft content (length is irrelevant). The sandbox itself also includes links for creating your own sandbox and links to the "Welcome" page which gives instructions on how to use more complicated userfication options. I would have thought the inference was obvious - if your material is not ready for Wikipedia, try developing it somewhere else until it is. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, though I'm all for adhering to the principles of WP:BITE, the article was created by an WP:SPA with two days editing experience. Though there should be an assumption of good faith, unfortunately, it is common for new editors to simply add their own opinions or ideas to WP without consideration of any guidelines, suggestions, requirements or manuals of style. Should that all have been explained on your talk page? Sure, maybe, and I'm sorry you didn't get a pleasant welcome.

This is all entirely irrelevant. You are defending Cindy's speedy deletion, and pointing out that the article was horribly inferior doesn't change the fact that it was not suitable for speedy deletion.

There was no speedy deletion. Please see above. As for the removal of content, again, please see WP:V - "Any material that requires a source but does not have one may be removed". That's not particularly ambiguous. Un-sourced material may be removed. The material was un-sourced and it was removed. I will happily defend that. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But this is not what Cindy did, and it is what you are defending. I challenge you to carry out your words. Start going through the thousands of plot summaries out there on WP, with no source given, and blanking them. And defend your actions to the death. Please, no excuses. Plot summaries are sourced: the book itself.

There is a reason there are all sorts of citation-needed tags out there. The shoot-first-aim-later to unsourced material removal is applied for WP:BLP. For everything else we're supposed to work together towards a consensus. As is, there is lots of material that no one insists on citations for. The first sentence of this article, for example: "Ancient History: A Paraphase is Joseph McElroy's third novel, published in 1971." I'm expected to footnote this, citing "McElroy, Joseph, Ancient History: A Paraphase (1971), thirdness claim in last sentence of jacket cover back flap"? No one does this, no one insists on it, since otherwise there would not be any time to actually write articles about books. Really, read WP:WHYCITE.

Consider the Joseph Leftwich article. From the article's creation, almost 8 years ago, it had the wrong year of his death, until the other day when I discovered he was McElroy's father-in-law, and in browsing around, came across Leftwich's obituary somewhere, and on-line version of a reliable print source. I'm sure the original article creator had a source (I in fact recognize his name from my past WP experience)--it may have even been a print source listing his years inside a book--but we'll probably never know. I certainly gave references and a link to the correct information. And no, I was not driven to do so by any discussion here. It's just plain common sense. Just like it's plain common sense that plot summaries are sourced by the book itself.

Again, not really sure what you are suggesting. You said it was speedy deleted when it was clearly not. Removing content which is not properly sourced is entirely appropriate. It wasn't just the "plot summary" that was not reliably sourced - the article had no sources at all. Again, "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it". This is all a bit silly really. You are arguing with the person who showed up at both AfD's and found the sources required to help justify keeping both - thus helping you to meet your burden of proof. You added un-sourced material to Wikipedia, it was removed and you reacted badly. You are flogging a dead horse and I can't really see why. Time to move on and do some constructive editing - this time with sources. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But paying no heed to guidelines and then claiming you "reverted vandalism" in line with guidelines is a bit cute. You can't honestly expect people to believe you read WP:VAN in its entirety in time for your 15th edit before having read basics like WP:V which is linked from every edit window. I don't think you were "reverting vandalism" (your reversion made no mention of vandalism, nor did you use the vandalism tool) - you were restoring your content because you didn't like that it had been removed and I don't think you understood (at that stage) why it had been removed.

I understood why it had been removed: Cindy put nnbook in her edit summary, the one hidden by the redirect. It is correct that I did not like it, but since I knew the truth--McElroy's books are notable--I knew that Cindy was acting out of an arrogant ignorance, of the "I-haven't-heard-of-this-guy-or-any-of-his-books-and-his-page-is-pretty-shabby" counts as proof of non-notability--I simply reverted it and left my brief note mentioning, don't worry, the books are notable on two counts, but since the timing was such I wasn't going to be able to do anything whatsoever on my end of the burden for two days, I left a note saying so.

Just because you couldn't find something doesn't mean it was "hidden" on purpose. The "burden" is all "your end" as the original editor. Please have a look at the essay, Verifiability, not truth. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, the burden is on my side. I've never said or implied otherwise. I've not complained about that one bit. Meanwhile, Cindy, however, went too far. I'm not the only one who thinks so. Her second speedy deletion of the entire content was reverted by an uninvolved third party who accused Cindy of wikifascism in the edit summary. Then she did the proper WP thing, and put in the AfD..

"Hasty removal", perhaps, but continuing to use the term "speedy deletion" when not referring to "speedy deletion" (which clearly was not used) is misleading and mischievous. If you understand WP:BURDEN then you understand why Cindy did what she did. If you still don't understand why your material was removed then you have missed the point of WP:V and WP:BURDEN entirely. You are, of course, entitled to your view that she responded with haste. But even that uninvolved editor agrees her actions were "in accordance with the letter of WP guidelines", though "knee-jerk". Stalwart111 (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you have since discovered WP:VAN and "I was reverting vandalism" looks like a good justification for acting the way you did. It is not. Removing un-sourced content is not "vandalism". In future, I would strongly suggest you use the sandbox or userfication options available to you if your article is not yet ready for the main article space. It would allow you to avoid going through all of this again. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 00:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC).Reply[reply]

I had a year's anonymous experience in the early days of WP. I created several dozen articles on a range of topics. Back in those days the rules were more fluid. And yes, we had vandalism back then. I made no mention of it at first since it didn't occur to me, and if it did, I believed, as I stated it above, Cindy was ignorant, not malicious. But since you have been making such a point about how you and others are so experienced and know all these WP rules (unlike me at the time), well, you've convinced me that violating them by erasing and burying the erasures under a redirect when the topic is clearly not subject to speedy deletion is intentional, malicious, and disruptive. Really, you can't have it both ways.

For the record, it is clear that Cindy quickly changed her mind, realized the articles were not suitable for speedy deletion, and then did the appropriate AfD calls. Women and Men itself is so well-known that the AfD ended almost immediately, while Ancient History is dragging on.Choor monster (talk) 14:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AfD is an entirely appropriate response to an SPA that reverts removal of un-sourced material. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You keep saying "un-sourced material". I do not think you know what that means. Most of my initial article was sourced: the book itself. You are confusing "sourced" with "footnoted".

Un-sourced; without sources. By extension it was also, obviously, not footnoted either. Your material had no sources. Your argument that WP:V shouldn't apply because you understood the book well is inaccurate, at best. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again, there was no speedy deletion involved. You flat-out ignored the instructions and guidelines provided as you were making each one of those edits then reacted badly when another editor enforced the rules. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, Cindy did not enforce the rules. She took a unilateral non-policy article deletion (in the form of a redirect that hid the original material)

WP:V - "Any material that requires a source but does not have one may be removed". It was removed. That's an obvious enforcement of the rules as far as I'm concerned. Again, you can argue that it was "hasty" or "knee-jerk" - that's fine. But it was absolutely in accordance with policy, whether you like the policies or not. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again, removing poor editing is not vandalism or a "violation" of the "rules". It is what is expected of all editors. Your basic argument boils down to, "the rules shouldn't apply to me because what I am (was) writing is the truth!", which is a patent fallacy. You injected your own opinion into an encyclopaedia without the required references and it was removed. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, I did not inject my own opinion. Most of what I wrote was sourced, in the completely obvious location: the book itself. Really, is there a single reader of the original article who would suspect that I made up the fact that the narrator is named Cy, short for Cyrus, because I didn't put in a footnote to the book? But a footnote reassures said reader that he could, if he wanted to, track down my source of information, whereas before he was helpless?

I injected facts' into WP: Ancient Historys narrator is named Cy, for example. I believe we don't find out until page 183, when Cy recounts his fateful conversation with Doug. That it's short for Cyrus, and not Cyril (both mentioned in the book), is something we find out later. Do I need to cite the page were Dom is called a "New York Jewish liberal", lest people think I made that up too?

What's required is verifiable material. That is what I have been following. As it says on WP:V, "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." It does not say it must be verified/cited/footnoted before you can add it. I've stuck to the truth, yes, but more essentially, I've stuck to verifiable truth.

Sorry, but you didn't verify anything with reliable sources. "Knowing" the "truth" in your own mind and arguing that people should assume your interpretation is accurate is pure WP:OR. The lines before the one you quoted - " Verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that information comes from a reliable source. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors". If it doesn't have reliable sources, it's not verifiable. As such, your opinion of the book (and, again, not just the plot summary - nothing had sources), regardless of accuracy, is WP:OR if it can not be verified. If you want to critique, review or summarise books in your own words rather than by summarising previously published information then Wikipedia is not the right place for it.

I think you understand you are way, way, way off base with this one. I think you know what you were supposed to have done in the first place and you're flogging this dead horse for the sake of pride, or something. You made a mistake; frankly a fairly inconsequential one in the scheme of things. Learn from it. Move on. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have now found some references and it will most likely stay. You should have done that to begin with, but at least now you know for next time. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What has been added is evidence of notability. I did not "find" them: I knew all along the book reviews existed because they're cited on the jacket covers of his novels. I knew academic writing on McElroy and his novels existed because I've read them too over the years. I had read Plus in the early 80s, and Lookout Cartridge in the mid-80s, but I did not know McElroy was taken seriously until I read Steven Moore's ecstatic review of Women and Men, mentioned below, and knew I had to read everything by McElroy at that point. And since this was in the days before on-line bookstores, wikipedia, and so on, it was a bit slow getting caught up to speed. The special Joseph McElroy issue of The Review of Contemporary Fiction came out in 1990, and I was off and running.

Like I said, I know for a fact that McElroy and his novels are notable, and I've known this because of the sources that have been telling me so for decades now. The fact that I don't type in these sources right away does not mean they do not exist and that the material is non-notable and non-verifiable. It simply means notability and verifiability are a priori questionable, which means the WP process of discussion and consensus forming are to take place, as opposed to high-handed one-way actions like speedy deletion.

In short, your claim that the plot summary was WP:OR is patent nonsense.Choor monster (talk) 13:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again, sorry, but that's not accurate. And I didn't limit my comments to the plot summary - the original "article" did not have one single source, was your own interpretation of the book (regardless of the accuracy of your interpretation) and was WP:OR in its purest form - original thought backed up by personal experience. "verifiable before you can add it" and "material that requires a source but does not have one may be removed". It wasn't verified by reliable sources and it was removed. Not "later", not "when I get around to it". Before. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ancient History will stay because its notable. Let's not bite the newbies when they get upset, there is oh so much for them to legitimately get upset at.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 00:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In addition, I find Stalwart's complaint about my "long tracts of OR" completely off-base. (Long??? I've just started with a stub so far.) Summarizing a book is not OR. My statements about the book's content can all be verified in the obvious location. What were you expecting? The Cliff's notes?

As I mentioned on the talk page (with an explicit example), I am shying away from sharing my opinions about what's going on in the book. I am also aware that McElroy is a difficult writer, and I can make mistakes, and not notice an ambiguity, say. But such fine detail isn't what Stalwart was complaining about.

Choor monster (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Summarizing a book is original research (see WP:OR) if your opinions (factually accurate or not) are not verified by reliable sources. If the statements can be verified (and I am more than happy to accept that they can) then add references for each of the opinions - your own opinion (regardless of how well you personally understood the book) is not a reliable source. So someone else has to have said it before we can include it. If you had had your critique of the book published by the New York Times then we mere mortals (WP editors) would be citing your interpretation as a reliable source. Sucks sometimes but they are the rules the WP community sticks to. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 23:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This seems to be a bizarre misreading of WP:OR. Plot summaries do have a reliable source: the book itself. The problem comes with difficult books that are not presented in easy-read narratives, with deliberate, understated goings-on. An important subplot is resolved by the author referring to something happening to the man with the Irish thornproof tweed, and the alert reader is supposed to smile, remembering the previous mention of his tweed 400 pages earlier. In this case, William Gaddis The Recognitions has a guidebook, but I find it bizarre that something like that needs to be third-party referenced. On the other hand, I recall reaching the ending of Jonathan Franzen The Twenty-Seventh City thinking one major character had been murdered, but then I learned according to Wikipedia, it was suicide. Really? Well, actually, that makes more sense physically in the book, but it makes very little sense descriptively, at least to me. And there is no question with things like Agatha Christie The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, where the book says in plainest English that X was the killer, both in the book and in her spoiler-laden autobiography. There is at least one book out there claiming X was taking the fall for Y, and the contents of the book is a very close reading that supposedly proves Y is the killer. If that book or the like did not exist, Wikipedia cannot mention the alternate theory.

All I mean is that I feel comfortable with writing up the above Gaddis example as "objective" from the text itself, I might write up something like the Franzen example thinking I'm being "objective" but instantly upon being told of the other reading concede my blind spot, and I will always think of the Christie example alternative killer theory, no matter how well argued, is pure OR. Postmodern writing specializes in playing up the reader-involvement-deduction angle, but that doesn't mean there's no core that can be presented without references beyond the text itself.

