< 26 June	28 June >

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

The result was no consensus. Clean it up to valid bluelinks only, ansure BLP is not violated (non-admin closure) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of male performers in gay porn films[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Unsourced since creation in 2004, tagged as such since December 2008 with many edits since none of which has added a single source; Possible BLP concerns; besides, their article should be enough. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 23:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —- ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 23:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 00:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 00:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close this please. Sorry, AfD is not clean-up. This is a perfectly acceptable list. Likely many if not most of the articles themselves have references so simply importing those would make sense. If there are BLP concerns than address those specificly. Nothing to warrant deletion I'm afraid. -- Banjeboi 00:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Benji, this list is 5 years old and not a single source. You know we don't leave articles, especially BLP articles, unsourced just because an entry in the article may be sourced in another article. I've even edited this one in the past but have since come to learn that it's just WP:LISTCRUFT and wide open for BLP issues. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 04:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - First off this is a list which has BLPs listed on it, that is a different issue. Secondly per WP:Before - If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. If it needs sources add them, if there are BLP issues then address those directly. A more constructive route, because AfD is not clean-up, is to work on sourcing the entire list then adjsut teh lede to reflect sourced items only. After the sourcing has been sought for each entry add to the hidden text that items not sourced to reliable sources will be removed. -- Banjeboi 02:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the list hasn't been worked on for 5 yrs, its time to start working on it. The individuals should be those where there is unambiguous information supporting it in the WP articles on them. DGG (talk) 04:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd suspect that many, if not all of the links go to articles, clearly source this, esp. if a BLP issue is in hand. Lugnuts (talk) 07:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is already a Category:People appearing in gay pornography, so this list is actually fairly redundant. 5 years and zero sources......This article was actually deleted 2 years ago. And two years ago, people were talking about adding sources.....where are they? Niteshift36 (talk) 08:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree. If there is already a Category it's redundant. BioDetective2508 (talk) 18:14, 29 June 2009

- Per WP:CLN "Accordingly, these methods should not be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others." Lugnuts (talk) 09:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sure what this list provides that a category cannot. Looking through the list, I think most of those stars need to be AFD-ed too Corpx (talk) 09:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:CLN "Accordingly, these methods should not be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others." Lugnuts (talk) 09:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I guess I'm in disagreement with that guideline. The guideline goes on to say that duplicate lists should be kept so that can be expanded in the future. I dont see any worthwhile information that can be used to expand this list. Considering that the vast majority of articles in this list are horribly unsourced, I think that adding more columns to this list would just compound the problem. I also think that 5 years is more than enough time to expand it, if the intention was to do so. Corpx (talk) 09:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While lists and categories may be synergistic, it is a misconception that they are carbon copies of one another since lists are regular articles that have to abide to policies like WP:NOT and guidelines like WP:N. This article has major BLP and sourcing issues and unless they are all cleaned up by the time this AfD is over this article should be deleted. Many of the people on this list are uncited BLPs which are especially dangerous considering their alledged profession, so I wouldn't object to a thorough examination of their articles as well. Them From Space 10:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, no. We do not impose deadlines as such. BLP and sourcing issues remain clean-up concerns and per AFD are issues that should be addressed through regular editing and not AfD. -- Banjeboi 02:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I strongly disagree. When material violates BLP policy it must be removed. AfD is a form of BLP cleanup and it is how we routinely remove of BLP-infringing material. We do impose deadlines when material is thought to violate our policies and guidelines: this is just how it works here. WP:BLPDEL reads if the entire page is substantially of poor quality, primarily containing contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, then it may be necessary to delete the entire page as an initial step, followed by discussion. I believe "when in doubt, don't delete" should be suspended for articles of such a contentious nature, where appearing on this list can have major effects on the subjects' real lives. If this is not cleaned up by the time the AfD is be over it should at best be userfied to work on the sourcing issues. Allowing an article like this to go unverified and be full of unreferenced BLPs for so long is nothing short of a disgrace to our verification and BLP policies. Them From Space 03:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreeing with Benjiboi.. Guy M (talk) 03:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Unsourced, extremely valid BLP concerns. A very stupid idea to keep this article. Aditya ^α _ß 09:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a list that simply leads to numerous other Wikipedia articles. Yes, time to improve, but if the articles in the list do not violate BLP, then the list certainly does not... specially as it itself is not a Biography of a Living Person... only a list. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't understand. The article is unsourced. So there's no way to verify if most of the people there are actually "male performers in gay porn films". And if they aren't, that material is libelous. Aditya ^α _ß 11:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That arguement would have thousands of articles deleted from Wikipedia. Just because an article is unsourced, does not imply that their is no way to verify the information. I verified the A's and the B's of the LIST. Yes, it took time. Yes, each one I verified had gay adult films listed at IMDB. Guy M (talk) 13:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is the crux of the issue. Wikipedia has so much unsourced information, it's one of the reasons that we've got that immense amount of negative publicity. If you can check ALL the names on IMDb, that's fine. Else it's libel and it must be removed. (If it survives AfD, I'll clean up the article by removing the unsourced material) Aditya ^α _ß 14:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a list of bluelinks. If those linked artcles are unsourced or otherwise fail BLP, that is a matter for them being considered individually. This nice list puts all the eggs in one basket. Check the eggs, don't toss out the basket. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the individual article confirms that the person should be a part of that list (should be sourced), then I can copy the source onto the list. Else, it's libel and it's prudent to remove the person's name from the list, and the unsourced sentence from the article. Aditya ^α _ß 18:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. You have provided a proper solution per WP:CLEANUP. Remove bluelinks that do not lead to articles for male porn stars. Checking the eggs, does not require tossing out the basket. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. The only concern was over the title of the article, and it has been addressed by moving the page to Environmental design in rail transportation, leaving the original title as a redirect. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Green Rail Transportation[edit]

Contested prod. No reason to doubt that this is an "emerging field" as the article states, but the term itself has apparently not found its way into the jargon of railroad engineers yet. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KeepYes, but if just the "green railroading technology" bolded print on the first line is deleted, then the article still holds relevance as a general overview of environmentally friendly trains, without the jargon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryceflorek (talk • contribs) 21:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's say. But what do your sources say the field is called by railroad engineers? That is, if they even give it a name. Please do not use Wikipedia to coin new terms. Wait until they are coined and widely accepted elsewhere. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- all of my sources have so far referred to it as an "emerging green technology" or simply said modern trains are 'green' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryceflorek (talk • contribs) 22:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Vague terms that could also apply to air travel, logging, waste water treatment, you name it. Nothing specific to rail technology in terms of nomenclature. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, but this one is specified to be about Rail transportation, due to the fact that there are numerous efforts to reduce carbon emissions from trains due to their high work load. The information about these efforts are currently scattered about Wikipedia, all I am doing is starting a template to include the current information, as well as new relevant information to one centralized location. Its not like I'm coining new terms I invented, I'm merely adding a header to a page that includes correlating information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryceflorek (talk • contribs) 22:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 14:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Sramek (economist)[edit]

This article doesn't seem to fulfil common sense notability guidelines Simeon Stylites (talk) 21:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Relevent google search turns up all of the relevent social networking sites and almost nothing else. Google News turns up articles about OTHER people with the same name, such as an ex-prime minister of the Czech Republic, but again, nothing about this guy. There's nothing to build an article on here. --Jayron32.

talk.contribs 03:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Incorrect - This is a ridiculous argument. Just because there's other people with the same name on Google, and you only found social networking sites, is completely irrelevant - have another look and you'll find him featured in a host of national newspapers. I can count 7. Ijsaimiil (talk) 22:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Book just published by what seems to be a vanity published, no other significant accomplishments. DGG (talk) 08:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Entirely fulfils Wikipedia notability guidelines, by having notable events covered by national media featured multiple times. (a) Setting the British A-Level record, links to national newspapers, (b) Financial News (international newspaper) for banking achievements, (c) book was in Amazon Top 100 yesterday so is selling hugely. Ijsaimiil (talk) 22:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen, this is Jan Sramek speaking. While I am very flatted by those who created my entry, I do not feel that I meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines yet, and would like to ask you to remove my entry immediately. Thank you for your understanding. Jan —Preceding unsigned comment added by JanSramek (talk • contribs) 01:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Common sense indicates that someone who has been lauded in numerous national newspapers for outstanding academic excellence is notable thereby. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Not notable enough. Being 'featured' in national newspapers is a bit of an exaggeration. UK newspapers release an article on results day every year with 5/6 students with above average grades. That in itself does not warrant a wikipedia article. Additionally, the subject has requested a delete and that rules above all. Parkerparked (talk) 18:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Second Battle of the Odon. Merge new information to Second Battle of the Odon and keep redirect (non-admin closure) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Pomegranate[edit]

This article is redundant and i am requesting it to deleted.

Operation Pomegranate was one of two operations launched that were later dubbed the Second Battle of the Odon, the latter article has only recently been set up and contains far more detail on Pomegranate than this article does.

Hardly anyone has edited this article and the hit counters available show that this article is being visited less than 100 times a month, this month less than 50 whereas the Odon article is being visited in the hundreds.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merge and redirect per your suggestion in May. The correct way to go about this is to tag the articles with ((merge-to)) and ((merge-from)) rather than to nominate one for deletion, especially as the title you wish to delete is a very useful redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect TomStar81 (Talk) 23:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as other have said. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Happy to supply a copy of the deleted article per Michael Schmidt. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

R. M. Engelhardt[edit]

Unremarkable local poet from Albany, New York, USA. Published in non-notable zines and electronic journals, one anthology, and two apparently self-published volumes. No significant coverage found in a Google news search. Article created by User:R.M. Engelhardt and contributed to by single purpose accounts User:72.0.130.211 (WHOIS says it is from Albany), User:LilaAuralia, and User:Rainrain87. Previous versions have been speedied three times already (please salt if deleting). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to fail WP:CREATIVE, cannot find references to establish notability otherwise. Rnb (talk) 22:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 00:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Userfy Encyclopedic article. Sourcing provided in the article "almost" meet concerns toward WP:GNG. Allow back when the WP:GNG can be met. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, which sources in the article do you think would meet WP:RS for notability? I think the only one that comes close is Metroland Online, as the others don't appear to be independent of the subject, and the Metroland is pretty minor. Rnb (talk) 02:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My first impression was wrong, and I have modified my opinion after a more thorough search. We can certainly verify that he is a published poet ([1][2][3][4][5], etc...) and even accept that he started the Albany Poets group ([6][7], etc...), but not strongly establish his individual notability per guideline. If there were an article on Albany Poets, which themselves seem to nudge notability [8], he might expect a paragraph or 2 as the founder. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete again, per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Harry the Dog WOOF 08:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNo published works in worldCat. DGG (talk) 08:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Has any of his work won awards? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage in reliable sources. The Metroland article is an event announcement. -- Whpq (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 16:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Melodiebabi[edit]

Unnotable musician, autobio spam, endorsed prod rm'd by article creator Triplestop x3 20:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable. I think the first line gave it away - she's "aspiring" Mr_pand [talk | contributions] 20:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as one of the original "PROD'ers" for the stated reasons. Wperdue (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]
Delete The screen name is similar to article creator. Xe doesn't seem to understand wikipedian notability policy. --I dream of horses (talk) 20:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to author or major contrinutor with our thanks and a suggestion that as newcomers they study guideline. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete No claim to notability, really. She recorded songs and albums, but that does not meet WP:MUSIC. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I added a newly created copy of the article at Beverly Ezebunwo to this AfD. I redirected the newly created copy to the existing article. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GARAGEBAND. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as unsourced and clearly non-notable; failing WP:MUSIC and WP:V. Note that I have blocked the article creator for persistent removal of the AfD template. ~ mazca ^talk 22:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC; no assertion of notability. Johnuniq (talk) 08:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted (G12) by TexasAndroid. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 00:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1953 cotton bowl[edit]

Delete, Wikis not a sports page or play by play Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete; copyright violation from http://old.mackbrown-texasfootball.com/index.php?s=&url_channel_id=36&url_subchannel_id=&url_article_id=715&change_well_id=2 --mhking (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted (G12) by TexasAndroid. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 00:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1969 cotton bowl[edit]

Delete, Wikis not a play by play sports page Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete; copyviolation of http://old.mackbrown-texasfootball.com/index.php?s=&url_channel_id=36&url_subchannel_id=&url_article_id=732&change_well_id=2 --mhking (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted (G12) by TexasAndroid. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 00:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1964 cotton bowl[edit]

Delete wiki isn't a sports magazine. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete; copyright violation from http://old.mackbrown-texasfootball.com/index.php?s=&url_channel_id=36&url_subchannel_id=&url_article_id=729&change_well_id=2 --mhking (talk) 19:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per CSD G7 - the only substantial author has requested deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 19:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a 360[edit]

Unsourced article defining Neologism with a touch of thinly veiled Spam. Moved to AfD because author removed Prod. ttonyb1 (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The only usage I'd previously heard of for this phrase was the one which appears briefly at the end, relating to spinning a car. In that context it would be a slang term and would find a home in a different wiki, but not in WP. The main part of the article relates to something being advocated by one Nancy Ash. I see no-one else talking about it, so this article would appear to be be a simple attempt at promoting it. ClickRick (talk) 19:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete unreferenced, unencyclopedic, admitted neologism. I don't see how this article could be made notable--RadioFan (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How is the "article" 360voice not a pure promotion for a web-site? We don't understand...seems subjective, not objective...with respect, even unfair--not following one of the pillars. Also, does one person not hearing something make it not valid elsewhere? ["The only usage I'd previously heard of for this phrase was the one which appears briefly at the end, relating to spinning a car."] (from the UK) Dear Adminstrators: Generally, more time needs to be allowed for citing references, etc. Of course "doing a 360" is a respectfully admitted neologism; how could it not be? Have you recently read the article on that topic? Neologism is a controversial subject so how can only one mind decide it's not valid? Are you sure you are impartial? Please explain...thanks very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nancy Ash (talk • contribs) 21:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see the pages Wikipedia:Neologism and Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Thryduulf (talk) 10:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Incredibly poorly-formed neologism. If you were to do a 360, you'd end up in the same place you were!. Nothing would change, unlike what is asserted here. The term is actually "a 180". Nate • (chatter) 23:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even snowball delete. Non-notable neologism. As it is right now, it's a weird mishmash of a general defence of neologisms, self-promotion, a discussion of other uses of "360" and some unsourced, non-notable self-helpish spiritualistish stuff - there isn't even an assertion of notability. Dawn Bard (talk) 23:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NEO Niteshift36 (talk) 08:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neither Wikipedia nor Wiktionary take neologisms per policy. Thryduulf (talk) 10:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 10:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep - there appears to be a nub of stub in there, but most of it is pure bunk. Bearian (talk) 19:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, self-promotion. Note that this has been speedied previously. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - We thank you for all of your comments...they are very interesting and helpful. We most appreciate the very weak keep suggestion from Bearian. He seems to have a more objective, impartial awareness. Helping others to improve articles would be great...pulling the nub, so-to-speak. Adding extra space was not intentional vandalism...thought it was okay. (like here...)

By the way Nate from Sheboygan...someone here has deep roots in that town, too! Truly...no joke. We wanted to respond to your comment about 180/360 and help clear it up for you. Wrap your head around this one: If you walk a labyrinth (great example of "doing a 360") you exit exactly where you started. When finished one is empowered, relaxed and focused...changed. So, new friend from the brat(wurst) capitol of the world, "doing a 360" is going full-circle...you go through changes...it's a metaphor for the journey of life. If you were to do 180-degrees...you would be going the wrong way, or turning away from your problems. Remember example given about sliding on ice in a car? Being from Wisconsin I'm sure you've heard of that? Imagine doing a 180 as you incorrectly suggested...yikes, you'd be in a dangerous situation going against traffic. Doing a 360...you'd be safe...scared from it, yes...but safe that you are facing the correct way to travel on. Does that help? So, yes...you're right in a way...you do end up in the same place...but you are incorrect about no change taking place. It's all about the change...that's the whole meaning of "doing a 360." Referenced "notable' mythologist Joseph Campbell explains the circular journey ubiquitous in all cultures throughout history. Perhaps exploring his work would be interesting for all of you in this regard? Especially Dawn from Canada... We have made effort here to improve this article. May you all "do a 360" with your lives to be better at whatever it is that you do...Thank you again. Best wishes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nancy Ash (talk • contribs) 22:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I hate be a wet blanket, but this is not the forum to discuss the merits of the "doing a 360" or any other philosophy. The purpose of this project is to provide comments directly related to the acceptance or removal of the article. Having to wade through unrelated comments only complicates the administrative review of this project. I suggest any further comments be placed on the editor's talk page rather than here. A quick reminder that one needs to sign one's entries by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end of their message.

Nancy Ash, you have indicated in your Edit Summary that comments seem to have vanished. Please review the Project History and advise where you see items that have been removed. Thanks... ttonyb1 (talk) 22:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Basically rhubarb. Creator's username indicates probable COI as well. And Original Research. Peridon (talk) 22:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editors Request Deletion: Thank you ttonyb1 for a sensible and helpful response. It seems that the topic of this article has created quite a stir! Rhubarb...? We have decided that the general atmosphere of the Wikipedia new page 'patrol' process seems to be hostile and not helpful. A few of you (as the aforementioned ttonyb1) have been professional and constructive in this project. Some have used an inappropriate, unnecessary, and unprofessional approach which quite frankly surprised this group. Remember, we are all people at the keyboard. Most of you advertize or promote yourselves on your personal pages as writers, professionals, etc. hoping to become Administrators. If the tone of comments here is typical to Wikipedia (as it seems to be while reviewing other pages) then your "encyclopedia" may continue to lose credibility. Therefore, we (all editors) request that you remove this article, Doing a 360 asap. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. (4 tildas...missed earlier) Nancy Ash (talk) 18:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly Leach[edit]

AfDs for this article:

First nom was procedurally closed because it was a request to redirect, not delete. Second nom was a keep, but I think that was a weak judgement by the closer. This girls death is a tragedy by all means, but this is a case of WP:ONEEVENT. There is nothing meeting the notability requirements, aside from her being a victim of an infamous serial killer. You could cite WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:NOTNEWS too if you like. I almost feel bad nominating it, because she was an innocent victim, but the notability outside of the single event simply isn't there. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural comment Normally if you disagree with the way an AfD was closed then you should take it to deletion review rather than renominate the article. However as the last AfD was over two years ago, I think a full reexamination is appropriate. I offer no opinion on the article at this point. Thryduulf (talk) 19:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought 2 years was too long to consider a DRV. I thought that revisiting the issue was a better choice. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think renomination after a certain interval is a perfectly good alternative to deletion review, and can consider a wider range of issues. I have no problem there. DGG (talk) 08:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as in the last nomination. Optimale ^Gu 23:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ONEEVENT and redirect to the appropriate section in Ted Bundy. While her death was certainly tragic, I dont think that constitutes to a having a wiki page. Corpx (talk) 09:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEEVENT, while it led to a conviction, no disrespect to the victim, this wasn't a case like Jessica Lunsford. An alternative could be a merge to Ted Bundy#Florida or Ted Bundy#Conviction and execution. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 11:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. This is covered quite well in the Bundy article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Bad Influence[edit]

There is only one source about this upcoming album. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Karppinen (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can be recreated once we know more than the title, and when other people have written about it.--Michig (talk) 20:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above cm. Or redirect to artist article if more sources can be provided about the release (per WP:NALBUMS) before discussion closes. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 12:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Move to Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing/List of books on the history of computing.

List of books on the history of computing[edit]

Fundamentally fails WP:NOT. We're not here to provide directories, lists with no context, personal reading recommendations, etc. DreamGuy (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Certainly fails WP:NOT. Criteria is too subjective. Is it just about hardware? Software? Both? Attachments? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I started this article nearly four years ago because there was so much duplocation of the references between History of computing and History of computing hardware. My idea was to collect all of the references in one place to avoid duplication. But the policy is to have the references in both articles. Since I last worked on the article it has been expanded greatly. There may not be a need for the article - I need to check the references on those two articles. The second of those two articles seems to be well-referneced but the first one may need some of these books for references. Bubba73 (talk), 21:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Uncle G, below. or as a last resort - Move to subpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing. Moving it to wikiproject namespace would be much better than deleting it outright, if they're interested. I've left a note at the project's talkpage. -- Quiddity (talk) 03:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC) Changed to keep at 18:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think the move is a good idea - people put in a lot of work on it and the information will be useful to people in the project. Bubba73 (talk), 03:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to subpage of WikiProject Computing - Although the list is not appropriate as an article, it is useful to that project. Rilak (talk) 07:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because its too indiscriminate. I dont oppose a userfy. I dont believe an encyclopedia is the place to index books by topic Corpx (talk) 09:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to subpage of Wikiproject Computing.but this must not remain an article, regardless. there should be zero titles without articles on a list like this, otherwise its a research tool for CREATING wp articles, not a wp article itself. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We put further reading sections into articles. Such content most definitely is within the remit of article content. Uncle G (talk) 09:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not indscriminate. It has quite clear boundaries for inclusion. And it's a bibliography, just like all of the other bibliographies that we have in Category:Bibliographies by subject. Is there a good reason for taking this bibliography away from readers other than "I didn't know that we provided reading information and bibliographies in article space."? Uncle G (talk) 09:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep I don't see how it could be considered "indiscriminate" - it is books on the history of computers and computing. It is even categorized. Bubba73 (talk), 17:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Educational and informative content for which there are good alternatives to deletion, as discussed above. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Couture[edit]

Biography of a non-notable sportwriter Hirolovesswords (talk) 16:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - none of being assistant sports editor on a regional newspaper, making occasional appearances on a regional cable tv station, nor taking part in various regional radio phone-ins makes someone notable enough for an article. Thryduulf (talk) 17:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 17:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 17:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 17:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep it's clear an article about a medal-winning paralympian isn't going to be deleted any time soon. Thryduulf (talk) 02:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ellie Cole[edit]

Have declined speedy as it is not an A7 candidate. So moved it into AFD. Concerns cited was WP:ATHLETE JForget 16:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article should have been speedy as it fails wp:athlete. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - some coverage in reliable sources (see GoogleNews), but ultimately fails per WP:ATHLETE. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Query - why does this fail WP:ATHLETE? She has medals in paralympic games. Is there a reason I'm unaware of why this isn't the "highest amateur level of a sport"? There probbaly is, but I feel I should ask the question anyway. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless someone addresses Blue Square Thing's comments above. I would say Paralympics are the highest level at which a disabled athlete can compete Mr_pand [talk | contributions] 19:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An athlete that wins two medals at the paralympics is clearly sufficiently notable for an article here. Tagging this as an A7 was utterly ridiculous.--Michig (talk) 20:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This was probably one of the more absurd speedy nominations and deserved to be rejected. WP:ATHLETE says "People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships." Now, the link to Olympic Games also includes Olympic_Games#Paralympics, so clearly, the paralympics aren't explicitly excluded. So let's cut the wikilawyering and apply some common sense and keep this, especially since deleting the bio of a three-medal winner at the Paralympics isn't going to improve the quality of this encyclopaedia. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 21:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after clarification. Thanks. Blue Square Thing (talk) 00:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - clearly notable as a medallist at the Paralympics. I am confident sources can be found. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources exist in the article (including the Australian Sports Commission, Australian Govt), so apparently that isn't the point of concern. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 00:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, I would want to see more independent sources that the ASC, who operate the AIS where Cole is/was an attendee. It's a good source but not fully independent. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Refs to the Beijing Paralympics page and ABC news also exist, so I don't believe verifiability is at stake. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 02:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, she won 3 medals at the 2008 Paralympics, no doubt that she meets WP:ATHLETE, A new name 2008 (talk) 02:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 'Keep'

Albro v. The Agawam Canal Co.[edit]

Doesn't meet WP:N Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 16:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I had this article on my watchlist, I am trying to save it because we learned about it in the first year of law school. I've tried to overhaul the content, and I believe I've solved all the "multiple issues." However, "notability" is in the eye of the beholder so I am not going to remove that tag unless you agree. Thanks. Agradman ^{appreciates civility}/_{makes occasional mistakes} 17:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't we just move most of the content to fellow-servant rule if this case is not notable by itself? Remember (talk) 18:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment we could, but I believe I've upgraded the content enough to show how the case is notable, and I'd like a referendum on that before we discuss its demise ... :) Agradman ^{appreciates civility}/_{makes occasional mistakes} 18:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Argued before a state supreme court, and discussed in treatises. Fg2 (talk) 01:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This article has been significantly improved since the nomination. It is discussed in multiple treatises and casebooks. Meets notability requirements.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree. This article now satisfies WP:N.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 19:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Non-admin closure by --Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 12:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Doesn't meet WP:N Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 15:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability can be established via these sources;[9], [10], [11], [12], [13],[14], [15], [16], [17], [18],[19], [20]. The main problem here is that the article needs a re-write from an experienced editor, all the tags wildly thrown on the page and the fact no one bothered to look for any sources makes this all the more a case of WP:BEFORE. The sources I have shown confirm the organization exists, confirms that it is important to the Canadian economy, shows high level meetings between governmental officials and the organization, illustrates that authors and scholars use the association within their books and finally when added into the article demonstrate WP:N. -Marcusmax(speak) 00:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed that this should be kept (its notable) and re-written. Fuzbaby (talk) 14:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per sources found by Marcusmax. -- œ ^™ 20:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant coverage [21]. LibStar (talk) 06:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Per WP:IAR yandman 16:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monorangeosis[edit]