For example, I assume in Ancient History itself, I could describe Dom as "Maileresque" without references, but I acknowledge that it's a grey area, which is why I waited until I looked up a reference. But the fact that Dom fell out of a ninth story window and lived is objective fact within the book, and I don't need to bother finding some critic or reviewer who mentions it.Choor monster (talk) 14:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A strict reading perhaps but not a misreading - "Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources themselves." The book can be added as a Primary Source (with care) but it wasn't to begin with and still isn't. 5 out of the 7 paragraphs don't have sources - not a deal killer but it should be improved. Stalwart111 (talk) 03:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry, I find this completely nuts. Every paragraph of the plot summary or character description requires a footnote? Seriously, Every Possible Reader KNOWS knows the source: the book itself. What's prohibited as unsourced OR are things like the alternative theory of who killed Roger Ackroyd--a very clever reading between the lines that takes a book to spell out. In this article, the referenced Tabbi article interprets Ancient History as McElroy slaying Mailer the father-figure to make room for his own novelistic style. THAT is the sort of stuff that must be referenced. (Frankly, I find the Tabbi article more confusing than McElroy himself.) Look at Underworld. One footnote, for an inference that someone grew up near a certain location. Look at Gravity's Rainbow. Three footnotes in the very long plot summary. One to someone who counted 400 characters. One to an interpretative statement about what drives the plots and subplots. And one to GR itself, although why that of the dozens of plot points needs a footnote escapes me.

I'm not interested in wikilawyering this, since whether or not I was guilty of WP:OR is irrelevant to whether AH is notable enough. I'd say that the guidelines need to be rewritten. I mean, go ahead, tag the article as saying it's unclear where I found out Dom was Jewish from.Choor monster (talk) 19:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That there are other articles in worse shape is irrelevant. WP:V (would strongly suggest you have a read) is very clear (on line 2) - "[Wikipedia's] content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it" (original emphasis). You can disagree with the success of WP:V, you can propose changes to it and can rally against it. But I would venture to suggest you'll have a tough time building consensus against it. I would also venture to suggest you'd have a far easier time of things by working on bringing your articles up to scratch, given they obviously can be, rather than trying to "fight the system" because of your initial misunderstanding. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 00:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC).Reply[reply]

I am not mentioning the other articles to suggest they are in "worse" shape. I believe that they are in fine shape, and it is articles like these that I have been looking at for my role model. (Well, Underworld needs more plot summary.) For your information, nothing you quote seems to be a problem: McElroy's Ancient History is previously published information. Everything I state about the plot and the characters in the book (as others have stated in the other book articles I mentioned) comes from the book itself, unless stated otherwise (the Norman Mailer comparison). Under no circumstance will I include personal speculation, like what Cy does after the novel's end, no matter how harmless, logical, seemingly "necessary" to the book's storyline it appears, unless I come across a third-party (or McElroy himself in some interview) who makes the same speculation. And I state this aware of the challenge that since in postmodern fiction, ambiguity often trumps clarity, this is not as easy as traditional fiction. Choor monster (talk) 14:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As to whether I will fight the system, I will at some point raise the issue. It seems like an unintended side effect of an obviously important policy, and that has not been addressed since nobody has wikilawyered a plot summary before. I really find the idea that I have to keep reminding readers that my plot summary is based on the book completely nuts.Choor monster (talk) 14:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then cite it or fight it. Easy as. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will mostly continue writing good informative articles on Joseph McElroy's novels. It's an embarrassing hole.Choor monster (talk) 13:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And you should - your continued contributions are welcome. But please understand that this is an encyclopaedia - this is not a place for publishing original ideas or interpretations. Though new editors sometimes baulk at the idea when they finally realise, being an editor on WP is basically a matter of regurgitating what reliable sources have collectively said about something. It can sometimes be frustrating when you "know" something about a subject but can't add it to WP because someone else hasn't said it first. By all means continue to add material, but please also be diligent about adding sources to back it up.

To allow everyone to move on and get on with editing, I've collapsed the vast majority of our discussion above. I have responded to some points and my aim is not to censor / limit any further responses or arbitrarily end the discussion - please feel free to respond as you see fit; I will see your responses (as will others - it is not hidden). But I will say I think it is obvious that mistakes were made to begin with, those have been resolved, this AfD is unlikely to succeed (given there is not a single delete vote) and everyone should now focus on building the article in question. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Keep: I added the two ny times cites, they are both substantive articles -- clearly treating McElroy as an important author and the book as an important book. (E.g., from Donadio article: "McElroy's third novel compels respect"). Choor asks: "I find it puzzling that once an author himself becomes notable enough--say by making it into the Colby World Authors reference work, or by publishing a major highly praised novel like Women and Men--his other novels have to be individually justified." Yeah, I don't think that's necessarily true. As an encyclopedia, we want our coverage to be logical and organized. If an author has 7 novels and 5 are clearly notable, I guarantee you that articles on the remaining 2 will withstand attempts at deletion. Choor, it is best if you create articles that have citations in them already to stave off deletion nominations. On Cindy's side, I am disturbed that after her prior AfD of Women and Men crashed and burned, she'd just nominate another of Choor's creations. AfD is not supposed to be a game.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment. I would remind you to assume good faith. Your assumption here is not accurate in reflecting the facts. Another note, the AFD did not "crash and burn", but served as intended to discuss the merits of the article in order to establish notability. This was successfully done in accordance with the established process. Certainly not a game. Time to check yourself my friend. Cindy(talk to me) 20:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Check myself?! OHNOYOUDIDNT!. You had to withdraw the AfD; I do credit you for doing that instead of digging in your heels as unfortunately happens too often.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the record - both were nominated at the same time (I responded to both at almost exactly the same time). It's not accurate to say one failed and the other was subsequently nominated as some form of retaliation. Neither article established (or made any attempt to establish) notability and both were nominated. For one there was a number of reliable sources and once those were highlighted the nomination was withdrawn, as is appropriate. That wasn't necessarily the case with this nomination. The original author contends that sources exist and having had a look myself, I have also found some (though not nearly as many as for Women and Men, I might add). If this AfD results in attention being drawn the article and a number of editors contributing to its betterment, I can only think that is a good thing. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Steven Moore, extremely well known literary critic--he has his own Wikipedia article!--specializing in postmodern fiction, starts off his review of Women and Men with the sentence "Joseph McElroy published five remarkable novels between 1966 and 1977". That means all of McElroy's novels in the time span mentioned. I consider any strong positive mere mention by Moore as pretty much a definitive "this book is notable"--this being his area of expertise.

Down the road, I'm thinking of a Michael Brodsky page, along with some of his novels (Xman, Dyad, ***, We Can Report Them). I believe his novels outdo every other postmodernist in extreme difficulty, so I'll consider your suggestions seriously.

Choor monster (talk) 19:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Choor, I am not really familiar with Michael Brodsky (I'm focused lately on popular U.S. fiction of ~1860-1910, scrumptious lowbrow fare like 1887 sensation, Mr. Barnes of New York), but a quick search tells me Brodsky is notable enough to have his own article. I'd start by creating a good article just on him, where you include a section about his works and their reception. Then, if your time permits, its easier to create separate articles for any novels you think merit expanded treatment.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

^^This^^ is funny ("scrumptious lowbrow fare") More light-heartedness please! Unfortunately, Choor monster, a mere mention by anyone is unlikely to be considered "significant coverage" of a subject to help with meeting WP:GNG. But this and other mentions, other coverage and reviews (in totality) would be considered significant enough. But this is exactly the sort of thing you should be looking for. As an aside, I'm with Milowent - an article on Michael Brodsky sounds like a good idea. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 23:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, maybe we can all kill two birds with one stone here. Milowent could, for example, take an interest in the 1853 (British) novel Hypatia. The article has been a nothing stub for 4 months now--I note that in its history no one has called for references that it's individually notable. As you can guess by my comments, I'm happy with that. Meanwhile, Hypatia gets referred to in McElroy's Ancient History itself, as part of the narrator's classical history education. Part of the work of editing AH will simply to link to good stuff like this, except right now this one isn't so good.Choor monster (talk) 14:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And on a parallel note, Thomas Pynchon included the Delaware/Maryland/Pennsylvania tri-state area legend of the "ticking tombstone" in his Mason & Dixon. (One particular known tombstone according to locals, inscribed "R.C.") The first written version of this legend is due to Gath, who in his day was as popular as Mark Twain. It's the "Ticking Stone" story in his Tales of the Chesapeake, which was reprinted in 1968 so reasonably priced copies can be found online if you can't get it by ILL.Choor monster (talk) 14:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - the initial change to a redirect, although in accordance with the letter of WP guidelines, was a knee-jerk reaction, so I reverted it. The article has now improved beyond all recognition and the subject is clearly notable. . . Mean as custard (talk) 13:25, 25 September 2012

(UTC)

Summary of main disagreement: Choor monster/Stewart111[edit]

Regarding Cindy's original redirects: nothing she did fit in with WP:R criterion of a redirect. It violated WP:BLANK. It violated WP:PRESERVE. And no, plot summaries are not WP:OR--that is nowhere practiced on WP, and the practice did not begin with Cindy's edit--so the article did not meet WP:CANTFIX. Calling it an instance of WP:SPEEDY is 99% accurate, so I'm sticking to that.

As a further example, check out Great Expectations. The plot summary has several footnotes. They are there for one reason only: to provide a source for the timeline of the novel's action. Nowhere did Dickens tie the plot to dates or at least datable events, so scholarly readers over the years have played detective and published their conclusions. Doing so on WP for the first time in any novel would be OR.

As an example of something I'm not going to do: I am very tempted to summarize Lookout Cartridge, McElroy's postmodern techno-thriller, with the statement that the key to solving the mystery is realizing "the medium is the message". I mean, wow, McElroy channelled McLuhan and blasted one of the best metafiction home runs ever, with a whodunit resolution as clever, totally unexpected, but perfectly logical in the best Agatha Christie tradition. Well, it may be possible to phrase this in a way without violating WP:OR, but at the moment, nothing comes to mind. On the other hand, the relation of McElroy's interminable, labyrinthine, and borderline comprehensible sentences to the plot of Lookout Cartridge has been discussed in the secondary literature--including one interview--so that can go in. (Even this might be a little tricky: McElroy actually said they were borderline "incomprehensible". Phrasing it backwards like that was, arguably, the only humorous thing he's ever written.)

Similarly, Hind's Kidnap is a treasure hunt of a plot, disguised as a mystery. This seems harmless as a factual observation--Hind is sent from point to point, each time waiting for the next clue to materialize, and while waiting, rambles on interminably--but there's no need to debate the matter: McElroy uses the exact phrase "treasure hunt" repeatedly in the novel. Women and Men turns out to be, amongst other things, the world's ultimate shaggy dog story ever, with most of the plots and subplots resolved in one gigantic punchline. Ah, those sentences and paragraphs that just kept going on forever for 1192 pages, why, McElroy was just funning with me in the best dog tradition. I don't see how to put this in the article. And that ending...it essentially says, "and if you thought that was funny, let me start my next joke". Clearly this is a personal interpretation. And yes, I know I can't sneak this into the talk pages, not even my own user page, WP is not a blog.

Meanwhile, I will continue to engage in plot summaries. And I do so knowing that this is both unnatural for a McElroy novel, and that he is often unclear, and I'm not allowed to pass off personal best guesses as to what is going on. That would be OR.

Nowhere have I claimed or implied that my knowledge of truth trumps any WP criteria. I have simply stated that 30 years of reading McElroy and some of the secondary literature means I know for a hard-cold fact that McElroy's novels are individually notable. That information will go in first next time, but frankly, I think it's a little ridiculous that I'm mostly concerned with another Cindy-level tactical nuclear response than a routine AfD tag.

Anyway, this AfD seems to be ready to be declared dead, and you and I have really been misbehaving with all this metadiscussion. Whether I'll pursue the policy pages or not is something I'll consider later.Choor monster (talk) 15:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note to closing admin: No deletion votes aside from nominator. Please do not relist; article has improved during AfD.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[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 (nom withdrawn and no delete votes). (non-admin closure) Edgepedia (talk) 12:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Women and Men[edit]

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

Delete due to lack of notability in accordance with WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. Initially redirected to author was reverted. Cindy(talk to me) 22:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - I respect where the nomination came from - the article is badly written (rather ironic, given it's about a book) and the attitude Cindy copped while trying to fix this and another related article was pretty poor form and definitively not good faith. That said, there are a number of sources that could be cited (and would have been, I imagine, had the original author met the burden of proof)-

LeClair, Tom - The Art of Excess: Mastery in Contemporary American Fiction (University of Illinois Press, 1989) - has a chapter dedicated to this book specifically.
McHale, Brian - Constructing Postmodernism (Routledge, 1993) - also has a chapter on the book in question.
Tabbi, Joseph - Postmodern Sublime: Technology and American Writing from Mailer to Cyberpunk (Cornell University Press, 1996) - includes a few paragraphs on the book.
Ziegler, Heide Facing Texts: Encounters Between Contemporary Writers and Critics (Duke University Press, 1988) - as above with a more detailed analysis of the characters of the book.