Non-notable word that, at least according to the article, has it's origins on a current TV show. TexasAndroid (talk) 15:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CSD as hoax or neologism. --EEMIV (talk) 15:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither being a hoax nor a neologism are valid speedy deletion criteria. Thryduulf (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as dictionary definition and neologism. It's not obvious that the page meets the criteria for speedy deletion, but probably could have been handled by PROD. Cnilep (talk) 15:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DICDEF and WP:NEO - it gets a grand total of 4 ghits, two are Wikipedia (the article and this page), one is an unchached-myspace page on which the word does not currently appear. The final one is a single message on Twitter - hardly a reliable source. This is a borderline A1 and A3 speedy but not quite either I don't think. Perfectl PRODable though. Thryduulf (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable neologism. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although I tried to clean this article up as best as I could, I am unable to verify its contents per not just Google News or Books, but even on a regular Google search, which as indicated above only gets four hits: 1) the Wikipedia article under discussion here; 2) a Wikipedia user subpage; 3) Twitter; 4) MySpace. Thus, the article does not meet WP:V or at least WP:RS. If the spelling is incorrect and the subject does have more sources under some kind of modified spelling, please let us know, but otherwise as I am unable to rescue this one I cannot currently argue to keep it. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per A Nobody. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability or common use outside the TV show it supposedly originated from. It's not even a protologism. —LedgendGamer 02:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NEO. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - would be a dictionary definition if it were real, but it's just a bit of nonsense trivia from a television show. Ladyof Shalott 17:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus to delete at this time (non-admin closure) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of David Lynn Harris[edit]

wikipedia is not a newspaper, no indication that this event is notable enough to warrant an article. Fails WP:N/CA and despite the title, fails WP:BLP1E RadioFan (talk) 15:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First off, you are wrong to say this fails WP:BLP1E, as it isn't an article about a person (in fact, it was moved from an article about a person because of WP:BLP1E). I also think that you are wrong to say this is non-notable. It has received significant coverage in independent sources which have a national scope (take the book written about it for example), and a global scope (take The Sydney Morning Herald for example). Some of the sources are The New York Times, FoxNews & ABC news. As to NOTNEWS, this is a notable event, not a routine news report. It's an encyclopedic topic, and "news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics", the news reports are where most of the information is from, but that doesn't make it a news report. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note User:Kingpin13 is the creator of the article and (as of now) the sole editor of its content. TJRC (talk) 16:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree with User:Kingpin13 that there is no WP:BLP1E issue here. First, it's not about a living person. Second, it covers the event, not the person, which is the point of BLP1E. That second point also means there's no problem with WP:BIO1E. Nonetheless, my position, as noted below, is still that this should be deleted based on NOTNEWS. TJRC (talk) 16:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. This is just a news item, and a seven-year-old news item, at that. If there's any claim for notability apart from the fact that it was in the news in 2002, that's not apparent from the article. TJRC (talk) 16:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem that having been in (global) news is a claim to notability for criminal acts. And that it is 7 years old means absolutely nothing at all. You seem to be taking parts of the policies and ignoring the rest; take for example the policy you quoted, WP:NOTNEWS, which clearly states "breaking news should not be [...] treated differently from other information". And you say that it's not apparent in the article that it is notable, the sources and coverage linked to from external links are what makes it notable, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
News reported globally is still just news. And I'm not saying the age is a separate reason for deletion; but as a mere seven-year-old news item, this article is merely a news archive and nothing more. TJRC (talk) 16:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:NOTNEWS. You seem to be translating it as "Wikipedia doesn't include news", that's not the message of the policy. "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events", this is a notable event. "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article" this is none of the three. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS.Updated below A murder/conviction isn't exactly notable in general, and there doesn't appear to be an exception for this one (regular news coverage is just that, regular). -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 16:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As explained above, this event is notable. If every single murder gets global coverage then every single murder is notable (per WP:N/CA "A criminal act is notable if it receives significant coverage in sources with national or global scope"), regardless of whether it's "regular" or not. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a section about the book following the story of the murder. This is possibly the cases main claim-to-fame. And is not "regular news coverage". Cheers - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. When I made the above statement, nothing in my searches pointed to the book, however, since Kingpin has added it now, and the fact that it is published by a division of Macmillan, that is sufficient to provide the extra something for crime notability. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 21:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. The event in and of itself, while tragic, isn't notable. There are quite literally thousands of murder victims each year. And I can think of victims that received much, much more press than this one, but don't get an article because they, like this man, simply weren't notable. For example, Danny Rolling had 8 victims. 5 were Univ. of Florida students. The case received a HUGE amount of press because it happened on a college town and the state still had recent memories of Ted Bundy's killings at Florida State. Those victims have been mentioned in hundreds of combined books, articles, TV shows. None of them have their own article because they aren't notable aside from the one event.Niteshift36 (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Can you please explain how WP:NOTNEWS applies in this case? Could you provide some examples of other murders which have received more news coverage, and have a book about them, and don't have or merit a Wikipedia page. Also try a google search of the key terms (e.g. Victim name, culprit name etc.) you'll probably be impressed with the amount of results. Also see the above comments which show why this meets both WP:N/CA and why WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply. Cheers - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 18:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First Kingpin, I already did provide an example. The 5 Univ. of Florida victims of Danny Rolling have considerable coverage, including books and TV programs, as well as news. None of them have seperate articles. The Sharon Tate murder by Manson followers is arguably one of the most written about crimes in US history. The 3 victims have their own articles because they were notable in their own right, seperate of the murders. But the event does not have it's own article. It is all under the article about Manson. Now please don't expect me to believe that this murder has received more coverage, and enduring coverage at that, than the Manson case. There is no comparison. I haven't even said Manson's first name and you know who I am talking about. That's how much coverage there has been. Jeffery Dahmer killed 17 people. His crimes have been covered extensively. Not one of his victims have an article, nor do any of his murders have seperate articles. Want to figure out how many news mentions you can find of his victims? John Wayne Gacy killed 33, none of his victims have articles, nor do any of the murders have articles. Would you care to find out how many books, movies and news articles have been written about him and his victims? Second, I think it's pretty arrogant of you to presume that I didn't check this case as well. I did and I'm not impressed. The notability is based on a single event. Period. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that this is based on one killing shouldn't matter, as it's not a BLP. I'm not trying to suggest that you haven't done a google search etc. already, but just trying to point out from using a google search as an example, how much coverage there has been of this case (apologies for the way that came out, I see looking back at it why you thought I was saying you hadn't already done that). All of these cases which you have brought up are notable, and have Wikipedia articles about them (in on form or another), I'm definitely not trying to create pages for the victims, or culprit. But having an article about the event meets WP:N/CA (no, she didn't kill 13 people, but that is not what makes a murder notable) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 05:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per WP:N/CA - Aside from the coverage in several significant news outlets, there is a book about the murder. I would like to see some of the opponents reply to Kingpin13's comments, rather than voting delete and not returning. Mr_pand [talk | contributions] 20:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've not replied because the original creator's comments here haven't changed my opinion on this article. The presence of a book on the topic doesn't help establish the notability of this topic. There really wasn't anything that unique about this case, I'm not sure why a book was written.--RadioFan (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am confused as to what standards of notability you are operating under. Why is a book about the topic not an independent reliable source? Also, why does significant ongoing coverage of the murder, and trial, in news sources such as New York Times, CNN, FoxNews, ABC News (all major national/global outlets) not establish notability? Finally, which part of WP:N/CA does this fail? Mr_pand [talk | contributions] 20:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, covered by multiple independent news organizations across the US, from NY Times to LA Times. These are not just one organization reiterating what others have written, they appeared to be independently researched and reported. Add to this that a book has been written on the murder, that only adds to the notability of the case. A new name 2008 (talk) 03:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Error: above user states that multiple US reporting. See the article again. There is a link to an article in the Australian press and the UK. The United Kingdom and Australia are not part of the United States, but is are independent countries. There is also reporting in People Magazine. One news source reported over 40 separate articles on the murder. If the article is expanded, there could conceivablee be 100 references.Amthernandez (talk) 06:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, you are right that there are plenty of non-US sources. But A new name is also right in saying that there are multiple US sources, and no where does s/he say that all the sources are US. - Kingpin¹³ (talk)
Weak Delete also per WP:NOT#NEWS. This might be suitable for Wikinews, but an encyclopedia is not the place to document every murder that happens in the world. The book mentioned does give it some long term notability (if the book is established as a reliable source), but I dont see how this is any different from a scored wife killing a husband who had an affair Corpx (talk) 09:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep because of the book that was released. Tavix | Talk 17:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 16:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nah nah syndrome[edit]

Made up phrase with no common public use that I know of. No relevant google hits that I can find. Delete DMG413 (talk) 15:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MADEUP, WP:NEO. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. No relevant Google Web hits outside Wikipedia, no Google News hits, no Google Books hits, no Google Groups hits. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - neologism per above. Thryduulf (talk) 18:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 18:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 18:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Feed the childrens then Delete no sources at all. JuJube (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NEO. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This seems like something that has just been made up by an editor. Brian Reading (talk) 01:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Nomination withdrawn, Non-admin closure by Gordonrox24 | ^Talk (Statement fixed by SpacemanSpiff (talk) 21:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Big Creek High School[edit]

Possible Copyvio. Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 15:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - copyvio in high school articles is not a reason for deletion rather than for cleaning up. An obviously notable school. TerriersFan (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep High school, exists, notable per general consensus. I've removed some of the copy vios and rephrased. The article needs work, but that isn't a reason to delete. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 18:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yep, the copyvio is gone. I should have just done that in the first place. Afd withdrawn.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 18:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian Parliament's Plan for University Entrance' Sexual Quota[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Iranian Parliament's Plan for University Entrance' Sexual Quota

I debated whether to list this at WP:RM or here, but ended up concluding that the phenomenon it discusses is really quite trivial. In most any legislative body, one will find handfuls of politicians making all sorts of proposals. In general, we require these proposals to have advanced rather farther than this in the legislative process - say, a bill (eg, Military Action Against Iraq (Parliamentary Approval) Bill) or of course a law. This is neither - it was simply, as far as can be discerned, an idea bandied about by two individuals. So it doesn't seem notable enough to be kept.

Now for the RM part - if we do keep, the title is terrible. First, it's the Majlis of Iran or Iranian Majlis, not the "Iranian Parliament". Second, all other words in the title should be in lowercase. Third, no apostrophe after "entrance". Fourth, gender or sex, not "sexual quota". Finally, this was not a plan backed by all 290 Majlis representatives - apparently, 288 of them had no such plan, so the title is misleading in that regard. Biruitorul ^Talk 15:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like a violation of WP:NOT (specifically the part about not using wikipedia as an agenda). It also smacks of WP:CRYSTAL. All in all, the info is utterly trivial, by which I mean it wouldn't be notable on its own even in Iran. Dahn (talk) 18:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Biruitorul. If any of the historical background is worth keeping, there's always Higher education in Iran. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 05:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 05:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it could become law, at which point, it would be useful article (under a new name); but until then it's a coatrack. Bearian (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close, the first AFD just closed yesterday. If you disagree with the result, go to DRV. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Kade[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Re listing to try and reach consensus. Last AFD can be found here.

Person still does not meet WP:N. Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 15:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Good lord......the man is not notable. What is passing for references in that article is almost laughable. I don;t care how popular a blog is, it still isn't a RS. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 14:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Immakulata Klicka[edit]

Contested PROD. Non notable person. Jenuk1985 | Talk 13:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the external link, polish wikipedia and added reference to a book. I understand that wikipedia articles are not necessarily dependent on things like fame, importance, or popularity which is considered to be secondary and that people on wikipedia are notable if they are significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded. I will add further sources, published works of poetry for instance and further articles depicting biography. I do not agree with deletion, rather for clean up. Please reconsider. --TRIX312 (talk) 14:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete presence on another wiki is not sufficient justification for keeping it here. A reference in a single book just isn't going to do it. I'm not finding the kind of significant coverage that WP:BIO requires.--RadioFan (talk) 14:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 14:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 14:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see the notability. I might be in the minority, but I don't think that notability should automatically transfer from one Wikipedia to another. I think that the "big fish on a small pond" principle can apply at times. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have cleaned the text up a little. I still do not see the reason why this person is not notable on the english wiki. I was intending to translate some texts in order to expand the wikipedia project because I believed it would be of use. Perhaps not everyone agrees but in any case I do not understand why there are still texts about people on wikipedia which are a few lines long and are considered notable. I do not believe that each "notability should automatically transfer from one Wikipedia to another." but in this case I do not see that big of a problem. Cheers.--TRIX312 (talk) 16:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not familiar with the polish wikipedia but I suspect it has similar notability standards. This article probably isn't notable there either unless there are some references that were not transwikied for some reason.--RadioFan (talk) 20:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. She doesn't seem to have much in terms of claims to notability, other then being a centenarian. As a nun she doesn't seem to have held any notable posts or did anything of note... She is almost unknown to Google (9 hits out of which most are wiki mirrors) and briefly mentioned in one books; a a centenarian she received a little publicity in Poland upon her death, in low key Christian press. A borderline case for notability at best. I am going to nominate her for deletion on pl wiki and see how it goes, maybe somebody there will offer convincing arguments for her notability that we are missing? PS. Nominated for Polish AfD.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 14:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Morse (actor)[edit]

Long detailed with many sources and references. Examining the references they are mostly extremely weak, mostly being not independent or not covering Morse. Nothing in the article shows real notability passed casual appearence. Actor? bit parts such as "Guest" and "Well spoken businessman (uncredited)". "uncredited" turns up very often. Musician? no reliable sources about that outside the teacher/pagan thing. Pagan, Witch, Teacher. Yes that is well sourced from one event. One event being significant. All reliable sources and search results talk of One event. An interview that resulted in a suspension. No notability shown passed that one event. WP:ONEEVENT suggests that Morse should not be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. (Article construction and history strong suggests a conflict of interest and the number of editors primarily interested in Morse suggests something else)Duffbeerforme (talk) 13:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages based on similar non references, common interest, cruft and non notability:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Most of the references are works by Morse himself. None available online (yes, I know everything isn't online, but damn). As an actor, he fails WP:ENT. As a musician, he fails WP:MUSICBIO, his mid-level position in the Pagan Federation isn't notable and the article smells of self-promotion or of someone trying to promote him. Can't see him passing WP:CREATIVE for writing the play. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with everything Niteshift36 stated. BioDetective2508 (talk) 20:09, 29 June 2009
Reduce to one concise article . As the creator and most prominent editor of all three articles, and having read the comments about them, I feel honour bound to defend the integrity of the subject as well as my reasons for writing them. Firstly, I would like to dispel any myths that these are self promoting articles and am quite offended for the subject that anyone should think so. Dr Morse has spent the bulk of his professional career working within the community and is entirely focussed on the projects with which he is involved. Of course I know the subject, but do not feel that somehow disqualifies me from writing about him. I created the pages because I genuinely believe that the cumulative effect of the sterling work Dr Morse has undertaken across a range of arts disciplines makes him notable. His performance career is not based solely on "bit" parts in film and television and resent the impliaction that he is somehow not a true actor. He is an award winning theatre actor from the highly prestigious Rose Bruford College. Furthermore, the pagan aspect is not merely about a suspension, but rather a quite public persecution that lead to false allegations of assault through which Dr Morse lost employment. (I understand that much of the legal process is still ongoing and sub judice). I am prepared to accept that one concise article is probably preferable to three, but do not accept that Ralph Morse is not notable. George Abaris George Abaris (talk) 08:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - none of the references have adequately addressed the issue of notability. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile call recording[edit]