There seems to be a review from the New York Times in 1975 but beyond a basic google result, I can't find the text of the review itself. What I have been able to find is way too small to be read (in a reprint) so I can't actually tell what it says. That said, the fact that there was a review by the NYT (regardless of whether it was positive or negative) suggests they considered it notable enough to review. Would be keen to get a readable copy.

Also helpful (though not as a source I would think) is the Webster's Encyclopaedia of Literature entry for McElroy which includes his books (with proper titles) to help with searches.

Editors should be aware that there is also an expert on the studies of "women and men" named McElroy and her work does tend to pop up in search results - be careful you have the right one if you're searching for more sources.

Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 06:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Great job on finding this information! Thanks... Cindy(talk to me) 00:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem, just wish it could have been resolved without this outburst. Disappointing. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 00:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Yeah, I agree that it was disappointing, but I don't tend to let things like that bother me. Editing Wikipedia will always bring us into contact with different and difficult personalities. I can't control that, but I can (hopefully) manage my response in a positive manner. Thanks again for your help here. Cindy(talk to me) 01:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - I found two reliable sources -- The Los Angeles Times and Chicago Review -- for McElroy's Women and Men and added them to the story. I also added an infobox book template. AuthorAuthor (talk) 09:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Withdrawn. I've added the sources to the article, which have been provided by Stalwart111 above. At this point, the subject clearly meets the notability guidelines in accordance with WP:GNG. Cindy(talk to me) 00:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[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. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apadment[edit]

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

I can't find anything to suggest this is notable enough for an article. It is also an orphan, and reads more like an advert. Cloudbound (talk) 21:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: article is rather promotional in tone and I can't find anything that suggests that the subject is notable. Ducknish (talk) 21:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Yaron K. (talk) 23:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete without prejudice to future article if notability arises. Thousands of new websites every day, this one hasn't made it to notability yet.BennyHillbilly (talk) 06:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[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. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Secret War (2014)[edit]

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

PROD was removed by author but article should be deleted per WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:MOVIE Ducknish (talk) 21:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as PROD'er -- WP:CRYSTALBALL. Theo polisme 21:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - Too soon and I haven't found any evidence to verify the content. SwisterTwister talk 22:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy delete - textbook WP:CRYSTAL case; fails WP:MOVIE. MikeWazowski (talk) 23:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - I wonder if The Game (2013 film) should be bundled with this AfD as well? It's another article about an upcoming unproduced film from the same people, and the creator of the 2014 article appears to be a sock account of the creator of the 2013 article. MikeWazowski (talk) 23:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ MikeWazowski. We generally do not speedy film articles. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as premature. While Li Xing does have a background in action films,[2] plans for a film as described do not have the required verifiability.[3] and the article itself tells us that the thing is as yet uncast. TOO SOON. ANd @ MikeWazowski... No need to bundle The Game (2013 film) into this AFD, for at least IT has growing sourcability... and at least IT may benefit from incubation, and there is no need to make this an all or nothing type AFD as we do have different options for different topics based upon differing levels of sourcability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Per WP: CRYSTALBALL. It's also unreferenced. Electric Catfish² 18:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as an apparently nonexistent topic due to lack of any coverage. Am fine with recreation if this project does begin filming. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Waterlust[edit]

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

This is a recently started "social movement" that has very little coverage outside of the school (University of Miami's Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science) from which it originated. It's barely worth mentioning as a footnote in the main article on RSMAS. The article was first started by Waterlust (talk · contribs) and a brand new account Cabmedia (talk · contribs) removed the prod tag I added to the page. This just shows an extreme conflict of interest going on. I honestly don't know how this thing got approved through WP:AFC, other than showing we need better editorial review of the AFC process that allowed a page with only two initial references, one that was to a blog posting on the host institution and the other which is just a link to the subject's homepage, to be approved for mainspace.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Extended content
(response to comments above) This is a recently started "social movement" that has very little coverage outside of the school (University of Miami's Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science) from which it originated. The statement regarding "coverage" is based entirely on the references provided in the initial draft for the page. A quick Google search will show that the majority of coverage of this project is outside of RSMAS. A more extensive list of the various outlets/articles that have been published regarding the work should be included. It's barely worth mentioning as a footnote in the main article on RSMAS. This is a personal opinion. The administration of RSMAS is supportive of adding an outreach section to their Wikipedia page that includes the importance of student run initiatives such as this as vital part of the research community. Again one may have the opinion that it is "barely worth mentioning" while others see it is as very significant. I think this article requires more referencing, including a cross-reference with a new section that outlines outreach efforts for the Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science. Besides the debate regarding notability....for what reason should this be deleted? This article does not fit into any of the following. -Content that meets at least one of the criteria for speedy deletion -Copyright violations and other material violating Wikipedia's non-free content criteria -Vandalism, including inflammatory redirects, pages that exist only to disparage their subject, patent nonsense, or gibberish -Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject) -Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate) -Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes) -Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed -Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth) -Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons -Redundant or otherwise useless templates -Categories representing overcategorization -Files that are unused, obsolete, or violate the Non-free policy -Any other use of the article, template, project, or user namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace. -Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waterlust (talk • contribs) The RSMAS administration does not have any sort of editorial control over the Wikipedia article on itself because they cannot write about themselves from an objective point of view. I cannot find any reliable sources that discuss the Waterlust project for what it is, rather than a bunch of blogs reposting the videos. Just because your cause is noble does not mean Wikipedia needs to cover it. And of utmost importance is the fact that this page should have been written by someone directly involved with the subject. Notability is the primary reason why this page should not be kept because it does not meet the general notability guidelines. The sources provided are insufficient to establish notability and what I'm finding elsewhere is not helping either. I've found 33 results in Google searching for rsmas, miami, and waterlust, and excluding every single bit of social media I can. Eliminating "rsmas" from the search criteria only gives 153 results.—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Of course the RSMAS administration does not have editorial control, though the Wikipedia page that represents the RSMAS community should include research initiatives such as this, along with many other widely publicized projects. I posted a paragraph on Waterlust on the RSMAS page under the research section but it was immediately removed. One of the critiques on this submission was that it has not been referenced/linked by other articles. We're trying to reference it appropriately, but they are being removed. A new section to the RSMAS page including outreach initiatives should be added. Your argument regarding Notability seems unquantifiable. According to the notability guidelines, "Notable" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance," and even web content that editors personally believe are "important" or "famous" are only accepted as notable if they can be shown to have attracted notice. We believe that Waterlust has attracted notice and that it is worthy of a Wikipedia page. You argue otherwise. At what point does something achieve appropriate notability? There is no clear line and the opinions of editors will always be opinions.—Waterlust 23:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] The page Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science does not "represent the RSMAS community". It is a page discussing the research institute. And as of right now, which would be 23:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC), Waterlust as a research project or initiative is not notable for inclusion as its own separate article and there is certainly not enough out there about it to be mentioned amongst the other research projects being performed at RSMAS. Waterlust may not be mentioned on other pages, but that is because it is not of note yet. It's been around for 6 months and you have not provided one source that discusses the project that is in no way affiliated with the project or RSMAS. You've provided other sources that feature the videos produced by the project, but they do not critically discuss the videos. They are merely showing that the videos exist. Existence itself is not enough of a reason to be covered on the English Wikipedia. If some entity unaffiliated with either UM or RSMAS actually discussed Waterlust (that is beyond providing a link a video produce by the project) and has a level of editorial control over the content that it publishes, then that would be considered a reliable source. The RSMAS website and the previously included Waterlust website are not suitable sources to establish notability. The Scientific American source is a staff blog that does not even mention that the project is "Waterlust"; it just contains an embedded Waterlust video. And ScienceOfTheSurf.com is most definitely not a reliable source, and even if it was it only mentions "Waterlust" in a passing mention, which is one of the many criteria we look at when we determine reliable sources. There needs to be something independent from Waterlust that discusses Waterlust critically before we can even consider mentioning it on the RSMAS page, let alone giving it its own standalone article.—Ryulong (琉竜) 23:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] I think we will have to agree to disagree regarding how to measure notability. You speak of "we" as if Wikipedia is a singular entity that you represent that decides on the relevance of content. My understanding is that Wikipedia is based on the contributions of the collective. If the collective decides that content is relevant and worthy, than it should be included. So far this debate only has two voices, hopefully the inclusion of more voices will clarify how to proceed.—Waterlust 16 September 2012 (UTC) The Wikipedia community has set up a series of guidelines that decide what is and is not of note to cover on its website. I can tell you from my 6 years of experience on this site that "Waterlust" is not a topic worthy of inclusion yet.—Ryulong (琉竜) 01:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Extended content

(response to comments above)

This is a recently started "social movement" that has very little coverage outside of the school (University of Miami's Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science) from which it originated.

The statement regarding "coverage" is based entirely on the references provided in the initial draft for the page. A quick Google search will show that the majority of coverage of this project is outside of RSMAS. A more extensive list of the various outlets/articles that have been published regarding the work should be included.

It's barely worth mentioning as a footnote in the main article on RSMAS.

This is a personal opinion. The administration of RSMAS is supportive of adding an outreach section to their Wikipedia page that includes the importance of student run initiatives such as this as vital part of the research community. Again one may have the opinion that it is "barely worth mentioning" while others see it is as very significant.

I think this article requires more referencing, including a cross-reference with a new section that outlines outreach efforts for the Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science.

Besides the debate regarding notability....for what reason should this be deleted? This article does not fit into any of the following.

-Content that meets at least one of the criteria for speedy deletion

-Copyright violations and other material violating Wikipedia's non-free content criteria

-Vandalism, including inflammatory redirects, pages that exist only to disparage their subject, patent nonsense, or gibberish

-Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject) -Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate)

-Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)

-Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed

-Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)

-Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons

-Redundant or otherwise useless templates

-Categories representing overcategorization

-Files that are unused, obsolete, or violate the Non-free policy

-Any other use of the article, template, project, or user namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace.

-Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waterlust (talk • contribs)

The RSMAS administration does not have any sort of editorial control over the Wikipedia article on itself because they cannot write about themselves from an objective point of view. I cannot find any reliable sources that discuss the Waterlust project for what it is, rather than a bunch of blogs reposting the videos. Just because your cause is noble does not mean Wikipedia needs to cover it. And of utmost importance is the fact that this page should have been written by someone directly involved with the subject. Notability is the primary reason why this page should not be kept because it does not meet the general notability guidelines. The sources provided are insufficient to establish notability and what I'm finding elsewhere is not helping either. I've found 33 results in Google searching for rsmas, miami, and waterlust, and excluding every single bit of social media I can. Eliminating "rsmas" from the search criteria only gives 153 results.—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of course the RSMAS administration does not have editorial control, though the Wikipedia page that represents the RSMAS community should include research initiatives such as this, along with many other widely publicized projects. I posted a paragraph on Waterlust on the RSMAS page under the research section but it was immediately removed. One of the critiques on this submission was that it has not been referenced/linked by other articles. We're trying to reference it appropriately, but they are being removed. A new section to the RSMAS page including outreach initiatives should be added. Your argument regarding Notability seems unquantifiable. According to the notability guidelines, "Notable" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance," and even web content that editors personally believe are "important" or "famous" are only accepted as notable if they can be shown to have attracted notice. We believe that Waterlust has attracted notice and that it is worthy of a Wikipedia page. You argue otherwise. At what point does something achieve appropriate notability? There is no clear line and the opinions of editors will always be opinions.—Waterlust 23:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The page Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science does not "represent the RSMAS community". It is a page discussing the research institute. And as of right now, which would be 23:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC), Waterlust as a research project or initiative is not notable for inclusion as its own separate article and there is certainly not enough out there about it to be mentioned amongst the other research projects being performed at RSMAS. Waterlust may not be mentioned on other pages, but that is because it is not of note yet. It's been around for 6 months and you have not provided one source that discusses the project that is in no way affiliated with the project or RSMAS. You've provided other sources that feature the videos produced by the project, but they do not critically discuss the videos. They are merely showing that the videos exist. Existence itself is not enough of a reason to be covered on the English Wikipedia. If some entity unaffiliated with either UM or RSMAS actually discussed Waterlust (that is beyond providing a link a video produce by the project) and has a level of editorial control over the content that it publishes, then that would be considered a reliable source. The RSMAS website and the previously included Waterlust website are not suitable sources to establish notability. The Scientific American source is a staff blog that does not even mention that the project is "Waterlust"; it just contains an embedded Waterlust video. And ScienceOfTheSurf.com is most definitely not a reliable source, and even if it was it only mentions "Waterlust" in a passing mention, which is one of the many criteria we look at when we determine reliable sources. There needs to be something independent from Waterlust that discusses Waterlust critically before we can even consider mentioning it on the RSMAS page, let alone giving it its own standalone article.—Ryulong (琉竜) 23:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think we will have to agree to disagree regarding how to measure notability. You speak of "we" as if Wikipedia is a singular entity that you represent that decides on the relevance of content. My understanding is that Wikipedia is based on the contributions of the collective. If the collective decides that content is relevant and worthy, than it should be included. So far this debate only has two voices, hopefully the inclusion of more voices will clarify how to proceed.—Waterlust 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia community has set up a series of guidelines that decide what is and is not of note to cover on its website. I can tell you from my 6 years of experience on this site that "Waterlust" is not a topic worthy of inclusion yet.—Ryulong (琉竜) 01:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete non notable. No mention on google news, first few pages of ghits are all bloggery and so on, not RS. Greglocock (talk) 00:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: The Wikipedia community decides on what will be kept according to policies and criteria decided by and agreed upon by th"e Wikipedfia community. This is an upcoming, 'recently started social organisation that has very little coverage' that todate has produced 6 short YouTube movies. That doesn't even begin to produce WP:RS in number, depth, and scope to satisfy 'our' criteria at WP:GNG and WP:ORG. What the nominator has also failed to mention is that User:Waterlust has a massive COI and should already have been blocked from editing for promoting an organisation that s/he represents or is closely connected with - also a Wikipedia policy decided by the Wikipedia community. Perhaps in addition, a WP:SPI should be opened on the two editors. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep: Newbie here to Wikipedia code writing and also a follower and supporter of Waterlust. I see this upstart group as innovative and novel and something that should be worthy of a Wiki page. I don't know enough about Wikipedia to understand when something becomes notable enough, but I will point out that the Waterlust videos are widely viewed with a very high (98% or higher) approval rating. Perhaps they should get some more articles written about them to legitimize this, but to me its notable as is and something I'm excited to see more of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabmedia (talk • contribs) 15:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Reply[reply]
Blocked as confirmed sock of User:Waterlust.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 23:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, you are directly involved with the project itself. Innovation, originality, insular approval ratings, etc., are not metrics by which we here at Wikipedia determine what is and is not worthy of inclusion. Just because it's notable to you and Mr. Rynne does not mean we here at Wikipedia agree with your determination, particularly when we have various policies and guidlines that say it's not ready.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: no indication of notability, neither in the article, nor off-site. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[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 Speedied by author's request. Peridon (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Michael Farin[edit]

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

Autobiography of a non-notable person; no hits for "Michael Farin" entrepreneur on Google Books, News or News archives. CtP (t • c) 20:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Jimfbleak under criterion G11 with addition comment unsourced biography of a living person, vanity page. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 13:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ABHIJEET VISHEN[edit]

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

Non-notable person; no hits for "ABHIJEET VISHEN" on Google Books, News, or News archives. CtP (t • c) 20:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - Per Nomination Andrew Kurish (talk) 20:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - Not sure why this isn't a speedy. Eeekster (talk) 21:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Non-notable IT technician. No notability asserted, plus it fails WP: GNG. It is also an autobiography. I saw this on NPP, but wasn't 100% sure what to do, so I left this alone. Electric Catfish 21:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy delete - textbook non-notable promotional vanity page. MikeWazowski (talk) 23:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Non-notable person, could easily go as a CSD A7. AllyD (talk) 06:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[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) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles

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

This article is basically long list of things that don't meet the general notability guideline. There are a few exceptions, e.g. adamant or kryptonite, which have their own articles; there are a few more which independently wouldn't meet the GNG but are appropriately covered in other articles (e.g. bazanium is covered in the article on Raise the Titanic!). However, this list page is a magnet for listing very marginal stuff that has probably never been commented on outside of the game/comic/film where it was invented. Because so few refs are provided it's also a hoax magnet. Basically, this page is a list of random, unsourced, unreferenced stuff, and looks set to remain so; it's had years to improve and hasn't, and it's time to get rid of it. The Land (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep: This is a good list. There is a source column, and nearly everyone of those sources links back to an article, making checking for hoaxes easy. It may be lengthy, but that is due to the all inclusive title. Besides, isn't it better to have one big article than a hundred or so stubs? --Auric (talk) 22:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The deletion nom is basically a laundry list of arguments not to make in deletion discussions. See WP:NOEFFORT, WP:NOTCLEANUP, WP:SUSCEPTIBLE. postdlf (talk) 23:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - per Auric and Postdlf, and a strong-keep result from the prior afd in October, including many good points; plus no negative change in situation since then (Just some cleanup/additions/references/links[4]). —Quiddity (talk) 00:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep If there's any argument here which wasn't refuted in the last AfD 11 months ago, I'm simply not seeing it. While consensus can change, the simple solution is for the editor who objects to any specific item to either challenge it or source it. Yes, this is a list of otherwise non-notable items, because non-notable items get merged appropriately if notability is their only problem. I am pretty confident that the class of fictional materials or elements has received appropriate RS coverage as a topic, regardless of whether such has been added to the article or not. Jclemens (talk) 01:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment I'd lean towards keep because the concept of fictional materials has been around long enough. That said, the way the table is organized creates some odd connections, such as implying that Adamantium is the same material between, say, the Marvel Universe and the Final Fantasy series (one may have inspired the other, of course), same with Unobtainium. Further, I think there needs to be some type of inclusion metric, otherwise the list is potentially boundless. One possible metric would be how important the fictional material is to the plot of the source work; something like Adamantium (within Marvel) or Unobtainium (within Avatar) are central plot elements; Xentronium, on the other hand, appears to be simply flavor text. Otherwise, as the nom suggests, this can easily be a dumping grounds for any cool sounding scientific term. --MASEM (t) 18:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to March 2008 Manhattan construction crane collapse (now 303 East 51st Street). (non-admin closure) SwisterTwister talk 02:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2008 Manhattan construction crane collapse[edit]

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

Disambiguation page is useless now that one of the articles has been deleted while the other has been redirected The Legendary Ranger (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect and close discussion - not controversial, doesn't seem to need discussion here, just change to redirect. JoshuSasori (talk) 00:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect for now and agreeing with JoshuSasori. SwisterTwister talk 01:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (film). Mark Arsten (talk) 23:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Julia Winter[edit]

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

Subject does not meet criteria for WP:NACTOR as she only had one film role from over seven years ago (thus much of the article is outdated), did not make any other major contributions to the entertainment or film industry, and has no major fan base as searching her name on any search engine comes up with sites about Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005 film) or other people who have the same name. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - very clearly fails WP:NACTOR, without evidence of other roles. JoshuSasori (talk) 00:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory where her name and role might be sourced and mentioned. While she did do a few other sourcable things in 2005,[5] the coverage for her other projects in her short career fails WP:ENT and WP:GNG. She does not merit a separate article.[6] That she has apparently left acting to grow up as a regular litle girl is laudable. Let's let her. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[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. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chouettes Coquettes[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I can find no evidence that this group meets the notability criteria. The last AfD in 2006 ended as no consensus. I can find no press coverage, and no books giving significant coverage (indeed, most of the books which mention it are merely reprints of Wikipedia articles). PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did you check French-language sources? I've just added two items on the group from 2011 and 2012, an interview and a feature story, respectively. Pretty local in scope but I'd say this group just meets WP:GNG, Keep.--Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't read French very well, I'm afraid - although I can use Google Translate if required! Good finds, but I'm not convinced that they meet the criteria for reliable/independent sourcing. I note that Entre Elles has no Wikipedia article, and that the Fugues (magazine) article is unreferenced - and have tagged it as such. I am not saying that they do not meet the requirements on Wikipedia for sourcing, but I'm not totally sure that they show the notability of the group. However, I await with interest to see what other people think! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The current state of Fugues' wiki article has no bearing on whether it is RS. It is a well established and longterm publication in Montreal, since 1984, and you can read a bit more about it here. Entre Elles I've not heard of, but I see it bills itself as Quebec's leading lesbian publication, and its distribution page shows distribution points across the city and beyond. It features bylined news and culture stories, and its ISSN entry is here, where you'll see that both Quebec and Canada's national libraries archive this publication. I don't think you've provided a persuasive rationale as to why we should not consider these two publications as reliable sources. best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair points, and I have struck out the relevant parts of my last points, apologies! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 20:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[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. If anyone ever wants to start 'List of absurd paid editing incidents', this may be the centrepiece. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vladimir Mikhailovich Zakharov[edit]

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

I'm nominating this on behalf of User:Eva basil, because she seems to be having difficulty finding the correct procedure. Eva created this article, apparently for the promise of payment, but has now decided that she doesn't want it here any more because she hasn't been paid. I think that the longevity of the article and its strong claims of notability (such as People's Artist of the Russian Federation) preclude deletion via WP:CSD#G7, and some administrators have agreed. I'm not totally convinced of notability, so am creating this nomination, as that's clearly what Eva is trying to do. She has put a deletion tag on the Russian Wikipedia article but doesn't appear to have created the discussion at the appropriate place. I am, for the moment, neutral. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. The official website of the Russian State Academy of Slavic Culture, where Zakharov is the director of the Institute of Dance, says he's a People's Artist of Russia, laureate of the State Prize of Russia and winner of the Prize of the Government of Moscow [7]. I consider the website reliable, and it is possible to find out more about him: [8] (Rossiyskaya Gazeta), [9] (regions.ru), [10] (kirovreg.ru) etc. In my opinion Zakharov is a notable public personality in Russia. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. Eva basil's sole grounds for nominating this article for deletion apparently are that she claims she did not receive payment that she claims she was promised, apparently for writing it. Zakharov is a People's Artist of Russia, which by itself raises him to notability, and this is merely one among a long list of awards and accomplishments down to the present. — Robert Greer (talk) 17:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Bad-faith nomination (not on the part of Phil Bridger, of course, but by Eva basil): Wikipedia is not a debt collection agency. This raises questions about the creation of the article as well but it clearly documents its subject's notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vibha Bakshi[edit]

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

Non-notable producer and director of documentaries and short films. (Side note: Big fat peacock and is edited extensively by SPAs who also keep creating subject's husband's article Vishal Bakshi.) ||Dharmadhyaksha|| {T/C} 18:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Agreed. The references say everything. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep There is a mention about her in New York Times and Rediff.com. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 20:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete The NYTimes references is a simple listing and useless to determine notabiliy. The Rediff source is not even about the same person, just someone who has the same name, so neither pan out and that should have been caught, Vensatry. Checking for news, books and all around finds a shortage of coverage. Maybe someday, but her career is still rather new. The article needs tremendous trimming, but that wouldn't make a difference in her coming up short on the criteria here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - Other than a sentence reading, "Vibha Bakshi was a segment producer in the 2006 HBO documentary Too Hot Not to Handle,[11] there's not much else to include about Vibha Bakshi in Wikipedia. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 01:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[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. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

John F. Murphy (law professor)[edit]

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

This subject fails WP:GNG for lack of coverage by unrelated third parties on which to base content of an encyclopedic biography. He also fails to meet the more stringent thresholds of WP:ANYBIO and WP:PROFESSOR. No particularly notable achievements or awards jump out at me. And scholarly citations of this person's work do exist, but do not approach numbers that would support notability all on their own. JFHJr (㊟) 17:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep notable author. For example, a google scholar search shows his Cambridge University Press published book, The United States and the rule of law in international affairs, has been cited 124 times and reviewed in journals like this. SalHamton (talk) 18:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep I am a bit puzzled by this nomination, as I think the existing references already established notability. Nevertheless, I have added some additional material. Murphy is widely published, and I suggested he would not have held the positions listed if he was not at the top of his profession. Geo Swan (talk) 00:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Notable. --Nounique names 04:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[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. WP:CSD#G12 copyright violation JohnCD (talk) 20:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ian Fang[edit]

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

Aspiring actor with no WP:reliable sources to back up claims. noq (talk) 17:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Woefully fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Qworty (talk) 19:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Comment: Needs sources, specially for the nomination for "Favourite Male Character" and winner of "Dude of the Year Award". We will have understandable difficulties in finding sources for a Chinese actor purportedly notable to China. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy delete, copyvio of http://entertainment.xin.msn.com/en/celebrity/bios/ian-fang.aspx, just like last time. Hairhorn (talk) 19:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy delete as apparent copyvio (haven't the energy to check right now) and definite spam. Peridon (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[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. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Patti Sacks[edit]

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

No evidence of meeting WP:ENTERTAINER or the general WP:N guidelines, which requires non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent third-party sources, nor is it likely that said evidence is out there, given that she appeared in three, uncredited roles. Canadian Paul 17:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. The article itself admits that she fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Qworty (talk) 19:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete credited with three uncredited rolls? That is not credited at all. noq (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - it fails any kind of notability test, seems can be speedily deleted even. JoshuSasori (talk) 00:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Delete... But to be fair, she is not entirely unsourcable... and in 1939, 1940, and 1944, only the bigger names received an onscreen credit. Heck, the further back one looks in film history of onscreen credits, the less likely that any but the top three actors received any onscreen notice by the studios. THAT in itself would not form my opinion. There was a flurry of news blurbs in 1948 and 1952 making reference to her divorce from Fred Karger,[12] an early husband of Jane Wyman,[13] but nothing much about her work as an actress. Looks like Patti finally become an attorney as she had planned,[14][15] but she does not have enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[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. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rambilasji Sharma-ghagshyan-surajgarh[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Regards. Kürbis (✔) 17:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability for this... educator (?) Yaron K. (talk) 23:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy Delete - No notability. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 08:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. High school teachers are not considered notable only for beeing a teacher WP:ACADEMIC. The articles author has merged it into Surajgarh, the subjects hometown.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben Ben (talk • contribs) 20:45, 17 September 2012‎ (UTC+2)