I'm not sure what part this has to play in an encyclopaedia, I certainly don't think it warrants its own article. Jenuk1985 | Talk 13:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix | Talk 13:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - author is affiliated with Voxsmart, which was listed in multiple references at bottom. Appears to be attempt to promote and brings into question neutrality. Also, same EL's were placed (and removed) on other WP pages in attempt to promote Voxsmart. Calltech (talk) 13:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Take your pick whether it's for spam or just not being notable in general. WP:OR. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This seems like a combination of a personal essay and a news article. Neither of these belong on Wikipedia as per WP:NOT. Secondly, it's not a notable topic. Brian Reading (talk) 01:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretation of Koran[edit]

No assertion of notability for this Qur'an translation, and being made available through Geocities does not suggest notability. Sandstein 12:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I tried searching multiple different ways for any information. I found the geocities site, but geocities is closing down and they have moved it to [22]. This is not a reliable source. I could not find any reliable sources in all my searching that discussed this translation of the Koran. It does not seem to meet the general notatability guidelines. A new name 2008 (talk) 12:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix | Talk 13:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no independent coverage in third-party sources. [23]. --JN 466 11:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enochian_magic[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Enochian magic

No meaningful citations for a long time. Deletion tags and other various tags other issues tags removed by account that has since been banned for being a sock puppet. Topic is cover more completely by various other Wikipedia entries that do have reliable sources. There was a request for reliable sources dating back to 2006 or so before the sockpuppet came in and removed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cozret (talk • contribs) 2009-06-27 10:32:19

Keep. A short search gives several reliable-seeming sources, such as [24], [25] and [26] (the first two are by respectable authors, and the third by someone who seems to know what he's talking about even if he does have some strange beliefs) which indicate notability by providing substantial coverage, and therefore justify a dedicated article to my mind. It's true that other articles (e.g. Enochian, Book of Enoch, John Dee - but perhaps you had others in mind) have better sourcing that could be used here too but that seems a reason for making use of those references and not for deletion. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Quite notable topic and covered as it's own topic by many books and encyclopedias. Information is too specific, varied and detailed to be merged to another article -- and going by article naming conventions here, if merging did happen some of those others probably should merge to this one instead of vice versa. DreamGuy (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on sources found by Olaf Davis. Edward321 (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful, based on sources, and notable topic. I came to the article whilst looking up Enochian Magic.--Codell^Talk 08:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability does not even seem disputed, and the article (while incomplete) already deals with aspects those other 'pedia links do not mention. But don't trust Gerald Suster (the third external link). Go with Lon Milo DuQuette or Israel Regardie. Dan (talk) 05:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Removals of tags is not a reason to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to History of the European Communities (1958-1972). Nja²⁴⁷ 09:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1969 in the European Economic Community[edit]

should be merged or deleted (as I think that History of the European Union does quite a good job), because I cannot see any importance for an own article; especially as no other years exist Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 09:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because of the same reasons:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix | Talk 13:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge to either History of the European Communities (1958-1972) or a combined Histroy of the European Economic Community, there isn't (currently) a need for separate articles per year. Thryduulf (talk) 14:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 14:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge per nom. Reywas92 ^Talk

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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Opara[edit]

Contested PROD, no reason given. Cypriot First Division is not a fully-professional league, therefore Opara fails WP:ATHLETE. Also fails WP:N due to any sources. --Jimbo^[online] 08:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 09:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable soccer player. --Carioca (talk) 22:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he has played at the highest level of football in Cyprus and thus can be regarded as notable. Eldumpo (talk) 10:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment highest level of football is not always notable because it's not always fully-professional as WP:ATHLETE criteria states. Would you consider players who play the highest level of football in countries such as Cook Islands or Montserrat notable? --Jimbo^[online] 11:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it will depend on the country, but I would say it's a reasonable premise (as a rule) for all European and South American top-level leagues due to the increased exposure and stature, and notably the continental competitions. Eldumpo (talk) 13:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might say that, but Wikipedia guidelines do not, notably WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ATHLETE failure. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ATHLETE --Angelo (talk) 16:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Soul food items[edit]

DELETE. Inherently ambiguous and unsourced list. Fails for that reason. JBsupreme (talk) 06:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I had to look twice because you were the nom JB. This is a very discriminate and encyclopedic list. It can most certainly be sourced, and dispute worked out by a preponderance of reliable evidence. I think whether cites should included in the list or confirmation via the wikilinked articles on the foods themselves is really an editing issue. I can't see how the encyclopedia would be more useful, complete, or improved in any way by deleting this list. ChildofMidnight (talk) 10:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix | Talk 13:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix | Talk 13:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject meets Wikipedia guidelines for appropriate topics for stand-alone lists. The topic isn't inherently ambiguous—sources can be used to resolve any ambiguities (and looking over the edit history, I don't see evidence of any significant editorial disputes). Yes, the sourcing should be improved, but reliable sources are readily available, so that isn't a justification for deletion. BRMo (talk) 14:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Where are they readily available? I will respectfully withdraw this nomination if this can be adequately and appropriately sourced, even a little. JBsupreme (talk) 07:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wouldn't a soul food recipe book be considered a reliable source? Google-books lists dozens of them, and I'd imagine that most public libraries in the United States would carry at least one or two. BRMo (talk) 22:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The criteria certainly is ambigous. Who decides what is or is not "soul food"? It's not like that is something quantitative. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's original research to classify these as soul food items, pending the lack of any secondary sources that make the claim and I feel that a list of _____ foods is also indiscriminate Corpx (talk) 08:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep manageable. Major topic, on which there are quite a number of sources. But they need to be used. DGG (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic has numerous sources that can be used. Gune (talk) 22:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Cuisine of the Southern United States as both seem to be verifiable, citable, and germane to other articles (Soul Food itself would be incomplete without containing or linking to such a list)(else Keep) Jesse (talk) 11:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a valid list that follows the format of cuisine related articles. In the grouping of food and drink areas "cuisine" refers to the cultural context that food and drink plays in the society it refers. Cuisine articles contain such data as the cultural history of the foods eaten in the society, etiquette, beliefs and other information beyond the dishes themselves. "Dishes", or in this case "items", refer to the meals themselves, including raw and or unprepared foods such as fruit, beverages and other such items.

In Food and Drink articles the individual dishes are just a single aspect of the XXX cuisine and are usually treated as a list that is referred to in the main XXX cuisine article. Individual dishes are then linked in the list. A good example of this is the Korean cuisine article and its child lists List of Korean dishes and List of Korean beverages.--Jeremy (blah blah) 08:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would contend that a list of Korean dishes is much less ambiguous than this list. I am disappointed with some of the sources here as well, I would like to see sources that discuss why an item is considered Soul food, not just blindly point to a random cook book and say "See! Its Soul Food!" But what disappoints me the most is that people are CONTINUING TO ADD UNSOURCED INFORMATION TO THIS ARTICLE full aware of our policy prohibiting such actions. JBsupreme (talk) 15:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Highly notable topic for which there are hundreds of good sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 16:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clavinna Phan[edit]

Prod (w/ prod2 support) removed w/o comment. Seems to fail WP:ENTERTAINER; no RS sources. Judging from the name of the SPA article creator and one of the bare refs, a promotional COI is involved here. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 04:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This, I admit, is my instinctive !vote for anyone who contests a prod with "DO NOT DELETE THIS ARTICLE", but looking through all the usual indications for notability there's very little to go on. All the pages on Google are self-published sources or directories, there's no hits on Gnews, and most of the credits given on the page don't specify what it was for, and so by default must be assumed as trivial mentions. Miss Surrey is a reliable source, but as one of dozens of entrants is also trivial, so this leaves this appearance on Star Celeb (can't verify, link broken), which, at the very most, qualifies for a mention in an article on that programme. The bottom line is that simply having a job as a model does not get you a Wikipedia page. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per Chris Neville-Smith's well articulated reasoning. Thryduulf (talk) 08:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One of the given references is a broken link, the two remaining are neither independent nor neutral Rirunmot (talk) 09:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails WP:ENT. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- seems to be a NN model. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Almost warrants a speedy delete. Chris Neville-Smith states it best. Also, an extra on a show? That's someone who has NO speaking lines and basically is backdrop. Furthermore, she has NO film/tv credits on any substantial reliable film sources and most all sources support international projects. BioDetective2508 (talk) 20:11, 29 June 2009
Delete. She is a nobody and this is a vanity page. -- K72ndst (talk) 02:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus on main article (thus keep) and I have moved it back to Socionics as there is currently no reason for a dab; delete the dab page; Redirect all the type pages to the main article - if anything needs to be merged it can be retrieved from the page history. I suspect however that since most of the information on the type pages is lifted from Wikisocion, a summary of types - most of which already exists in the main article - with links to that source would probably suffice. Black Kite 08:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Socionics[edit]

No evidence of real notability has been presented after several requests. This appears to be a Eastern European fringe psychological movement of contested origin, and all material presented is from proponents. Mangoe (talk) 03:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating following derivative articles:

The following already have nominations:

Socionics (esoterism) (discussion) is a content fork.

Information metabolism (discussion) is a WP:COATRACK for socionics.

The latter two should be deleted regardless of the outcome of this discussion. Mangoe (talk) 03:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep parent article, merge rest A few mentions on Google. May be notable enough for its own article, however all the "logical sensory extrovert" things should be merged into the parent article. Also, for the record, I think this is a VERY weak keep. Aditya ^α _ß 06:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to strong delete. Fringe theory with no reliable, third-party sources. And Tcaudilllg, don't bother. I've seen your threats, and your attempts at canvassing and this is one of the reasons I'm reconsidering my vote.
Just to reiterate, delete ALL. Aditya ^α _ß 09:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep parent article, merge most of the rest~~ Weak keep parent article, merge rest: External sources found using google scholar search, however, the field is not notable enough to merit the host of articles currently existing. Contrast with Ebonics, which has only one article, but has 4,240 google scholar hits, vs 372 for socionics. LK (talk) 09:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I checked out the Google scholar references. They are about something completely different, an AI notion related to petri nets. After three pages of results I found only one that might have something to do with personality typing. Mangoe (talk) 14:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mangoe is right, most of those links are about something else altogether. I'm changing my vote to weak keep. Additionally, a new page should probably be created for this other type of socionics, and a disambiguation page made. LK (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try "Соционика". It has 491 Google Scholar hits. Tcaudilllg (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep For reasons that should be obvious. Stipulation: if you delete socionics, you must delete MBTI as well because they are descriptions of the same phenomena, only with different models. Even if you keep both of them, you still cannot delete the socionics type article without deleting the MBTI type articles as well. It's only fair. Tcaudilllg (talk) 13:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to MERGE for "Socionics (esoterism)" and "Socionics". Keep all others save the redirect. Tcaudilllg (talk) 20:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- read Wikipedia:Other stuff exists and look at the sources on the MBTI article. Duffbeerforme (talk) 13:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

read Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. This is ethnocentrism at its worst. See the references in the socionics article. Tcaudilllg (talk) 14:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are many theories that treat the same phenomena, some are notable others are not. It's unreasonable to argue that because Wikipedia has a page on using chemotherapy to treat cancer, all other proposed treatments for cancer are automatically notable as well. LK (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but, can you really say that the other treatments are better than chemo? Socionics is a much, much better model than the MBTI. Tcaudilllg (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When someone cites 1 policy, you can't automatically cite WP:IAR and conveniently ignore the cited policy. You do not understand IAR. That's not our fault. Aditya ^α _ß 14:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We'll see what happens. I'm interested in seeing how this turns out. It'll be instructive. I'm especially concerned with understanding why you are so determined to deny "the MBTI of the East" legitimacy. They don't use MBTI in Russia; they use Socionics. Tcaudilllg (talk) 15:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion over socionics' origin is not in doubt: Aushra Augusta created it. What is contested is how she created it, which if you think about it, shows just how different a socionics-based point of view is from a typically Western point of view. In Western-oriented sciences, when someone presents a new thesis, people rarely even ask how he came about it or how it was inspired. Reuben McNew, who has a degree in theology, is merely suggesting that Ashura Augusta created socionics as an alternative to traditional mysticism. People don't have to look to mysticism as a source of self-knowledge, because now they have socionics and with it, a realist framework that unites the empirical and the esoteric in one whole.

Socionics is really the great undiscovered science of the modern East. Why it has not been embraced and expanded upon by Western researchers is beyond me; but again, culture clash. Tcaudilllg (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse tcaudillg presentation of my thesis and motive for what I am fighting for. --Rmcnew (talk) 21:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a source that backs up that statement? A source in Russian would be fine. That would go a long way towards showing notability. LK (talk) 15:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are in the article. Just look them up and away you go.