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

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

The result was keep. Nominator withdrawn. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Operation Sinai (2012)[edit]

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

The contents of the article are taken exactly from the article Operation Eagle. Furthermore, some editors seem to believe that somehow Operation Eagle ended in 2011, and thus are making up a name for the operations in 2012. This is completely false - the references in the article Operation Eagle for the August 2012 section specifically mention that all of the article - including August 2012 - is part of Operation Eagle. Here are just a few more references that mention that the operation since August 2012 is part of Operation Eagle (here, here, here, here here). There is no need to make a difference between the two - they are the same thing. Activism1234 16:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - apparently the nominator failed to notice recent publications such as these AlJazeera Sep.16, ThedailyEgypt Sep.8, Alarabiya Sep.8, CNN claiming the ongoing operation against insurgents in Sinai since August 2012 is called "Operation Sinai", even though the press sometimes used to call it "Operation Eagle" (probably relating to the 2011 operation). Quote from CNN "Once called Operation Eagle, now Operation Sinai, the offensive started after more than a dozen Egyptian soldiers were killed and seven others were wounded in an August 5 attack near the Rafah border crossing with Gaza.".Greyshark09 (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Not sure how credible that is. A very recent report in September 16 referred to it as Operation Eagle. --Activism1234 03:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems this relatively new and little known web newspaper is the only source to mention "Operation Eagle" after Egyptian military denied that their August 2012 operation is named "Operation Sinai". I will just give five more good sources for "Operation Sinai" - Daily Telegraph Sep.17, Haaretz Sep.08, France24 Sep.16, Hurriyetdaily Sep.16. Thedailystar 16.Sep. The sources claim that "Operation Sinai" was launched in response to the August 5, 2012 attack, while some had worngly called it "Operation Eagle" (which relates to previous operation).Greyshark09 (talk) 16:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Can you please back up your claim that media outlets and the Egyptian military misreported the name initially, and how you would reconcile that with statements in the CNN and Haaretz ref (to name a few) that state something as, "The military launched an operation codenamed Nisr (Eagle) and later changed to Operation Sinai." --Activism1234 19:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are mistaken - there are no extraordinary claims here. Extraordinary claims are blaming someone as a perpetrator of murder, participation of a country in a war or death of a specific person - extraordinary claims have to be careful, not to falsely blame someone or state a significant event with low reliability.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you still please answer my question? You made a claim, but I can't find a source for this in any of the references. --Activism1234 20:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IN fact, you contradict the claim you made above with this edit! --Activism1234 20:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whatever, this is meaningless side topic. --Activism1234 21:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As nominator, I'd like to ask for this AfD to be closed with the result of keep. Greyshark has successfully demonstrated that the term Operation Sinai has been used as the new term instead of Operation Eagle for those operations in 2012, and I think it'd make sense to have this article. --Activism1234 21:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[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. Merely being quoted in the media as an expert fails to meet WP:N, and whatever else. Without in depth coverage, there's nothing to write an article from. Wily D 08:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Justin Dargin[edit]

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

Article fails WP:BIO, WP:COI and WP:RESUME. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 15:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Extraordinarily Weak Delete This article has some blatant POV issues ("world's leading experts"--really?) and seems to read somewhat like a resume. Also, YouTube is not a reliable source and most of the references seem to be mostly scholarly works or self-promotional. On the plus side, this isn't a blatant hoax and I'm sure was written in good faith. At the moment I'd lean delete, but it's close. Go Phightins! (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK and all other assertions of notability. Qworty (talk) 19:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. Although needs some cleanup and rewriting, WP:COI and WP:RESUME are notvalid reasons for deletion, while WP:BIO is met. It is cited by several mainstream media issues as expert, e.g. USA Today (oil expert Justin Dargin; Dargin, a research fellow at Harvard University), Al Bawaba (Justin Dargin, a Middle East geopolitics and energy expert at Harvard University), AME (Justin Dargin, Research Fellow at the Dubai Initiative and Fulbright scholar of the Middle East), Zawya (Justin Dargin, Research Fellow, The Dubai Initiative/Harvard-Kennedy University, Dubai), The National (Justin Dargin, an expert on Gulf energy politics at the Dubai School of Government), Petroleum Economist (Justin Dargin, a research fellow at the Dubai Initiative of Harvard University in the US.). In addition he has been cited in German Hungarian, Italian etc media. In addition he is an author of several academic books as also has published in peer reviewed scientific journal. In general, the general notability as also the specific notability requirements are met. Beagel (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The coverage in USA Today and The National are not substantial as required per WP:BIO. The rest of the sources do not qualify as reliable, as per guidelines. A couple of them are simply press releases posted on blogging or syndication platforms. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 04:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, Zawya was really press release, my bad. However, I disagree that Al Bawaba or Petroleum Economist are not reliable sources—they are. And there are more of them. They confirm that this is not self-promotional, but Justin Dargin is called expert and specialist also by reliable third party sources. And as I said, he has published and cited in per reviewed scientific journals. Beagel (talk) 05:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're arguing on very thin grounds here. Do you mean to say that a researcher working at Harvard Law University qualifies under notability guidelines for academicians? The coverage in USA Today, the National, Petroleum Economist are not substantial enough to satisfy the notability guidelines either through WP:ACADEMIC or WP:BIO. Also, I dispute that Al Bawaba (primarily a blog publisher) and the Petroleum Economist are reliable sources. Even if the sources qualified as RS, the subject of the biography is neither the primary subject of discussion on the articles nor does he receive coverage that can be considered substantial. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 11:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: I've removed all the content from the article that was unsourced, sourced to deadlinks or sourced to Wikipedia. I've looked through Newsbank and Google News. He is quoted as an expert in some of these sources, which number less than 20. The other sources are articles written by them. Not one of these sources provides biographical information about him. What is left in the article doesn't indicate he falls under any notability category. On Google Scholar, similar problems as Google News and Newsbank. A look through Trove doesn't indicate notability. If a good case for WP:GNG can be made by adding sources I do not have access to, I'd be willing to seriously re-consider. --LauraHale (talk) 11:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: No bias against recreation if it goes through AfC and the new article passes WP:GNG.--LauraHale (talk) 03:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak delete, open to WP:Hey keep. The present article is so promotional it discredits what actually might be usable by Wikipedia standards. There are times when a total redo is called for, this may be one of those occasions. I note he has written some books, has done some impressive things and may be covered in a few reliable sources which pulled together may meet WP:GNG. But that is after a complete rework of the article. Insomesia (talk) 02:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[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. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stanley M. Rowe Arboretum[edit]

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

I've looked around for some sources that might indicate the notability of this arboretum, and have not been able to find anything from reliable sources beyond passing mentions that it exists and is a nice place to visit. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as having insufficient in-dpeth coverage in independent third party sources to meet WP:GNG. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. This arboretum has received an award from the American Horticultural Society and has been officially designated a Conifer Reference Garden by the American Conifer Society. I have added three external references to the article to document it better. Daderot (talk) 11:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I notice you added the references but did not actually add any text. After checking the online refs it is fairly easy to see why, there is very little there, mostly directory-type listings. After looking at the extensive bio from UC (as I recall there is a building on campus named for him) I can see a case for having an article on Mr. Rowe himself that would incorporate this content, but those refs do little to establish notability of the arboretum itself. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, I added a sentence about it being named a Conifer Reference Garden. Personally I believe that reputable arboreta are notable, and this one seems to have two objective criteria as to its notability, including an article in the American Horticultural Society magazine and a listing in the American Conifer Society web site. These are not directory-type listings as you describe them. I understand your view that "it exists and is a nice place to visit", but to some of us reputable arboreta are a bit more than that. with best wishes, Daderot (talk) 23:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The problem with that argument is that you just made up those criteria based on your personal feelings. Perhaps a guideline is needed, but at present I do not believe it exists. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename to Stanley M. Rowe as per Beeblebrox and sources provided by Daderot. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 14:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep as an independent article. Let me quote the Wikipedia general notability guidelines (WP:GNG): "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." I believe that this article has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and hence is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. If you disagree with this point, could you please be specific on what points you disagree with? Best wishes, Daderot (talk) 09:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe have already said fairly specifically that I do not see any depth in the coverage. Could you point out which refs indicate in- depth coverage? Beeblebrox (talk) 16:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think I've reached my fill here. Not much pleasure in contributing to Wikipedia any more. cheers, Daderot (talk) 01:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All I did was answer your question and ask you a similar one by way of reply. And for that I get this Catholic mother guilt trip of a reply? Beeblebrox (talk) 01:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep This news article [16] featuring the Rowe Arboretum, and these sources, [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], although web based, are enough to show notability. FurrySings (talk) 05:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[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. Seems like a consensus not to delete, but no consensus between merging and keeping. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rinkle Kumari[edit]

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

Non notable person involved in a common occurrence in the region Darkness Shines (talk) 13:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. It is not common for a young woman to be involved in a law case which goes all the way to the Supreme Court, and the references in the article are more than sufficient to pass WP:GNG. This article has scope for significant expansion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge these three articles together; Supreme Court cases are notable, but I don't really see a need for three separate articles with more or less the same content. As well, when merging, please check the facts/sources; one article says that the plaintiffs wished to remain with their husbands, while the other says they wished to remain with their parents! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak keep A court case is not automatic notability, but it appears that some of the coverage has focused on her as an individual. If there is a good candidate to merge, that works too. BennyHillbilly (talk) 07:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Hindus persecuted in Pakistan[edit]

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

Waste of bandwidth Darkness Shines (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - Useless list. Keeping a list with not more then 3 names is merely of no use. We already have provisions of CAT for such. TheSpecialUser ^TSU 15:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy delete - per WP:IAR, and per nom. ukexpat (talk) 16:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy Delete - Inherently POV title, unencyclopedic topic. Carrite (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. The overall topic is covered at Persecution of Hindus#Pakistan and Hinduism in Pakistan#Persecution. It's possible that a valid list may also be created around that topic, though individual cases of persecution are mostly likely to be data points to be summarized rather than separately notable people and incidents. This list is only the three complainants in one Pakistan Supreme Court case. That case may be notable, but having separate articles on all three individuals seems uncalled for, and it's certainly not enough to merit a list. postdlf (talk) 23:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zach Ware[edit]

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

Article about a businessman who does not seem to be notable as yet. Single source in the article has a passing mention of him. Same is true for references directly evident from Google, GNews, GScholar. BenTels (talk) 13:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability found and the subject's coverage in the existing reference is insubstantial. AllyD (talk) 16:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 12:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - not notabe at this time. No historic or award events. Probabably does not meet WP:Bio either. Jrcrin001 (talk) 00:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Michael Kinney (martial artist). If Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Kinney (Kinney Karate) is closed as "delete", then this article can be deleted too. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kinney Karate[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Kinney Karate (School)

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

WP:ADVERT This article reads like an advertisement that would take a significant rewrite, WP:GNG I couldn't find any significant mentions despite the long list of apparent references. Also appears to be written by a WP:COI. heather walls (talk) 07:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is really hard to make the call here with respect to notability since it is so badly written. Both the Kinney articles are essentially copies of themselves - one has to be deleted. Both need to be wikified and trimmed of all the puffery. The COI is obvious. At the very least it should be returned to user space until the obvious problems are sorted out.Peter Rehse (talk) 03:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Both of the Michael Kinney articles (one on him, one on his school) are nearly identical. They have no citations in the article and are full of vague, unsubstantiated claims (e.g., trained "uncountable number of black belt instructors" and "hundreds of champions"). There are lots of peacock terms and nothing that is reliably sourced that shows he meets WP:MANOTE. His rank is insufficient to show notability and working "alongside many of the greatest martial artists" is WP:NOTINHERITED. These articles are autobiographic and appear to be more like advertisements then encyclopedia articles. Papaursa (talk) 03:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC

Thank you for the constructive comments. It is appreciated. I never intended for this article to be listed as a 'school.' My error in making this live is that I was trying to understand how searches of names appear. This is been an ongoing effort since it is very difficult to understand how the codes work. Please understand that references are being worked on in the main article "Michael Kinney (Martial Artist) so that they can be linked to the corresponding parts in the article. I am also sorry that it sounds like an "advertisement." I will fix that, shorten the article, and sift through more of the content to make it adheres to rules for more encyclopedia sounding content. I have spent hours reading, working in the sandbox, and working to understand how all of this works and am sorry for my novice or 'badly written' approach. I will fix 'peacock' and 'vague' terms, I would never want that to be an issue. I am sure everyone was a 'novice' at this at one point or another. All I can say is that this whole process is incredibly complicated I will try to understand how to get more editorial help if someone will explain to me how to access those groups (I tried to get help but couldn't seem to access these user and talk groups). Proof is easily obtained on the references but the article does need to be better organized. I will do work to fix the issues of complaint. I have no problem 'deleting' the 'school' story. However the main story is a matter of a rewrite and revisions of the references to comply with standards. I want to learn how to submit information to Wikipedia, I will continue to work on the reference coding and writing a more presentable article following the above comments of other users/editors.