Here's a good one. Apparently a report on socionics was issued before the Russian Duma recently.

Another: http://74.125.95.132/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http://socionics.ru/&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&usg=ALkJrhh5SgOkm_FTbJx-eAsOWrjDU9E6pQ Tcaudilllg (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are both examples of the sourcing problems these articles have. Examination of the URLs for the cited pages shows that they come from socionics proponents; they are not third-party references and are not sufficient to indicate notability. Mangoe (talk) 00:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get it, do you? People just say "you can't prove it because there is no conclusive substantiation via cognitive experiments" and that's it. No one in their right mind disagrees with socionics unless they haven't studied the material. You'd better watch out, I might just type you and watch you explode.... ;) Tcaudilllg (talk) 01:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been M-B and K-S typed, and both of them disagree with the analysis you dropped on my talk page. . Mangoe (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, it's clear that you are reacting and not thinking. How about ESFJ or ISFP then? I'm sure it's one of those. Your use of the word "disagree" in that instance (as though instruments could "disagree" or "agree" with each other, as opposed to giving inaccurate results) indicates a preference for Introverted Feeling partnered with Extroverted Sensing: the immediate impression (e. sensing) dictates the attitude (i. feeling); introverted feeling and extroverted sensing modify each other. The more I study them, the more your function values become apparent. (though hmmkr did inform me with his Te or Fi bit; he's good at that). You are concocting an entire argument based on feeling and nothing on fact. My ability to see intuitive concepts in real situations isn't the best... it's not a talent of mine. But I can improve it through experience. Tcaudilllg (talk) 20:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. WP:IAR never impresses me, especially when it is being applied to something that doesn't improve WP. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nominator's arguments. ClovisPt (talk) 16:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete all~~ or Merge all into Socionics, where the article wouldn't be a redirect but rather one covering all the information discussed in these many articles. The reason I offer two options rather than one is because I'm doubting whether this really is or isn't a notable topic. The sources are there, and they do seem to be somewhat reliable; however, I'm not totally convinced... (Reason for strikethroughs and Merge decision given in discussion below--Slartibartfast1992 21:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which are more notable: Sonic the Hedgehog characters, or socionics? Tcaudilllg (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, anybody? (in any case, I might just say Sonic the Hedgehog characters). --Slartibartfast1992 23:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic the Hedgehog characters get my vote. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are hopeless. I had hoped to actually get the attention of people who would be interested in socionics if they knew about it, but that's clearly not going to happen. So, you'd might as well just close the debate. The conclusion was KEEP, and if you argue with it, I'll get the communitarians on your asses. They apparently haven't noticed that you're doing this yet, but when they do you'll see the ideology that really runs Wikipedia. (hint: it's not ethnocentrism) Tcaudilllg (talk) 00:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made the "socionics (esotericism)" article (originally named "socionics (metaphysics)") as a show of openness and fairness to metaphysicians. There really is a slight emphasis in metaphysics in socionics because it offers the concept of duality, meaning that for example, where there is space (processed by the introverted thinking function in conjunction with the extroverted sensing function) there is also a signal. (processed by extroverted feeling with introverted intuition) The CMBR reading recently proved this without a doubt: at every point in the universe there is some kind of background radiation. The relationship between signal and space is light. You can take it a step farther: warp the space, and you warp the signal vis a vis relativity. So you see, the postulate socionics makes that there is an a priori reality independent of human experience is valid, and the socionics model is full enough to categorize all the relationships between reality in a coherent dialectic. Tcaudilllg (talk) 01:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do not appear to understand what Wikipedia is about. It was not created to advertise novel theories. Mangoe (talk) 00:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Says you. And who else? Will you stand against progress? Do you think there is an authority that decides which justified progressive movements die and which thrive? Pfft, senseless bickering... you are not editing in good faith. Tcaudilllg (talk) 01:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be the who else on that one, plus Wiki policy (I guess the 'advertising novel ideas' bit applies to WP:SOAP). Now, I have to say I disagree with you on many points, Tcaud. First off, you called me an ethnocentrist. Now, this revelation came rather as a shock to me; I had often viewed myself as more of a postmodern. In fact, I had given the option of merge as part of my opinion about what should be done with these articles, on the off chance that I might have been wrong in suggesting a delete. Frankly, I don't know much about the notability of socionics; that being the reason why I gave two options.

You seem to be taking it the other way, however; I have doubts that these articles should be left alone, so you very naturally try to convince me. This is sometimes referred to as badgering, and I don't like it. Furthermore, you achieve nothing by trying to convince me to change my opinion, as I am a very arrogant and stubborn person. Of course, being arrogant and stubborn would be unbecoming of a postmodern, but since you've discovered I'm an ethnocentrist, I can now exhibit my arrogance freely. Even if my mind were as malleable as putty, though, you would be achieving nothing; we have discussions to build concensus, not as a vote (see WP:VOTE). It is also taken to be very against good faith to badger fellow editors in this way.

My final point is in that you, in a previous paragraph, somehow related socionics to general relativity. I am ashamed to even think of the possibility of comparing the great work of Albert Einstein to a social theory, the notability of which we're not even sure about.

Regards after writing a couple paragraphs curiously written like a letter, --Slartibartfast1992 07:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC) P.S.: Bring on the communitarians![reply]

Rick DeLong knows information metabolism better than anyone else in the west. See his page: http://www.socionics.us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcaudilllg (talk • contribs) 10:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Words like yours, Slartibartfast, suggest to me that if you had lived when Einstein did, you would have been a naysayer, not a supporter. Tcaudilllg (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Words like yours, Tcaud, suggest that if you had lived when George Parker lived, you might own the Statue of Liberty. Anyways, Einstein didn't need supporters. He was a scientist, not a politician. I'm not a naysayer of socionics in any case. I don't know much about socionics. I frankly don't care about socionics. What I care about is that policy be followed, and as a derivative of that, that this series of articles be either merged into one or deleted entirely. And I would advise you to desist in your campaign to convince everybody that these articles should be kept; in my case, such an attempt is futile unless a reliable source is provided, showing that socionics has a degree of notability at least as large as that of its Western counterpart, MBTI. --Slartibartfast1992 22:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's an ad hominem attack. Tcaudilllg (talk) 02:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways, Einstein didn't need supporters. He was a scientist, not a politician. I'm not a naysayer of socionics in any case. I don't know much about socionics. I frankly don't care about socionics. -- Then, you should not be party to this discussion. You have violated rule 5 of WP:BEFORE: read the article. You have not read it because you "do not care about it", meaning that you are disinterested in personality psychology. If you were interested in personality psychology -- and it is not lost to me that all three of the persons posing arguments for the deletion of these articles are, in fact, not the least bit interested in the psychology of personality -- then you would be defending the article as an important resource in the ambiguous world of human intention. Tcaudilllg (talk) 02:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ad hominem attack? You don't say? Could you point out how I've personally attacked you, because it's less than clear to me. Personally attacking is, after all, practically the definition of ad hominem. As for "violating rule number 5 of WP:BEFORE", is it this one?: Click "what links here" in the article's sidebar, to see how the page is used and referenced within Wikipedia. That's the fifth one down, but somehow I don't see the relevance to the situation at hand. In any case, you provided the rationale before nominating an article for deletion; I'm not nominating here, I'm arguing in favor of Delete or Merge.

As for the whole situation on me not being interested, you couldn't be further from the truth. I am in fact somewhat interested in personality psychology, and have identified myself as an INTP in the case of MBTI. But as for you; you've just identified yourself as "interested". This is to say, you can be considered a party with your own interest in this discussion, and maybe are regarding that interest as higher than Wiki policy, hence your invocation of WP:IAR. I ask you to please read WP:COI (from which it may be surmised that to be uninterested is actually good).

Third, I find it extremely offensive that you believe I should not be party to this discussion (you might call it an ad hominem attack). Furthermore, I find it hilarious that you think you have the right to kick me out of a discussion. All Wikipedians can participate in discussion, and the outcome of the discussion is determined according to their arguments and Wiki policy, regardless their interest on the subject matter. Your really should assume good faith in me; I'm discussing on this because it's what I believe complies with policy, not for my own evil agenda. --Slartibartfast1992 02:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I, too am an MBTI INTP/socionics LII. We shouldn't even be discussing this. The very notion of such an important article being up for deletion is senseless.

Policy should be applied with discretion. That's why we have admins instead of robots.

All people have an interest in socionics. Everyone. Tcaudilllg (talk) 03:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an interest in it. Zero. Zip. None. I tend to not be attracted to fringe theories. Just my pragmatic nature I guess. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(eliminating the tabs; I'm getting pressed up against the side of this page)

Oh, awesome! I wish I wasn't arguing with you now that I know you're an INTP. And I'll be a monkey's uncle but I think I'm starting to get interested in socionics. Must be strong... must hold point of view...

Now, I'm of the opposite end of the whole spectrum of opinions on policy. While I agree that it can be overrided in some cases, the policy is so accurate that maybe only one in a million cases can override it safely. That's why I choose to follow policy so rigidly; first of all, I agree with it (I wouldn't follow it if I didn't, of course), and second, it has described all cases I've ever encountered with fantastic accuracy.

My primary point of view on Socionics is to merge all sub-articles into an article named Socionics (except, maybe the information metabolism one, which I prefer to leave alone since I don't know much about it). Why I prefer this to the many articles is simple: my ultimate and maximum objective is that all Wikipedia articles be featured. All efforts must be made for everything to be featured (call me a WikiPerfectionist or a WikiElitist, if you will). Those articles which don't have a snowball's chance in hell of turning featured (or at least 'good'), whould be deleted. Of course, I can't exert the latter part of my ideology, because it's not official Wiki policy. But I can do my best to have all that great stuff out there concentrated into their own articles, rather than dispersed into many; the one article has a much better shot at featuredness.

There's where this series of articles comes in. We get all the good stuff in the articles and merge them all into an article called Socionics; as an article covering the subject of Socionics, with valuable details on all the socionic types (is that what you call them? Like ethical intuivite extrovert?). This whole mass of stuff has a way better chance of achieving featured status, not to mention that most of the articles may not be notable enough to be stand-alone articles.

There's the small problem of notability, though. For the condensed Socionics article to exist, you need to prove, with reliable, third-party sources, that it is indeed notable. Do that, and my opinion is the merge justified above. Don't do that, and it's an impending delete. --Slartibartfast1992 03:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC) P.S.: Please excuse the fact that I write so much. I get carried away.[reply]

Well I've already offered you those (remember those little notes at the bottom of the page?) and you ignored them. So why should I believe you're in good faith? If you choose to delete this article, it won't be fine with me but... I really just want to know how much this demonic paradigm can take, where we cowtow to these unabashed egotists and generally have an entire culture of people who think they have to look to a bunch of delusional, belligerent nutcases for a sense of self-identity. I was hoping maybe the culture would crack... but no, not yet. It's gonna need a deeper shock to stage the intellectual revolution we require.

By the way, Slarti, you wouldn't have voted for Bush by any chance, would you? I'm just noting that you're really closed-minded and there was some research by David Amodio not too long that showed that conservatives aren't as good at dealing with change as liberals. I think conservatives can get a clue, actually, but they've gotta believe in it first! Tcaudilllg (talk) 04:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you have! Merge it is. I'll strikethrough the upper part of my statement which says delete. Why should you believe I'm in good faith? Well, why would I have bad faith? A pretty sad life I might lead if I specifically editted Wikipedia to cause mischief and suffering. No, I do what I do because I think it's right. As for the rest of your first paragraph, I don't really know what you're talking about, but if it's against a government or pop-culture, then I agree.

To answer your second question: NO. NO. Absolute NO. A NO so NOlike it challenges the very fabric of causality. I have three reasons. Reason one: I'm under 18. Reason 2: I am not a U.S. citizen. Reason 3: I would rather be tied to a rock and have my liver eaten out several times by a ravenous eagle, than vote for either of the Bushes (you see, I don't know which one you're referring to). "You just notice I'm really close-minded"? I can smell the stench of ad hominem from three miles away. Call me arrogant all you want. Call me stubborn as a mule. But do not call me ~~a conservative~~ close-minded. I actually like the term arrogant. I don't mind being called arrogant. See, my theory is, everybody's arrogant; it's just that most people don't realize it. --Slartibartfast1992 05:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC) P.S.: Read WP:CIVIL before somebody less understanding than me comes along and gets seriously offended[reply]

I see... you don't know who you are, do you? But I would keep reading the ol' Jung, because he does have the answers. Did you know that socionics can help you understand Jung? Tcaudilllg (talk) 05:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure I know who I am. You can't ever be completely sure, though. No time for getting philosophical, however. Conclusion: Merge. You can do nothing to change that. It's been pleasant arguing with you, but it has come to an end. And do read WP:CIVIL; it really is an enjoyable bit of text. Good luck in all future matters of arguing, --Slartibartfast1992 06:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot fully know yourself because you have not come to grips with your own capacity for evil. Nor can you before reaching the age of transcension to biological adulthood. (23) Instead you try so much to avoid evil in yourself, that you are blind to your complicity in efforts to destroy some good things. Tcaudilllg (talk) 14:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beware, I struggle in life to provide evil and suffering to the world. Muhahahahaha. Fond of Kant's idea of the Categorical Imperative, are we? Well, as I mentioned earlier, I am (or rather I believe I am; I can't be sure) a postmodern, and rather prefer Nietzsche to Kant (the two having very different ideologies). Therefore, your talk of evil is wasted on me; the concept of evil is meaningless, unless defined by whatever strict dogmatic system you adhere to (which one is it, by the way?).