Comment It appears that the original author agrees to delete this article and requests time to work on the other. My feeling is that we should allow this - the question of notability was hard to determine but with a little work it could be clearer.Peter Rehse (talk) 00:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge Substantial improvement but I still feel that both articles essentially duplicate each other. Merge this article into Michael Kinney (martial artist).Peter Rehse (talk) 02:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 12:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Moved to Kinney Karate as requested by original author - see the article's talk page.Peter Rehse (talk) 06:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment - unfortunately that was a cut-and-paste move and will need to be fixed by an administrator. I have added the appropriate template to the article.--ukexpat (talk) 14:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have fixed the cut-and-paste move. Peter - you needed to move the article using the 'move' tab rather than cut and paste it, so that the edit history moves with it. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete I had a hard time deciding what to vote. The subject clearly doesn't merit its own article because there's nothing to show this school is notable on its own, so merging it into the similar article on the owner is reasonable. However, I don't think the owner is notable either and why merge this into an article I think should be deleted. So, if the Michael Kinney (martial artist) article is kept then this article should be merged into it. Otherwise this article should be deleted. Mdtemp (talk) 15:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mdtemp, I corrected what I assume is a typo--I changed Kinner to Kinney. Papaursa (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment I agree with Mdtemp's comment. As I voted above, I think it should be deleted, but if Michael Kinney is deemed notable then this article should be merged into that one. I must admit I don't know why this discussion was extended when the author seemed to agree to its deletion in an earlier comment. Papaursa (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[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. Black Kite (talk) 14:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Emotional baggage[edit]

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

Article essentially is a definition with a few POV-selected examples. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. PROD removed 2 months ago, and the only substantive change was revising the examples. It remains a definition with a few examples. Cresix (talk) 17:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Cresix (talk) 17:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Cresix (talk) 17:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per my reasons for nomination. Cresix (talk) 17:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak Keep I don't see any POV issues at a first glance, although it's written like an essay. It's reliably sourced, though. Also, you don't need to !vote on an AFD that already nominated. Electric Catfish 00:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Not just a frivolous every day phrase, it has depth as a psychological concept, the article just needs further development.--Penbat (talk) 17:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Punt (boat)#Punting in Cambridge. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cambridge University Punting Society[edit]

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

University Society founded only two years ago that does not appear to fulfill any notability criteria per WP:GNG and WP:ORG; also lacks any reliable, external sources (only student's union website). Notability tag was removed without discussion. Mark91it's my world 20:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would merge or redirect to an appropriate page. Punt (boat) is popular at Cambridge University, even if this club is new. Bearian (talk) 17:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. The only external mention I could find was a passing mention in a Glasgow Herlad article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge or redirect Not notable on its own, but surely worth a subhead somewhere.BennyHillbilly (talk) 07:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Cranfield. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bourne End, Cranfield[edit]

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

There's really nothing that can be said about this hamlet - suggest it should be merged into Cranfield, which is its parent civil parish. Interplanet Janet, Esquire IANAL 08:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - Just a cursory look into book sources shows there has been plenty of significant coverage on this place.[22][23]--Oakshade (talk) 15:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Yes.... perhaps more than a cursory look might be called for here? One of those sources is about Bourne End, Buckinghamshire, and the other is about Bourne End, Hertfordshire. Both of those are notable villages in their own right; Bourne End, Cranfield in Bedfordshire is not. Interplanet Janet, Esquire IANAL 20:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't see what region the first one was referring to (didn't know there was more than one "Bourne End"), but I did see the 2nd referred to Hertfordshire, which is directly adjacent to Bedfordshire and the location of this one was right near the border between the two. Over the centuries, these ceremonial counties don't always keep the same boundaries. Based on your information, I'll remain neutral for now. --Oakshade (talk) 21:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. Consensus is that all recognised settlements are notable. However, I'm not sure how recognised this settlement is. It doesn't appear to have a sign at the outskirts stating its name. If someone can show me evidence that it does have then I'll vote to keep, but otherwise I'm neutral. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge to Cranfield, per nominator, without prejudice to re-creating it if anyone can find something properly referenced to say about it other than that it exists. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge to Cranfield, without prejudice to reinstating the redirect as an article if there is substantive content to be included; at presnet we have none. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Manning (band). (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kris Hudson-Lee[edit]

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

no indication of notability. No independent references. Google searches not finding any significant coverage noq (talk) 10:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect to Manning (band) ([24]) unless some sources establishing notability are added. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect to Manning (band) - or Guy Manning - per WP:MUSICBIO: "members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band". As I'm looking at the band article, that might best be merged with Guy Manning's article, but that can be addressed in a separate discussion. Gongshow ^Talk 07:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[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 to delete. Possibly turn this into a disambiguation page. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Genuity[edit]

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

Genuity refers to 2 non notable brands. Now someone wants to split the article, reasonably on the face of it, except now we will have 2 even more unnotable articles. The material should be moved to the parent articles and this article deleted. Op47 (talk) 11:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Split to two articles (either dab page plus two if neither is primary, or one as primary usage, with hatnote leading to the other) and fix the incoming links. (Which "Genuity" was in the World Trade Center, and sponsored Doral Open, etc?) Each article can be separately evaluated for notability, merged to parent company if appropriate, but the dab page or hatnote will still be useful even if pointing to redirects. (And if the recently added and removed South African company ever becomes notable, it can have its own article and be added to the dab page). PamD 12:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Split to two articles for resons given above. Boleyn (talk) 06:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[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.

Andhow.FM[edit]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eran Algor Groskopf[edit]

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

Does not seem to have participated in any major exhibition, or have works in any major museum, or otherwise meet WP:CREATIVE.The only reason I have any doubts is that I can not read ref 4, -- which, btw, would appear to be a copyright newspaper page improperly uploaded to WP. DGG ( talk ) 19:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Part of is exhibitions don't have web site or article about them and he is familiar in the painting community. Don't see any reason for this deletion status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kotvim (talk • contribs) 21:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete No significant coverage found in English or Hebrew, see ערן אלגור. The Hebrew article about him is poorly referenced. The section "From the press" at his official website lists only one article of unknown importance (currently ref. No. 4 in our article). --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 19:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propane Studio[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG, press releases are abundant, but little else. One mere mention in TNW doesn't seem to be enough to merit inclusion. SarahStierch (talk) 18:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi SarahStierch, thank you for your assistance and help within the Propane Studio page. Upon receiving your message and mention of Teahouse, I would like to respond and ask for clarification or guidance in solving this issue. What are the necessary steps to take in order to prove the worthiness of the Propane Studio page, and how can we go about this? Thank you for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by EricaHugh (talk • contribs) 18:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You should try to find newspaper or magazine articles about Propane Studio, as well as mentions in books, and also see if they've won any well-known and prestigious awards. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. No opinions in favour of keeping in three weeks of discussion. Michig (talk) 10:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alex May[edit]

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

This person appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. No independent secondary sources exist in the article now, and I was unable to locate any online other than a trivial mention in Culture24 [25], which provides nowhere near enough coverage to qualify as significant in my opinion. The page has also been speedily deleted several times in the past. VQuakr (talk) 09:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 06:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Note (1) appears to be an event calendar. Note (2) was written by the author. No independent sources in the article as source (1) is written by Alex himself and source (2) is a social network. No reliable sources. Fails WP:SOURCES and does not meet WP:GNG. Яεñ99 (talk) 09:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nominator. Fails WP:GNG. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Manickam Muthar[edit]

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

A PROD tag was removed without explanation or addressing the cited need for reliable sources. Essentially this public school official does not meet the general notability guideline and there are no assertions of notability. There are no reliable sources and none were found on a search (Google Books/News returned zero hits for the full name). Also, Wikipedia is not a memorial. Ubelowme _U ^Me 02:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, nothing suitable for Wikipedia and the article reads like a personal biography rather than an encyclopedia article. Unfortunately, I believe any reliable and useful sources may not be English as my Google US and Google India search provided absolutely nothing. I briefly searched with Google Sri Lanka but found that there isn't a Sri Lankan version of Google News. We should also consider that any sources from his time probably haven't been scanned or transferred to the Internet (the Internet isn't as advanced for the Middle East and the India-Sri Lanka area). SwisterTwister talk 03:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Article does not indicate notability and no sources found which might justify an article. --Michig (talk) 10:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Waverley Art Prize[edit]

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

This is a small-town art exhibition web page and so fails the WP:GEOSCOPE test. The article was created by User Talk:James monk whose only other significant contribution has been the article Mark Rowden. These two articles are closely tied to each other. Martinvl (talk) 09:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Nom has it right. Ceoil (talk) 12:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. All I could really find of any significance is this, credited to 'Waverley Council'. The award is listed in several books (see this) against artists who have won it, but the lack of non-local coverage of the competition itself suggests deletion is appropriate. --Michig (talk) 10:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mark Rowden[edit]

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

This article has the hallmark of WP:SELFPROMOTE - all the major edits have been made by the same editor James Monk. A Google search of the subject reveals a number of self-promotional links and very few other links. There are no significant links back to him other than Waverley Art Prize which is an article that was created by the same editor. This suggests that James monk is either Rowden himself, or somebody close to Rowden. Rowden certainly does not meet the criteria specified in WP:ARTIST Martinvl (talk) 08:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per WP:ARTIST. Ceoil (talk) 13:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per Ceoil.--John (talk) 13:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Article doesn't suggest sufficient notability and a search for sources failed to find anything significant. --Michig (talk) 10:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[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. Michig (talk) 10:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

David Penkalski[edit]

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

This chess player has not had chess results that are notable enough to be worth an entry in Wikipedia. He has not won major chess tournaments or played for the chess national team of his country. He does not have the Grandmaster title, and not even the International Master title. There is no coverage by significant, national sources; only by local, specialised sources.

Also, the article was written by the subject of the article himself.

All in all, this article is best suited for Facebook, not for Wikipedia. SyG (talk) 08:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC) SyG (talk) 08:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. The self-promotional tone and the fact that all article content was provided by single-purpose anonymous accounts strongly suggests WP:COI. Sourcing is poor. Even if all the claims in the article are true and were properly sourced, still not notable. Quale (talk) 08:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom and Quale, and I'll add an analysis of why the achievements fall somewhat short of notability. We have generally kept articles on grandmasters and national champions There is no FIDE rating registered on Penkalski but the USCF rating of 2414 would probably be of approximately IM or FM strength. Winning the Wisconsin Chess Championship is a good achievement, but the state championships are usually Labor Day weekend tournaments that do not confer the same prestige as national championships do. The other tournament victories are in local opens that may receive some attention in a state publication, but little if any in the nationwide Chess Life. Finally, scoring points against FMs, IMs, and GMs represents a peak performance only, and is therefore not as notable as being an FM, IM, or GM which would be an indication of sustained strength. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. WP:PROMOTION and doesn't meet WP:GNG. Agree w/ nom, belongs on Facebook not Wikipedia. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, as above. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[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. Author blanked them all Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2019 NRL season[edit]

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

user in question has gone and made a whole series of Nrl articles up to 2019. The competition could have different teams and formats by then. Also nominating:

LibStar (talk) 08:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete all. Ludicrous articles, worst case of ((WP:CRYSTAL]]. WWGB (talk) 10:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete all. No reliable sources could exist for these, pure speculation. Zujua (talk) 10:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of IIT JEE Toppers[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A list of unremarkable people that serves to do little else than give a bunch of people a chance to say "look how clever we are". A list should be a navigational aid, yet there are only three notable people listed here who could easily be added to the parent article. Biker Biker (talk) 08:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

~~Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.~~ ~~—Tom Morris (talk) 10:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)~~Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — postdlf (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per enough reasons given by the nominator. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 17:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: Per nom. ||Dharmadhyaksha|| {T/C} 06:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete or Keep only names with Wikipedia Articles: "A list of unremarkable people" agree. 'gives a bunch of people a chance to say "look how clever we are"': Disagree. I know a few on the list and they would all be happier if the article were deleted :). Getting back to the topic, I think what we can do is either delete the article, or, as I unsuccessfully attempted to do earlier after my previous deletion request was denied, we can remove all names except those that have Wikipedia articles of their own (or are notable enough to have articles of their own). This would also make the article be a "navigational aid". Piyush (talk) 22:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No consensus for merging, although that might become the topic of a separate discussion. Sandstein 15:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2012 Sydney Islamic Riots[edit]