As for biological adulthood, it determines nothing, and it is quite demeaning that you believe I'm inferior because I'm of less age. To tell truth, most of what you call 'evil' in the world, (in my dictionary, synonymous to suffering) has been caused by biological adults. In any case, the fact that you're citing biological adulthood as a factor in righteousness also has a shade of Kant in it.

As much as I'm enjoying the increasingly philosophical discussion, it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand (my opinion on which is already set in stone). However, because I enjoy discussing such tangential things as this discussion is coming to, I'll let you continue it on my user talk page. If you do continue it, please don't do it here; we're just wasting space that is meant to be spent on a discussion on socionics. --Slartibartfast1992 23:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep, ~~merge,~~ and complete overhaul. for clarification, merge is not my opinion about what should most appropriately be done, but rather delete all of the type-specific articles, which are so widely disagreed upon and so difficult to source that they aren't worth keeping. keep the disambiguation page to differentiate between augusta's socionics and the AI thing. most of the type-specific pages were created by me, mostly as an attempt to differentiate them from the MBTI articles like ENTP etc, which had separate sections for socionics, keirsey, and MBTI types. i would grant that most of them are not well enough sourced to merit their own pages, but they should not be integrated with pages on MBTI types, which represent something completely different. getting rid of them and integrating more functionally related information in the main page would probably be appropriate. on the issue of verifiable sources, i believe that socionics is sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion in wikipedia, based on reference materials in russian, which probably wouldn't show up obviously on a google scholar search. i have stayed away from trying to really use them because i don't speak russian and am really not the person who should be making these attributions. any attempt to search for sources in english only will fail. unfortunately, tcaudilllg and rmcnew have been fighting over the page recently and have included a bunch of execrable sources, and i don't know if the original ones that were here at some point are still here. neither tcaud nor mcnew are neutral parties and both seem to be advocating their own brand of socionics. i have not enough interest or energy to devote to fighting them over the state of the page, and nobody else in the community of people who talk about socionics seems to wish to deal with them either. neither of their contributions are generally verifiable, and they should be gotten rid of. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 01:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Niffweed, you are a Jekyll and Hyde.

I defend my citation of the work of Aleksandr Boukalov, which you have cited yourself. It is patently unfair to delete the type articles (and unwieldy), and don't wiki lawyer me about OTHERSTUFF, either. This is the biggest REGION BIAS sham I've ever seen. I got a warning for you guys: I'm gonna arrange the embarrassment of Wikipedia publicly over this later IF you go through with the merge. Wikipedia has a monopoly on the open content encyclopedia market; you can't just get 6 million in non-profit dollars from anywhere. You should act with the responsibility that befits your monopoly. In case, you shouldn't listen to Niffweed, who makes enemies everywhere he goes. I don't know why he's so determined to delete the type articles all of a sudden, but a lot of his arguments make no sense. I affectionately think of him as Dick Cheney's estranged little brother. Tcaudilllg (talk) 03:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Irrespective of what has gone on in other places I really don't think making threats and general fist-shaking is going to help your cause much. You need to understand that most of us are blissfully unaware of the hair-pulling that you say is going on in the socionics world. Teh Crafty One (talk) 03:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think it's a good idea to delete the type articles? Tcaudilllg (talk) 04:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm buggered if I know. Which is why I've not ventured a view on whether to keep, delete or merge, rather I've just offered a comment. This is the problem, as far as I can tell. This socionics stuff appears to be a Russian fringe theory on what I'm not sure, and that's cool. But how is it notable? As I mentioned below the articles as they stand do precious little to enlighten the humble bystander. Perhaps the likelihood of deletion would be reduced if you reviewed Wikipedia's policies on article inclusion (not just notability but other things such as verifiability and the like) and reworked the main article in that vein. You might have to live with a merge of the sub-articles, but surely from your perspective that's better than a wholesale deletion of the entire thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craftyminion (talk • contribs) 05:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i see little reason to respond to tcaud's personal attacks. i would be open to the recreation of the type-specific articles if they can be well-sourced. however, as stated, at the moment there is too much vitriol about specific aspects of type behavior for them to really work effectively; the socionics wikis are a great resource, but their rules for verifiability tend to be by nature of the projects somewhat different from wikipedia, and being able to legitimately source the information that has to go into type descriptions is a really tenuous task. i think they're a better project for wikisocion/wswiki. my opinion on the matter, however, is not a strong one. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 03:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the type articles turn out to be deleted for lack of sources, I don't see why an external link to them on wikisocion (or whatever wiki out there is specialized on socionics) can't be included on the Socionics article. Even if just to a disambiguation page containing all 16 types as links. I concur that it's a better project for the wikis on socionics, and if they can do a better job on it there than here, then it's really a win-win situation. --Slartibartfast1992 03:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

external links to wikisocion and/or wswiki with a statement that type descriptions can be found there would be appropriate, in my opinion. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 02:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Niffweed is one of those people who have bought into the western lie that socionics is "something like Jung and MBTI" and has done nothing but intensely persecute those who tell the truth that socionics has an intense esoteric background. When I literally owned the the16types.info forum for 4 straight years, he made a regular habit of following users around during that time who spoke anything contrary to "his opinion on the matter" and harass them. He even goes so far as to commit slanderous and libelous accusations against people such as "calling them insane" or labeling them with "psychiatric disorders" even as such is libelous false. This tactic seems to be his main response to those who disagree with him and otherwise shows that "his opinion on the matter" lacks a high degree of respectability. --Rmcnew (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i see no reason to give a comprehensive response, but a few facts are in order:

mcnew owned the forum for a period of approximately two and a half years, not four.
i have called a number of users idiots, including mcnew himself; i speak my mind on that forum, this is all true. in no way can this be considered slander or libel. there is one user who i might meet the criterion of "following around and harassing." frankly he deserved it, but it was probably not particularly mature of me to do so. i don't see how that accusation could be made with respect to anyone else.
there is exactly one individual on the16types forum who i positively believe to have a severe psychiatric disorder. i have talked extensively with this individual. i have mentioned the identity of this individual to a few people, but never publicly. there may be other individuals with clinical or personality disorders, though i have no way of knowing this. never have i publicly accused anyone of having a clinical psychological disorder.
your accusation of ad hominem ignores the large amount of substantial work that i have done in clarifying socionics concepts. the entire wswiki (basically), as well as many aspects of wikisocion and other essays and work with individuals too numerous to count are all attributable to my background.
honestly, i really don't care if you disagree with me or think i'm an idiot or a jerk, but in an environment of collaboration such as wikipedia i do demand the same level of good faith and respect that i might attribute to you. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 01:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

McNew isn't going to give up, and he's probably going to be back with friends. But I'm looking at your talk history Mango, and I'm seeing a great wellspring of trouble for you. I'm betting their opinions would roughly coincide with mine on this.

Niffweed, you are speaking too soon. All I have done is included notes about model B and model T, both of which we have reliable sources for. I also created the mysticism article to give McNew, who is a professional theologian, space to discuss the esoteric socionics movement. (which as you know, has been considered in peer-reviewed journal articles over the years.) That you let McNew twist things out of proportion is your error, not mine.

But I want to say this right now: when some guy on Wikipedia starts getting the notion that he is the final arbiter of an entire institution's qualifications, then he's definitely misread the fine print. When you've got people who have professional qualifications getting together to produce articles in a journal, then unless they can be decidedly proclaimed out of the mainstream by a pivotal experiment or thesis disproving their claim, then you can't say they are "fringe". That Psychology Today statement was a red herring: just because you start a magazine about something does not mean that that something is notable, and the converse is equally true.

Intellectual arrogance is unbecoming Wikipedia editors. Tcaudilllg (talk) 01:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

as usual, i have no idea what you're talking about or what the bases of your personal accusations towards me are, and i fail to what any of it has to do with the socionics article, or see how i can respond to them in a way at all constructive to this AfD. please try to attend to the matter at hand. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 04:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you think they were about you? I was talking about Mango. Tcaudilllg (talk) 10:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

if your comments were directed at mangoe, then they probably should not have been placed under my comment and instead should have gone as an extended response to mangoe's comment. whatever; i thought your response was not very clear, but i see no reason to continue arguing about the matter. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

additionally, strong keep on the information metabolism article, which is actually a well-explained theory in its own right unrelated to socionics. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 01:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep for socionics and of course consider whether to combine the others into it. This is not fringe, but a serious psychological approach. It's not the sort of approach i personally think very productive, but that isn't the standard. Much more important in Europe than the US, and a major branch of the Jungian tradition. There are sources enough: there are actually 151 books in google books for "socionics". That's a major amount of literature. I do not see in the least why it is necessary to invoke IAR. The main term is a subject of academic and popular study. Even the others can be sourced to respectable sources. They meet our standard criteria. The quarreling over the various schools of the subject above should be disregarded. It may be necessary for some of us not personally involved with the movement to learn about it in order to watch the article. This being a predominately European topic, the other articles should be compared: the one in the frWP is short and clear, and we could do worse for our article than have a translation of it. The German one is similar to ours, the Russian one seems a considerably expanded version of ours. Translating section of it in Google Translate--rather than attempting to read a long technical article in a language Ii can barely read at all--the explanations given there would add a considerable amount to the diagrams in our article, which are unfortunately not that clear unless you already know the terminology. I have another suggestion if any other admin would like to take me up on it: restart this AfD on socionics only, after a warning to some of the participants in this discussion. DGG (talk) 19:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From what I see checking the hits, the vast majority seem to be for the German notion, and as far as I can tell, it has nothing to do with the subject of the article in question. Mangoe (talk) 22:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The google hits are under "Соционика".

Mango, perhaps we can negotiate. On what level would you be willing to withdraw your argument that socionics is non-notable? Tcaudilllg (talk) 01:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly hope on no level. Not because of my feelings about socionics or anyone supporting it......but because a lot of people have put in a lot of time discussing it and, despite your ownership of this discussion, it's not really just a matter between you and the nominator at this point. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well if it's deleted I'll just put it back. How about that? I've already saved the article's source so it won't be a problem. And it won't be deleted again, because I'll come prepared. I'm good at getting people together. ...I actually enjoy this. You've provided me good entertainment.

But I would be remiss to keep the fun all to myself. Time to give some of my friends cathartic release. :) Tcaudilllg (talk) 05:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you're threatening to go rogue if the AfD doesn't turn out your way. I hope you are intelligent enough to realize that you wouldn't be the first one to try that. Wikipedia is well equipped to handle even extremely determined trolling attacks. The only thing you are achieving on this page is utterly discrediting yourself as an editor, quite regardless of the status of socionomics. --dab (𒁳) 09:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- So you've just expressed your intention to go against concensus if it doesn't go your way and violate Wikipedia protocol. Re-read what you just wrote and try to convince anyone that you are acting in good faith and not using Wikipedia as your WP:SOAPBOX to push your WP:POV. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I disagree with it then there is no consensus, is there? I will not tolerate a false consensus, and neither will others. BTW it's socionics, NOT socionomics.

A merge will not happen. If it does, we'll just recreate the articles as stubs. There is no consensus, therefore there can be no action. Tcaudilllg (talk) 14:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Um, yeah.....I corrected my typo within moments of making it. Relax dude. To the rest, someone please notify me when this editor ends up in an AN/I or something over his incessant personal attacks. I don't want to miss it, but I'm done commenting here. The drama is making me ill. I can say this, after observing the conduct of some editors here, I have even less interest in fonding out more about the topic than when I started. Good job. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a statement that if there is a decision you don't like, you will ignore it? Dougweller (talk) 14:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I will not. I'll alert a sympathetic admin who doesn't like your attitude and they can reverse you. Not only that, we'll lobby for your dismissal the next time you're up for re-approval, because no organization needs stupid people and only a stupid person would delete the main article on a topic that has become bigger in Russia than communism (see the russian version) because it's "not notable". Tcaudilllg (talk) 00:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep socionics, merge/redirect all others, lock redirects, then try to fix the single main article. This is a classic "walled garden" situation, and there is no harm in taking it slow. Issues of user conduct on the part of Tcaudilllg (talk · contribs) are to be addressed separately. He is being hilarious, but also out of line. --dab (𒁳) 07:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well if it's a dispute between you and me, we'll take it to ArbCom. Tcaudilllg (talk) 14:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it is between you and WP:DISRUPT. These usually don't go to arbcom but are handled at admin level. --dab (𒁳) 16:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the main article, and merge the rest of them into the parent. Far TMI. Bearian (talk) 19:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment i noticed that another part of the nomination is that socionics is of disputed origin; this is clearly not true, and while User:rmcnew seems to dispute the origin of socionics, there is otherwise widespread consensus on the issue, as every single source referenced (including the ones that mcnew added himself) attests to. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 20:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both the main article and the forks but reunite the two articles about socionics. Of course it is a fringe theory but it's very well-known at least in Russia. The presentation would be too long in one article. There are critique by non-proponents (here there are sources from both sides). Andres (talk) 08:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion I noticed something The type articles are incorporating text from Wikisocion, which require an explicit attribution. Isn't that against Wikipedia's rules? It is copyrighted. Tcaudilllg (talk) 02:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not at all; the material from wikisocion and wswiki is appropriately attributed in the articles and is perfectly fine as those wikis are also GFDL or whatever similar free licensing. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 05:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Text

You can't do verbatim copying of copyrighted content. PD is OK, but Rick's made clear that Wikisocion is not PD.

I think we should blank the pages and start over with sources. Stubbify them and work them up.