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

as per WP:NOT#NEWS . Wikipedia doesn't exist to report news as it happens. Yes it's getting a spike of coverage and politicians are saying stuff, but no evidence of this being long standing significant compared to other protests. LibStar (talk) 08:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge. There is already a page on this matter - see 2012 diplomatic missions attacks Nickm57 (talk) 08:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC) I see this point has already been made.Nickm57 (talk) 08:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wait - Article directly relates to the 2011 diplomatic missions attack and other interrelated articles, in my opinion, this event is not noteworthy enough to deserve its own separate article. Much of the primary detail of this event is already included in the Innocence of Muslim article in the reaction section. YuMa NuMa ^Contrib 08:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. A one-day-wonder event, no lasting significance at this time, WP:NOT#NEWS. WWGB (talk) 05:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retain. Last time there were riots in Sydney it was more than a "one-day-wonder". Wait and see what happens. Amandajm (talk) 10:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep and rename to something more appropriate. Seems reasonably similar to 2005 Cronulla riots in scale. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 10:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep as this is an event that stands on its own two feet, it may seem insignificant to people overseas, but in Australia this event may lead to something bigger as social analysts have already pointed out. If you truly want to delete this, then why don't we delete the Cronulla Riots too? Hmm?--Collingwood26 (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

may lead to something bigger is WP:CRYSTAL. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to keep. LibStar (talk) 11:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Cronulla Riots were about the same size, but I don't see you arguing for its deletion...--Collingwood26 (talk) 11:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Cronulla riots involved more than one thousand people and resulted in the stabbing of numerous people across Sydney along with blatant and random vandalism of private property over several nights. This riot on the other hand lasted for less than a day and only involved half of the number of people that attended Cronulla. However, I agree that demanding the immediate deletion of this article constitutes Crystal balling hence I changed my vote. YuMa NuMa ^Contrib 11:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok I see what you mean, at peak I think these riots had about 500+ people involved with 150+ riot police. Lets just see what happens over the course of the next few days, if nothing comes of this, then I will support deletion, but if further conflict arises I say we keep it.--Collingwood26 (talk) 11:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep or Merge with 2012 diplomatic missions attacks, since the protests were (at some stage) outside the US consulate.--Forward Unto Dawn 12:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge with 2012 diplomatic missions attacks as the event isn't that notable on its own merits. It was triggered by the same event and seen as part of the same protest. - Shiftchange (talk) 12:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge with 2012 diplomatic missions attacks Mightymights (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge into 2012 diplomatic missions attacks#Australia. The only difference is being labelled as a riot. Skullers (talk) 15:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge with 2012 diplomatic missions attacks#Australia, per reasons noted by Shiftchange. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 16:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak Keep or Merge into 2012 diplomatic missions attacks, it is the same thing that is happening in Egypt just in another country, the only difference between the two is in Australia muslims are in the minority and thus the riots were less anticipated and more shocking, but it is of the same series of events, same movie, same background, a merge would be fine, but if more happens and more reliable sources could be found the article could possibly stand on its own. Pluto and Beyond (talk) 17:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge into 2012 diplomatic missions attacks#Australia. This riot is no different than the ones that have taken place in other countries (Egypt, Tunisia, Lebanon...)VR _talk 18:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge and redirect to 2012 diplomatic missions attacks. I redirected the page to the main topic, because of its few references. If this article can not supply more information and references, then we should redirect it and merge. It is understandable that this article is separate from the main topic. I would suggest this article to be standing on its own because of the main topic's article size, but since it is small, it would be best to merge this page to 2012 diplomatic missions attacks. JC · Talk · Contributions 22:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep or 'Weak Merge' into 2012 diplomatic missions attacks- James xeno (talk) 22:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - notable event, at least in Australia, akin to Redfern riots and Cronulla riots. Andrei.smolnikov (talk) 03:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 12:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep or Weak merge if we have to, as suggested above. I just think it will be hard to justify keeping it in 2012 diplomatic missions attacks given it was a protest which resulted in a riot but was never actually an attack on a diplomatic mission. My understanding is that a protest outside the consulate was the original intention but the protesters' progress was halted and the stand-off developed into a riot. I think including it in that article misrepresents what it actually was - a riot - and puts it in the same category as the violence in Tunisia or Libya where diplomatic buildings were attacked. That did not happen in Sydney - there was no burning of buildings or even torching of cars, there were no attacks on individual diplomatic staff (it was a Saturday, by the way, so no-one was there). There is also plenty of conjecture about the cause of the riot and one of the main discussion "threads" in Australian media is whether the attacks elsewhere were an excuse to riot in Sydney. I think tying them together is important but I am inclined to think they should be considered separately. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 07:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Users are working on changing the name of 2012 diplomatic missions attacks to something that would include protests too. Currently that article contains info on plenty of protests and riots in Egypt, Lebanon, Yemen etc. These are protests or riots where people were *killed*, even though in the Sydney protests no one was (thankfully). We should have all the protests at the same place.VR _talk 14:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That would certainly be a good start. My concern is that news coverage of this particular event is moving away from the hour of violence in the middle, toward a child services investigation of particular parents and signs their children were carrying as well as the criminal charges against those involved. Much of the ongoing "coverage" of the event will likely be centred around the details of charges and investigations rather than the protests themselves. As I said, while the original plan was to march on the US Consulate, this didn't actually eventuate and the protest became more of a general expression of anti-US sentiment with the movie in question as one of a number of themes. I'm all for linking them, I just think adding a short scuffle with police to a list of multi-day murderous attacks on diplomats kind of misrepresents what happened in Sydney. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - passes GNG by miles, so the only relevant question is does it violate NOTNEWS? It has already been subject to commentary far beyond routine coverage, therefore keep. -Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Very much passes with WP:GNG. Bidgee (talk) 11:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Further comment, the issue here is that this article can simply be included in the diplomatic missions attacks article or the reaction section of the Innocence of Muslims article as it's ultimately related to that event and in my opinion doesn't need to be split. It's also akin to the APEC riots in which several officers were injured and more protesters than this riot were arrested(according to reports from yesterday), as you can see that incident can be nicely summarised into a section in the general article. Due to notability issues, commentary on this incident will probably be limited to statements from the Muslim council and government, further comments would probably be repeats of the sentiments from the government. YuMa NuMa ^Contrib 12:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But YuMaNuMa, the apec was hardly a riot, it was where protestors tried to breach a blockade which led to police arresting some people. What happened in Sydney were most definately a riot, which has damaged Australia in terms of social harmony. Many social commentators have stated that it has set assimilation back half a generation due to this one event.--Collingwood26 (talk) 23:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As far as I know, no one breached the barriers other than the Chaser team, the protest mainly occurred in the town hall and Hyde Park area, neither of which were barricaded in the same manner as the one that The Chasers breached, the only possible barrier you can be referring to are police lines which protesters in this demonstration also breached. Also are you referring to assimilation, the policy that was abandoned almost half a century ago? The one that forced immigrants to conform with Australian culture and disreputed Australia globally due to its racist nature? From what I've read the majority of Muslims disapprove the incident and statements from related religious organizations clearly state that their acts of violence is not a reflection of Muslim beliefs so I honestly have no idea how this incident could set back "assimilation" if such a goal even exist today. YuMa NuMa ^Contrib 00:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, there's a big difference between assimilation and integration. Sometimes people say assimilation when they mean integration, and it's good to clarify. Sometimes (unfortunately IMO) people say assimilation and they mean assimilation. --Merbabu (talk) 10:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep...for now The media coverage suggests it passes WP:GNG. Perhaps later on, time will be show a stronger argument for its deletion, but the keep argument is stronger for now. -Merbabu (talk) 11:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep or Merge - This is an event on the order of magnitude of a terrorist attack, such as 9/11. Freedom, and freedom of speech are cornerstone rights to human kind, and from one point of view, a particular religion is declaring war on freedom of speech by dictating under threat of violence what can and cannot be said about their religion. Alternately, a religious group is engaging in world wide protest of the sanctity of their religion and perceived attacks against it. In either case, this is a huge event with world wide implications, and this entry is covering in detail the events in a particular country. This entry could stand on its' own and should be left alone for a period. If it is not left as stand alone, at least it should merged with an entry covering the event world wide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rufusprime99 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

— Rufusprime99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I very, very strongly disagree that this event is comparable to the 9/11 attacks. The protests weren't even a terrorist attack (let alone one that killed 3,000 people and changed the course of history).

And no, there is no "particular religion is declaring war on freedom of speech" here. A bunch of people in Sydney (this article is about events in Sydney, not other places) do not constitute "a particular religion".VR _talk 02:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While i on one hand don't support the deletion of the article, I too cannot fathom how this event, whether you mean internationally or just Sydney, can possibly compare to Sept 11. Nor is there any evidence that "a particular religion" is declaring war in either the case of Sydney, or 911. I mean, really?? Come on. The topic an article are notable enough, it doesn't need supporting with such fanciful comparisons. --Merbabu (talk) 03:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think this is just someone who created an WP:SPA to fire everyone up with a ridiculous comment... But I will say that right up until the outbreak of violence against police, everything up to that point epitomised the "free speech" enjoyed in Australia. Elsewhere they should have been shot at just for holding up the signs they did. The suggestion that exercising free speech is somehow an attack on free speech is ludicrous. The suggestion that it was an attack akin to 9/11 is just moronic. I agree it warrants a standalone article but for reasons polar opposite to those given above - it was far less serious than those elsewhere and that should be acknowledged. Including it in a broader article (in effect, equalising it) raises it to a level which is simply not justified by the event. Stalwart111 (talk) 11:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep or merge. We dont have frequent demonstrations at diplomatic missions that attract global news coverage, and it is very rare for attacks on an diplomatic mission. I don't think a deletion discussion is necessary. We want the material somewhere, and the articles about these U.S. diplomatic attacks are all in flux. There are calls across the world for more demonstrations this weekend. Hopefully they dont occur in Australia. The most notable part in Australia is the calls for calm by the Imams. The same happened in France, even after 152 were arrested. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wait. Article is incredibly biased at this point but may eventually be useful in understanding the complexities of this event and subsequent events in Sydney and Australia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirrmy (talk • contribs) 07:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Article can be part of 2012 diplomatic missions attacks. Article appears to be written by haters.
Comment Weird article. What's the point of it? In isolation it doesn't really have much significance (rent-a-mob in a western city which starts peaceful but becomes moderately violent?) Also, are those photos definitely from the event? If I remember correctly 'Behead those who insult Islam' placards made a big (and infamous) appearance in anti-cartoon protests a couple of years ago in the UK... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.155.235 (talk) 18:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Another such article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Islamist_demonstration_outside_the_Embassy_of_Denmark_in_London and — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theaussieeditor (talk • contribs) 12:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - unlike many of the other protests, this one garnered a huge amount of media attention and was outright condemned by political leaders for the nature of the protest. The controversy regarding a child at the protest holding a sign calling to behead people who insult Islam grabbed the world's attention. While my vote may be different had this happening in a Middle Eastern country (it may be, it may not be), this is rare for Australia. There is sufficient info here. --Activism1234 04:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge. Timeshift (talk) 09:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. --Breno ^talk 11:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge into 2012 diplomatic missions attacks. Only one source mentions the "Sydney Islamic riots," "AFTER watching the Sydney Islamic riots, the recent CFMEU blockade in Melbourne"[26] The topic of the 2012 diplomatic missions attacks meets WP:GNG, and that information can be covered in the 2012 diplomatic missions attacks. There's not enough sources referring to the topic as the "Sydney Islamic riots" to even justify a redirect. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 01:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

P.S., Apparently, the article now is titled "Sydney anti-Islam film protests". However, only two sources mention "Sydney anti-Islam film protests": Anti-Islam film protests spread to Sydney and Sydney anti-Islam film protests: fallout continues. Again, not even enough for a redirect to the 2012 diplomatic missions attacks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 01:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge, absolutely no need for a separate article.--Skashifakram (talk) 16:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Very noteworthy in its context within Australia. Clearly meets WP:GNG Nothinglastsforever (talk) 02:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Concur that it is very noteworthy in its context within Australia and is being debated within Australian society. Meets WP:GNG KymFarnik (talk) 03:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment While it may be "noteworthy" this single event is not notable enough to have its own article. It should be mentioned within the broader article about the worldwide protests. A single protest in one city doesn't need to have an encyclopedia article. We aren't here to document the news. It isn't going to have significant ongoing media coverage in the months to come. - Shiftchange (talk) 14:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Noteworthy and notable are synonyms.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Concur that this topic more than satisfies GNG. There may need to be a title change and some NPOVing once this matter has settled down. Alanl (talk)
Keep. Sources clearly demonstrate notability. Everyking (talk) 13:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[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 RHaworth (talk · contribs) deleted the article with the rationale G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. Monty ₈₄₅ 15:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC) (NAC)Reply[reply]

Alpha Classes[edit]

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

Unremarkable private teaching company fails to meet notability guidelines for companies (which it is) and schools/colleges (which it is not). Reads like an advert, which is unsurprising given the very clear conflict of interest that exists. The article was created by user Rajatkalia, the company was founded by Rajat Kalia. Biker Biker (talk) 08:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note - the article was previously speedy-deleted in March 2012 after being created by the same contributor. --Biker Biker (talk) 08:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy delete. Blatant promotion for a non-descript small chain of for-profit cram schools. Massive COI and fails all inclusion criteria - no need to list them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy delete A7/G11 There are more references on the net to my local bakery, and they don't even have their own webpage. Gtwfan52 (talk) 09:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two editors that I respect have pointed out that this should have been speedy deleted. I admin to having a brain-fart this morning which is why I didn't tag it as speedy, something that I am normally quick to do in the right circumstances. Is there any reason this spam/puffery can't be speedy deleted given the clear consensus? --Biker Biker (talk) 10:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Does not seem notable.Shyamsunder (talk) 10:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete I previously indicated to the article creator on his Talk page (now blanked) and my own what is required in terms of reliable references to establish company notability. None have been forthcoming, nor can I locate any myself. AllyD (talk) 10:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Only sources are unreliable and from its website. As Kudpung pointed out, the creator has a COI and the article is very adverty and doesn't assert notability as to why this for-profit school is notable, and therefore, it fails WP: CORP since it lacks reliable, secondary sources. Electric Catfish 14:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete no notability, there's a small claim in there (about student lists being posted online) but unless external sources talk about that it's nowhere near enough. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 01:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The author has blanked the page, so I have tagged it for speedy deletion. --Biker Biker (talk) 11:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Reaper Eternal, CSD G7 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2018_NRL_season[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/2018 NRL season

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

WP:NOTCRYSTAL Mdann52 (talk) 07:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

delete definitely not crystal. LibStar (talk) 08:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Epic fail, WP:CRYSTAL. WWGB (talk) 10:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[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. Michig (talk) 06:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

4 Keys to Christian Theological Progression (approx. 400–1300)[edit]

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

Disputed PROD. Like the companion article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4 Formative Keys to the Progression of Early Church History, the whole point of this article is to argue that four particular events are the "keys" to medieval Church history. This is original research, and the article hangs on these things, and no others, being described. All four things do, of course, have their own articles. St Anselm (talk) 07:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Essentially, and necessarily, a POV essay. Of course these four areas have their place in a history of the church but so do others. As a demonstration of the impossibility of this as an article title in Wikipedia, what if editors thought that there was another 'key' that was of equal significance, or that one of the present ones should be split? Even 'progression' begs some questions, as it could be argued that things such as the Great Schism should not be viewed as progressive. As a way of shaping a short course for educational purposes, structures like this can be useful. But rarely in WP. And if just a survey of christian theology over this very long period then it is an unnecessary fork. --AJHingston (talk) 08:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4 Formative Keys to the Progression of Early Church History. Like that article, it's one big WP:SYNTH. There is no support for the "four keys" concept being sold here. -- 202.124.74.125 (talk) 09:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. 202.124.74.125 (talk) 09:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Nounique names 16:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - Not an encyclopedic topic. If there are four articles on these "4 Keys," they can be linked together with See Also links. Carrite (talk) 17:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete POV essay of what appears to be original synthesis. SalHamton (talk) 18:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
DElete -- a POV essay. I thought at first it was the other "4 keys" article over again. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - Not a generally recognised theme in the handling of the History of Doctrine and therefore not encyclopaedic. Jpacobb (talk) 00:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[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. Piotrus's sources look promising, but they need to be checked and added to the article. (Notability requires verifiable evidence.) Editors should feel free to renominate in a few months if no convincing evidence of notability has appeared. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Celina Szymanowska[edit]

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

Notability is not inherited from her husband or mother. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is notability inherited, then, from a father, as in the case of Adèle Hugo, daughter of Victor Hugo? Would anyone ever have heard of Adele H. if she had not been the daughter of Victor Hugo? Nihil novi (talk) 04:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

delete definitely WP:NOTINHERITED. LibStar (talk) 08:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment One can find Shimon Peres making a speech in Lithuania in 2006, referring specifically to Szymanowska: "Peres also referred to Lithuanian-born poet and political activist Adam Mickiewicz, who though known as Poland's greatest poet, always remained a Lithuanian at heart. Married to a Polish-Jewish woman, Celina Szymanowska, Mickiewicz, in 1855, recounted Peres, organized a Jewish legion to fight against Russia in the Crimean War." (Jerusalem Post, via Highbeam (subscription required). AllyD (talk) 11:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment. That's only a passing mention, and only in relation to her husband. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The partners of figures such as poets are in a strange position, often subject to scholarly research. Without wanting to get all WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, see Dante's, Shakespeare's, TS Eliot's. In this case, there are articles such as this (partially hidden behind the JSTOR wall), cited in several books on the Jews in Poland, as well as the "Celina i Adam Mickiewiczowie" book referenced in the article. Possibly the answer is to enhance the Mickiewicz article. AllyD (talk) 14:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak keep. She may be notable because of how she influenced other notable figures. This is the argument that ended deletion discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alois Hitler both on en and pl wikis, and on pl wiki, Karol Wojtyła (senior) (still needs to be discussed here...). I have not yet researched Mickiewicz biography extensively, and PSB entry on him gives her only one short paragraph. She is also not mentioned in the upcoming Polski Słownik Biograficzny tome covering her name range ([27]). At the same time, she seems to be in the title of at least one book ([28], GBooks tells me her name is mentioned 88 times in it), is covered by another ([29], GBooks tells me her name is mentioned 82 times in it), and seems to have a chapter dedicated to her in yet another recent work (I couldn't confirm this one as the book is not yet scanned in Google Books). She is also discussed in this article. Overall, I think an argument can be made that she is discussed sufficiently in some works (broad coverage) to be kept. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep, for all the pertinent reasons given above. I see no reason why Adèle Hugo, mentally ill daughter of Victor Hugo, or Vivienne Haigh-Wood Eliot, mentally ill wife of T.S. Eliot, should be considered notable, whereas Celina Mickiewicz, mentally ill wife of Adam Mickiewicz, should not be. Nihil novi (talk) 04:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[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. Problems with neutrality, sourcing and article duplication can be solved through regular editing and/or merging. No prejudice against speedy renomination if there are valid concerns about the organisation's notability. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation[edit]

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

This organization has a page under its previous name. Should we rename that page and redirect the old name to the new? It is not good practice to have both of these pages running independently. Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 04:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep There is something odd here, not to be sorted out at AfD. The original name, presumably from 1952, was Weston A. Price Memorial Foundation which changed its name in 1969.[30] I cannot find an article under this original name. There is an article about Weston A. Price Foundation which says it was founded in 1999 and still exists.[31] So far as I can see they are different organisations. Thincat (talk) 20:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I think the rationale for deletion should be clarified. However, the article as sourced should at least be stubbed until sources demonstrating it's notability are provided and used to prevent the article from being written only from their own press. --Ronz (talk) 20:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep and merge/redirect the old. While the article could use more references and some general clean-up appearance-wise (i.e., the lede is too verbose), it looks pretty solid otherwise.--Mike18xx (talk) 22:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ildjarn#Discography. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seven Harmonies of Unknown Truths[edit]

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

searched and cannot establish this as Wikipedia-notable - e.g. has not been covered in several publications by notable/reliable sources Lachlan Foley (talk) 03:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect to Ildjarn#Discography. This demo's only claim to "notability" is that Burzum covered a track for a bootleg album. I haven't found anything in the way of significant coverage: tracklists from Burzum.org, WikiMetal and metal-archives.com, and a short review that calls the album "the most basic Black Metal demo you’ll ever hear". ~~Delete~~ Redirect the article and add a sentence or two about it to the Ildjarn page. Braincricket (talk) 11:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect to Ildjarn#Discography. -- Whpq (talk) 19:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I can get behind that. Braincricket (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sparks Will Fly[edit]

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

A planned television show whose pilot episode is not meant to be aired until a year from now. At this point, the only sources that speak of this at all are either personal sites, such as twitter, or press releases, neither of which are valid. And the rest of the information presented, that don't have any sources at all, are pure rumor and speculation. The article should be deleted at this point per WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. The PROD was removed by an anonymous user without explanation. Rorshacma (talk) 03:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - This isn't a TV series yet, nor do I see the significant coverage in reliable sources that would justify an article on it. -- Whpq (talk) 19:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Not notable. A series that might happen in the future, but at this time it's speculation. --Michig (talk) 10:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sophia Linux[edit]

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

Article reads like a promotional pamphlet and the Linux distro itself just isn't notable; no hits for "Sophia Linux" on Google Books, News or News archives (except this, but it's an obvious false positive). CtP (t • c) 01:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Nothing in the article suggests that this distro is of encyclopedic relevance. I couldn't find any sources that would suggest that an article is justified here. --Michig (talk) 10:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - No reliable sources, no evidence of notability of this software; created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 13:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[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. I will be happy to userfy if requested. Michig (talk) 09:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Con Elizabeth en Mount Dora[edit]

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

Non-notable upcoming film BOVINEBOY2008 01:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

Delete or Userfy for now per W:NFF. Apparently this Spanish film has been completed and screened but its lacking ~~release or~~ coverage in reliable sources makes the article premature. Allow return once WP:NF can be met. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete or userfy for now - I have found zero results with both Google US and Google Spanish, the film's website cites 2012 as the release date but there is no solid evidence of this. I would assume the film should have a determined or estimated date, considering that 2012 is nearly finished. SwisterTwister talk 01:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree. Simply a bit too soon. It apparently screened without much ado at the Miami International Film Festival last March, and an in-depth article/interview in Hablemonos(Spanish) gives background on the film and its director. I did find the the thing has received a "Women In The Arts" nomination,[32] with winners to be announced September 24, 2012,[33] so it looks to be one that will spread through festivals. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[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. Michig (talk) 06:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tilden Stewart Holley[edit]

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

Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not a memorial. This Vietnam War aviator does not satisfy WP:SOLDIER. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete- With regrets; is this [34] findagrave entry, no help; unable to locate any indications of awards of valor or coverage to meet WP:Soldier or WP:GNG. Dru of Id (talk) 01:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTMEMORIAL, and there is no sign of independent coverage in reliable sources which could be assessed against WP:GNG. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per WP:SOLDIER and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Joja lozzo 18:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Junior officer with no other indication of notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Wikpedia is not a memorial....William 14:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[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. Michig (talk) 06:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pastoralism is challenge in Tanzania[edit]

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

Recently prodded article (deleted 12-9-2012) that is now back in the same essay form. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOV The Banner _talk 00:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as blatant original research. JIP | Talk 05:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - the article could possibly exist as a neutral Pastoralism in Tanzania, which strikes me as a notable topic. There are references, but they are not inline, and much of what is claimed could be challenged - e.g. "There have been several conflicts among pastoralists." But frankly, I don't see any likelihood of rescue. St Anselm (talk) 07:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. As StAnselm notes, some of the references might be used for an article on Pastoralism in Tanzania. The article's creator's good work (and good intentions) can be seen at Natural resources use in Tanzania, but this personal-view essay needs a complete re-write. Lone boatman (talk) 12:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, as original research, or if needed, then incubate as Pastoralism in Tanzania. Bearian (talk) 20:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[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. Author has requested deletion DGG ( talk ) 16:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Christopher Dines[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:BIO ---Hu12 (talk) 00:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article has plenty of profiled references to be worthy of a wikipedia page, including endorsements from profiled members of the public. It is currently an orphan however, that does not mean it should be deleted according to wikipedia guideline on orphans. Seeing that I'm spending the next month or so on this article (to de-orphan it) it seems a bit silly to call for a "deletion". Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billyjazz79 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC) — Billyjazz79 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 00:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Delete. Article has been an orphan for almost two years and is exclusively edited by a single-issue editor that seems to have a WP:COI. It lacks any real evidence of notability and, judging by the complete lack of interest in the article, is unlikely to actually be notable. Glaucus (talk) 00:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are many articles which have been orphans for "years". This was only tagged orphaned two weeks ago giving editors very little time to add links. An orphan doesn't call for delete. You clearly have no idea of the electronic dance music industry therefore you should focus on subjects you have more insight on, yes? There are hundreds of dance music wiki articles with less links than this profile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billyjazz79 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC) — Billyjazz79 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 00:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC).Reply[reply]

No one is saying the article should be deleted simply because it's an orphan. It's an orphan for the same reason it should be deleted: the article's subject appears to be non-notable. There is no evidence of notability in the article, no use of reliable sources and the first two pages of google results bring up almost entirely self-published sources and profiles. Glaucus (talk) 01:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Billyjazz79, All topics are subject to Wikiprdias inclusion criteria and must demonstrate notability. knowledge of the electronic dance music industry isn't a requirement of notability and is irrelevant. Pointing out that there are other articles doesn't prove that this article should also exist--Hu12 (talk) 01:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you truly believe it should be deleted, then do it promptly i.e. right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billyjazz79 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. The orphaned status of the article is cause for concern, but it is not a reason for deletion. However, I can't see that Dines meets WP:MUSIC, and he seems to fall short of WP:GNG. Two of the references are to non-trivial articles [35], [36], but the first doesn't look like a reliable source and second of the two is a blog. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note Move to Speedy delete under WP:CSD#G7: Author has requested deletion explicitly twice;[37][38]. Article tagged accordingly.--Hu12 (talk) 16:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[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.