Or we can write about 'em in the wikibook (which we need to link to), but bottom line is if MBTI can put its types up, then socionics surely should be able to as well. It's only fair to the socionist's standpoint. Tcaudilllg (talk) 05:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the content is freely redistributable. there's no legal reason why the content can't be massively transferred from one wiki to another, given that it's accredited and sourced. this happens all the time with other specialized wikis. furthermore, i wrote most of the content that has actually been transferred. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 05:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but those articles have more than a citation; they have a disclaimer with THE OFFICIAL SLOGAN of the copyright holder. Tcaudilllg (talk) 18:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

so what? sure, the GPL license allows free redistribution, but what's wrong with the attribution? Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 06:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a brief comment on existing sources

stepping away from the name-calling for a minute... the current bibliography of the page is rather terrible and most of it consists of completely inappropriate sources, which do not do credit to the vast amount of russian literature on the topic. and, for what it's worth, tcaud is right: google scholar is not a good place to be searching. here's a bibliography essentially copied and pasted from this article by aleksandr boukalov. many of these are primary sources, written by augusta or boukalov himself, but as you can see from the range of authors and sources, there exists a vast body of work on the subject in russian and ukrainian languages. scientific? no. but probably notable.

1. Augustinavichute A. Comment to Jung's typology and introduction to informational metabolism. //Socionics, mentology and personality psychology. N 2. 1995.
  2. Augustinavichute A. Model of informational metabolism. //"Mokslas ir technika", Vilnius,1980 Nr.4
  3. Augustinavichute A. Human dualistic nature. //Socionics...2 NN 1–3. 1996.
  4. Augustinavichute A. Socion. //Socionics... NN 4–5. 1996.
  5. Augustinavichute A. Theory of intertype relations. //Socionics... NN 1–5. 1997.
  6. Augustinavichute A. Reinin theory of traits. //Socionics... NN 1-6. 1998.
  7. Bukalov A.V., Karpenko O.B., Saenko Yu.I, Chykyrysova G.V. Socionics and sociology: спроба comparation of estimationa of post-Chernobyl situation. /Chernobyl and socium (Issue 4). - Kiev. 1998.
  8. Bukalov A.V. Integrated types of collectives, nations, states. Ethnosocionics. //Socionics... N 5. 1998.
  9. Bukalov A.V. Integrated type of USA information metabolism. //Socionics... N 5. 1998.
 10. Bukalov A.V. Some aspects of the Yugoslavia conflict from the viewpoint of integral socionics. //Socionics... N 2. 1999.
 11. Bukalov A.V. A new model of ethnic community and state: psycho-informational space of ethnic community. //Socionics... N 6. 1999.
 12. Bukalov A.V. Interaction between humans and technical systems viewed from point of the theory of informational metabolism. //Socionics... N 6. 1999.
 13. Bukalov A.V. Forming informational metabolism functions in the process of human birth. (Introduction to the psycho-analysis socionics). //Socionics... NN 1-2. 1996.
 14. Bukalov A.V. About four evolutionary steps oa development and the law of quadra interchangeability. //Socionics... N 1. 1995.
 15. Bukalov A.V. Socionics in collective management. //Socionics... N 1. 1997.
 16. Bukalov A.V. Socionics and types of human cultures. Ethnosocionics. //Socionics... N 1. 1995.
 17. Bukalov A.V. Quantum changes of informational medium. //Socionics... N 1. 1998.
 18. Bukalov A.V. Psychoinformational environment structuring phenomenon: an hierarchy of human attention, memory and thinking volume. //Socionics... N 2. 1999.
 19. Bukalov A.V. Forming of working groups and collectives (method). — On the order of Siberian commercial fair direction, Novosibirsk–Kiev. 1988. 45 pages.
 20. Bukalov A.V. Ethnic socionics: alcohol and drug addiction, and mentality in ethnic community. //Socionics... N 6. 1998.
 21. Bukalov A.V., Bojko A.G. Socionics: mystery of human relations and и bioenergetics. - Kiev: "Soborna Ukraina". 1992.
 22. Bukalov A.V., Karpenko O.B., Chykyrysova G.V. Biodata of married couples in the light of socionics. //Socionics... N 1. 1999.
 23. Bukalov A.V., Karpenko O.B., Chykyrysova G.V. Socionics, sociology and problem or practical rehabilitation of social conscience of victims of the Chernobyl accident. //Socionics... N 3. 1999.
 24. Bukalov A.V., Karpenko O.B., Chykyrysova G.V. The socionic analysis of colectivies and recomendations for managers. //SRW account. NN 3-45. - International Socionics Institute. 1992-97.
 25. Bukalov A.V., Taratukhin S.A. On Socionic Type of F.D.Roosevelt and its Interaction with the Integral TIM of the USA. //Socionics... N 3. 1999.
 26. Bukalov A.V., Foris Yu.B. The problems of socionics in law. //Ukrainian Law. N 2. 1999.
 27. Bukalov G.K. TIM definition for "human - wear out process" system. //Socionics... N 3. 1998.
 28. Bukalov G.K. TIM of the man-object system. //Socionics... N 1. 1998.
 29. Gindin S. Socionics and medecine. - Report on V International Socionics Conference. Palanga. 1990.
 30. Gulenko V.V. Guarantees of productive training. Temperament and stimuli group //Socionics... N 6. 1996.
 31. Gulenko V.V. Modernization of school lecturing system. //Socionics... N 4. 1999.
 32. Gulenko V.V. First steps: socionics in school. //Socionics... N 1. 1999.
 33. Gulenko V.V., Molodtzov A.V. Introduction to socionics. - Kiev. 1991.
 34. Gulenko V.V., Molodtzov A.V. Base of socioanalysis. - Kiev. 1991.
 35. Gulenko V.V., Тыщенко В. П. Jung in school. Socionics to pedagogy. - Novosibirsk. 1997.
 36. Didenko A.A. Types of the person and forming of the studiing groups. //Socionics... N 1. 1995.
 37. Donchenko E.A. Societal psyhe. -Kiev: "Naukova Dumka". 1994.
 38. Yermak V.D. Socionics as an effective tool for expertise and consultancy. //Socionics... N 1. 1999.
 39. Yermak V.D. Dictionary of informational aspects. //Socionics... NN 1-3. 1998.
 40. Zabirov M.V. Hysteric or hysteroid? (A systematic approach towards the problem). //Socionics... N 6. 1998.
 41. Ivanov D.A. Thinking particularities in twins subject to psychic infantilism. //Socionics... N 6. 1997.
 42. Ivanov D.A. About successive use and activation corresponding personal factors in the process of the phased psychotherapeutical healing the boundary psychopathology. //Socionics... N 4. 1998.
 43. Ivanov D.A. Particularities of higher nervous activity in sociotypes within the scope of hysterical psychopathy and psychoasthenia. //Socionics... N 1. 1998.
 44. Ivanov D.A. Socionics in diagnostics and treatment boundary psychopathy //Socionics... N 6. 1996.
 45. Ivanov D.A., Ivanov A.A. Socionics and flight security problems. //Socionics... N 5. 1996.
 46. Ivanov D.A., Savchenko I.D.. On particularities of the higher nervous activity in persons with different types of informational metabolism, and on differentiated diagnoses in them//Socionics... N 3. 1999.
 47. Karpenko O.B. Perception of informatoinal aspects. //Socionics... N 1. 1995.
 48. Karpenko O.B. Personatily of Peter the Great, as viewed from socionics //Socionics... N 4. 1996.
 49. Karpenko O.B. Structure of "conic" group. //Socionics... N 2. 1995.
 50. Лесиовская Е. Е, Пономарева И., Чижик Е. Socionics and forming of optimal student groups. //Socionics... N 2. 1995.
 51. Lytov D. A. Lingvosocionics. //Socionics... N 3. 1995.
 52. Meged V.V. Purposeful group. //Socionics... N 2. 1995.
 53. Meged V.V., Ovcharov A.A. Theory of the applied socionics. //Socionics... N 2. 1996.
 54. Nemirovskiy A.A. "Высоко несу свой высокий сан..." //Socionics... N 3. 1995.
 55. Ovcharov A.A. Revealing of abilities and their development. //Socionics... N 3. 1998.
 56. Ovcharov A.A. Particularities of thinking process in children. //Socionics... N 3. 1997.
 57. Ovcharov A.A. Personal types and management. //Socionics... N 4. 1997.
 58. Petrova E. Connection of speech styles in Russian language with changing state of human mind (in the connection of Jung psychology types). //Socionics... N 1. 1996.
 59. Pimenova L.V. Informational aspect of psycho-therapeutic influence on the alcoholics. // Socionics... N 1. 1996.
 60. Prilepskaya N.A. Playroom in socionic diagnostics and children consulting. //Socionics... N 1. 1997.
 61. Prilepskaya N.A. Child and gender. //Socionics... N 5. 1997.
 62. Reinin G.R. Typology of small groups. //Socionics... N 3. 1996.
 63. Roslankina Ju.V., Eglit I.M., Piatnitskiy V.V. Some experiences in social rehabilitation of senior years students. //Socionics... N 5. 1996.
 64. Rumiantseva E.A. Socionics and solution of pedagogic problems. //Report on the International science-practical conference - Moscov-Kostroma. 1992.
 65. Румянцева Е. А. Формирование у будущих учителей коммуникативных умений на основе теории информационного метаболизма. Автореф. канд. дисс. / Научн.рук. проф. Л. Ф. Спирин. - Костроме. 1996.
 66. Румянцева Е. А. Формирование у будущих учителей умений общаться с учениками с использованием концепции соционики. - Конаш, ЧГПИ. 1994.
 67. Rumiantseva T.A., Yermak V.D. Моделирование личности и социальной группы. //Socionics... N 1. 1996.
 68. Румянцева Т. А., Ермак В. Д. Организация служб эксплуатации СОТС с использование теории информационного метаболизма. - М.: Машиностроитель. N 11. 1996.
 69. Самойлова И. Г. Интегральный тип информационного метаболизма малой группы в производственной организации. - Диссертация, Ярославский унивеситет, научный рук. д.п.н. Новиков В.В., 1996.
 70. Спирин Л. Ф, Румянцева Е. А., Румянцева Т. А. Socionics - учителям и родителям. (Как обрести взаимопонимание, согласие, дружбу). /Под ред. д.пед.н. М. И. Рожкова. -М.: Международная педагогическая академия. 1999.
 71. Taratukhin S.A. Identifying and analyze of integrated type of informational metfbolism of USA military counter-intelligence. //Socionics... N 5. 1998.
 72. Tikhonov A.P., Lapina I.V. Certain observations on socionics and hiking. //Socionics... N 6. 1997.
 73. Ushakova N.Ye. Identifying of M.Tzvetaeva's type. //Socionics... N 3. 1995.
 74. Ushakova N.Ye. Functional orientation of socionic types in medical science. //Socionics... N 6. 1998.
 75. Fedorov V.A. Difficulties in the using socionics in the work with narcologics patients and ways of there overcoming. //Socionics... N 1. 1996.
 76. Chykyrysova G.V. Identifying of S.P.Korolev's type. //Socionics... N 1. 1995.
 77. Churyumov S.I. Socionics and philosophy, or the world never changes. //Socionics... NN 1-3. 1998.
 78. Churyumov S.I. Socionics as methodology. //Socionics... N 1. 1996.
 79. Shekhter F.Ya, Kobrinskaya L.N. Small groups in socionics. //Socionics... N 1. 1997.
 80. Shulman G.A. Aspects, functions, TIMs, people. Psychological functions acc. to K.G.Jung in models of human psyche (from integrity fragments cycle). //Socionics... N 6. 1998.
 81. Shulman G.A. К вопросу о "странной судьбе" интуитивно-логических экстратимов. //Socionics... N 1. 1995.
 82. Shulman G.A. Феномен локальной амнестической афазии и некоторые иные сюрпризы асимметричных отношений. //Socionics... N 2. 1995.
 83. Shulman G.A., Kaminsky V.R. Intertype relations in socium and family (or other durably isolated minor group - (DIMG)). //Socionics... N 5. 1997.

as stated above, the page needs a major overhaul and needs to be written in accordance with existing materials. it probably also needs a little bit of leniency in terms of linking to online articles due to the ways that russian socionists have mostly made use of the internet in disseminating materials in english; that's where they've put their articles. while a link farm doesn't have the reputation of a source published in a peer-reviewed journal, there's nothing inherently wrong with links as a bibliographical resource, particularly if they reference articles that are well sourced (which many online articles do).

also of some note; i know of two books in english written on the topic of socionics by julia varabyova and spencer stern, respectively, even though i personally think they're terrible. neither takes a scientific approach.

Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 05:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC

right, this would amount to a definite keep for socionics, but still to a merge/redirect/delete for all the others. --dab (𒁳) 09:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These references come back to the problem that prompted me to propose this in the first place: they are almost all from proponents. I am not getting any confidence from these various investigations that anyone outside cares about socionics. Mangoe (talk) 15:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

think WP:Pokemon test. So this is some cranky scheme from the old Soviet days. I find it interesting, and a credit to Wikipedia to be covering it. Also, regional bias, we aren't exactly drowning in Soviet era pop culture.

the irony is, of course, that we have a huge library of articles on "socionics", while the properly notable Psychological Types, Jung's book this is apparently all based on, has a dilapidated stub article. If this is really and truly unnotable, we can still merge socionics into a section at personality type at some later time. --dab (𒁳) 16:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

in response to mangoe's comment, i largely understand your concerns. it's true that socionics sources are largely from russian proponents of the theory, and for certain many people see it as generally pseudoscience and not worth spending time on. there are a couple select cases of it being used for external applications (for example, the russian military has played around with it, and there's an article on it by some brazilian lawyer, recommending it as a tool for law enforcement (article in portugese)). granted, these are extremely obscure applications. unfortunately, i don't personally know the extent to which it's used for applications of industrial psychology in russia and ukraine in a similar way to what MBTI enjoys in western nations, though i have heard of it being used for these features as well. i think also the multiplicity of primary source materials and people interested in it in russia may also qualify it as notable. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Russia there are also notable factions that consider socionics a pseudoscience and even go so far as to debunk it scholarly and in public universities. The scholars in the russian speaking world tend to have better ideas on how to criticize socionics. Mostly in part to the fact that they have a better idea of "its foundation" and therefore even the criticism of socionics is mostly in russia. Basically the only people who speak on behalf of socionics in the west are those who are proponents of the theory and unfortunately as it seems that only the proponents speak, there tends to be a fairly large amount of unsubstantiated inference on the nature of socionics, causing false information about socionics that gives false positive highlighting to the theory that actually should not be said at all. For example, the fact that socionics is being falsely presented as something "scientific", "psychological" or like "MBTI" when in the east it is a common thing for practitioners to mix chakras, new age thought and practices in with their socionics. --Rmcnew (talk) 21:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

while fraudulent and incorrect, i fail to see the relevance of this point in regards to socionics' notability. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 03:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion on why the Socionics article deletion would potentially be a good thing taking the circumstances

First off I should probably state who I am. I am officially recognized in Russia and the United States as a practicing socionists. I studied Religion, Theology, Metaphysics, Biblical Languages, at a University in Texas for 4 years, and the German language at a University in Northern California for 3 years, where I had the opportunity to exchange to Tuebingen University in Tuebingen, Germany to study Theology, and improve my Greek. I have studied socionics since 2003 and was the owner of the largest english speaking socionics forum the16types.info since 2005 (bought from Jimmy Caretti) until I sold it in late 2008. Since that time I formed the forum metasocion.com in order to present socionics in its natural form, as I found the "the the16types.info" crowd to be both extremely ignorant and prejudiced against presenting socionics the way that the founders had originally presented it. You can see some of my socionic credentials below:

http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Reuben_McNew http://www.typelab.ru/en/1.begin/index.html http://www.socioniki.info/index.php/2008-11-05-20-39-51

It is my personal opinion that all socionics articles should be deleted until it is agreed by everyone that it is a good idea to give a neutral presentation of the origin of socionics that discusses its esoteric development and gives mention to the fact that esoteric interpretations of chakras, tattwas, and psychic energy and mysticism in general were the main basis that the founders of socionics based their theory upon, and that from this socionics was formulated and later "framed to appear to be something like Jung or MBTI" and that "mystical interpretations of socionics type theory have descended directly from the founders and exist to this day" and that "there is a split between those of the opinion that socionics is something empirical and that socionics is something mystical." The multitude of sources that have been presented have already shown this. However, taking that there are people who would rather take unneutral views of socionics and present socionics in a way contrary to its origin [meaning in a frame which presents it as a form similar to MBTI or Jung with no mention of its esoteric background] I would be in favor of deleteing all socionics articles. I think that those who are opposed to an esoteric presentation of socionics should either come to terms that it would be correct to allow some information in some form to neutrally portray socionics esoteric background or to be content with the deletion of the whole of all of the information. --Rmcnew (talk) 20:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked by the above editor to comment. Here, as in similar cases, we can not make a judgment about who has the authentic tradition. But a desire to have an article eliminated because it does not express one's own views is antithetical to the entire idea of the encyclopedia, DGG (talk) 23:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not going to happen because even among metaphysicians there are disagreements with your stance. You'll never get a blank check with that thesis. Now you can say, "The information element system is a modern incarnation of the ancient technique of intuitive abstraction, which was earlier used to create the tattvas", because that would be true. I suspect that's what you are trying to say, but you're not using the right words. You need to work on your delivery. Tcaudilllg (talk) 23:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I would rather seek a compromise where the esoteric nature and therefore mystical approach that exists within socionics theory become recognized along with the empirical approach. I am simply against "hiding this information" in order to make false claims and spread false origins about socionics, which is technically what the proponents of socionics have been doing all along to make it appealing to the west, and it seems no one else except for my self have been doing any amount of speaking against it. I don't actually want all the information deleted, but deleteing all the information would be better than to have a biased article defended by a bunch of people unneutrally calling a legitimate view in socionics "unneutral" when in reality a form of recognition to the esoteric nature would give socionics respectability even among the critics. That is besides the fact that there is a legitimate socionics subculture decending from the founders which does indeed use mystical approaches with socionics. --Rmcnew (talk) 23:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In consideration to what tcaudilllg just said concerning the tattwas, you can state it that way and you would be correct. But it is also correct to state that there is undeniable evidence to support that socionics is a plagiarization of knowledge that use to be keeped secret by magic orders, such as the golden dawn and roscrucianism, and it would be true. However, I don't think that a balsy statements such as that would really go over well with people who want to think socionics is something useful to them and despise the thought of practicing anything that was ever involved with a magic order. So yeah, it is probably an issue with wording. --Rmcnew (talk) 23:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep parent article Socionics per reasonable source merge all others. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mangoe pointed out on my talkpage that the book is discussing an alternative meaning for the word. I'll therefore make no judgment on the notability of the parent topic, but recommend that all the articles be merged. No objection to a new AfD after that has been done. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is too complex for one article. Truthfully speaking, there is enough material and enough differences of opinion to make each type article as long as the main article: in the context of the theory itself, there should be a plethora of different views (16 in fact) with respect to each idea. Socionists hold themselves subject to the central axiom of the theory, the concept of type, which explains many of their divergences in emphasis quite well and, in fact, predictably. Tcaudilllg (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My understanding of an encyclopedia is that one of it's role is to illuminate and educate. The delete-worthiness or otherwise of these articles to one side, I have to say that none of these articles seem to me to be either illuminating or educative. The subject matter may be important and the references sufficiently lofty for inclusion here, but I as a layman have garnered no real insight into what socionics is from reading these. Forgiveness please if my comment is not helpful to this process. Teh Crafty One (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

on the contrary, i think this type of comment is perfectly legitimate and helpful feedbackt. personally, i agree with you, and i think the page needs a major rewrite. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 01:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is difficult for those who have steeped themselves into the "lore" to remember how difficult it was for them. :) Tcaudilllg (talk) 01:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all into Socionics: there appears to be enough third-party material for an article on the topic. As a side note, the individual type articles are unreadable if you don't have an images-enabled web browser. --Carnildo (talk) 00:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into two articles: Socionics (sociology) for the concept developed by Germans since 1980s and Socionics (psychology) for all post-Soviet psychological and semi-psychological concepts related to interpersonal compatibility. These two are of completely different origin. As for various clones of the post-Soviet socionics, they do not deserve special articles and must be merged into one. --Dmitri Lytov (talk) 10:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First off there is quite a bit of information (RS) on Socionics just not that much in English. It is generally recognized that the two theories that came out of Jung's typology were Socionics and Myers-Briggs. There wasn't very much cultural exchange between the society union and the English speaking world around WWII and thereafter so Myers-Briggs took root here. So deleting this article in my opinion would represent very strong bias towards English language / western sources. As far as the 16 type articles (Ethical Intuitive Extrovert, Ethical Intuitive Introvert, etc..) I wish this had been a separate discussion. My feeling is right now they don't have enough content to justify their existence; but I don't think such content is unachievable. I'd lean towards keep in the hope that they start to evolve to actually have independent information and at worst are harmless; but have no real objections if they were deleted, so on these I'm a weak keep Finally on Information Metabolism I don't have an informed opinion so I'm not offering one, neutral jbolden1517 ^Talk 13:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beginning to get pretty frustrated at having to belabor this, but "generally recognized" by whom? Look, I would back down on this if people could give me good citations on this, but what I'm getting instead is material about the unrelated German development, and endless articles from a socionics organization which apparently nobody but its proponents care about. Mangoe (talk) 14:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK I'll give you one. Keirsey (#1 most read MBTI author) who in several articles specifically mentions he is using the "western Jungian theory based on MBTI" with the obvious implication there is an Eastern theory (Socionics). jbolden1517 ^Talk

The post-Soviet socionics is by far not scientific and contains IMHO a lot of pop-psychological garbage, but at least it is a significant cultural phenomenon in the former USSR, with numerous books published on this topic. The German socionics has nothing to do with this phenomenon and with psychology in general; as far as I know, it's a method of computer modeling of social networks. --Dmitri Lytov (talk) 06:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all and rename the page. No need for all the spin-off pages. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should have a discussion of whether or not to eliminate the MBTI type articles, as well. Tcaudilllg (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sure, why not? Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 02:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, people need to know about this stuff. The people at the16types.info are not wackos. They have discovered this system, and applied it meaningfully in their own lives. There is clear utility in teaching people about socionics. Moreover, there is immediate utility for the Jungian analyst: a leading socionist, Aleksandr Boukalov, has created the Model B to reconcile socionics with apparent discrepancies between Augustinavicute's ideas and Jung's. In so doing he has not only clarified the meaning of Jung's work, but has designed the first system to model consciousness in an intelligible manner. (see http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&langpair=ru%7Cen&u=http://www.socionics.ibc.com.ua/t/as696.html&rurl=translate.google.com&client=tmpg) Tcaudilllg (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reigning criticism of socionics is | here. It is considered authoritative and is referred to the defining statement among analytic psychologists. (Socionics is really a branch of analytic psychology, as all Jungian-derived typologies are). Tcaudilllg (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is the ideal means of introducing people to socionics. Wikisocion is not. The site has a behaviorist tone which is contrary to mainstream socionics opinion. When these criticisms were pointed out | by dissenters, the admin, Rick DeLong, argued that there was room for multiple perspectives and multiple paths. Consensus is not a priority for him. Finally, those who cross DeLong will find they are unwelcome at Wikisocion: | as I found out. Tcaudilllg (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: which does Wikipedia recommend: individual articles for the socionics types on Wikipedia, or their inclusion in a wikibook? If the wikibook is a better option in Wikipedia's judgment, then I will side with the "merge all" argument. Tcaudilllg (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted by Closedmouth as an Unambiguous copyright infringement. Non admin closure. A new name 2008 (talk) 12:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gothic progressive metal[edit]

Unbelievable original research. Cannibaloki 02:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, original research. -Binary TSO ^??? 02:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy as copyvio, and marked as such. Aditya ^α _ß 06:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 16:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Da STRANGER[edit]

No indication of notability RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 02:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not pass WP:BIO, or WP:MUSICBIO, and a google search pulls up no hits other than his website, and a few sites selling his cds. A google news search pulls up nothing at all. Fingerz ^On'Roids 03:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maybe a speedy A7. Zero notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Should be speedied per A7. LK (talk) 08:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a CSD A7. One two three... 10:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. Completely infested with point of view and it reads like a promotional copy. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 13:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7 as others have suggested- should have been tagged immediately after creation, can't believe it survived a month. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 15:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Rolo Tomassi. MBisanz ^talk 23:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Love Turbulence[edit]

Non notable album. Delete or merge with artist. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 00:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Rolo Tomassi. If the nom is OK w merge, why are we here? StarM 00:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. ChildofMidnight (talk) 10:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 16:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quickie helium[edit]

Blatant product placement / fails notability Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 00:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Product placement. It fails notability as this product is no more notable than any other one Rirunmot (talk) 01:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, no reliable sources to establish notability. Just appears to get product noticed. A new name 2008 (talk) 01:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing notable here. Agree with Rirunmot. Chamal ^talk 08:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Should be speedy deleted per G11 – it's blatant product placement. No claim made for notability. LK (talk) 08:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Rolo Tomassi. MBisanz ^talk 23:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rolo_Tomassi_/_Throats_Split[edit]

Non notable release. Delete or merge with artist. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 00:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Rolo Tomassi, although title is not a likely search StarM 00:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and rd to Rolo Tomassi. JJL (talk) 02:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Nothing to merge due to the lack of reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 09:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Westberlin Maskulin. MBisanz ^talk 23:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battlekings[edit]

Non-notable album. Delete or merge with the artist entry. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 00:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Westberlin Maskulin, which doesn't need AfD StarM 00:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge No notable coverage of album. LK (talk) 10:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 22:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Burrows[edit]

The Article is unclear if it is concerning a person or a book has no references which are reliable. Submitted article is deleted. //Melonite (talk) 18:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

its hard to get further references, but i do have at least one. the article is on the author, who is known mostly for this title. the book is published by 2 major publishers, random house and running press. the book itself is the reference for the material on the author. since its not self published, i think the material should stand as referenced. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i note that the user who tagged this article for deletion is blocked, one of the (minor?) complaints was tagging articles for deletion excessively. I found the phrase "submitted article is deleted" odd. i hope when others review this article they will acknowledge this history and view the article objectively. though i disagree, i think a case can be made for making the article about the book series rather than the author, but i welcome any comments provided here. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Can be improved, and subject is obviously notable. AFD deletes topics, not articles. The content can always be made better.Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 22:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Sources cited aren't really that good, but should be enough to establish notability. LK (talk) 09:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I dont see any significant coverage in any of the refs listed (though I cant read the books listed, they dont seem like the kind of sources that would confer notability on this individual) Corpx (talk) 08:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Really no clear consensus here. There are Google sources to establish notability, but links in the article are listed as external links and not references, further not in English (which is preferred on the English Wikipedia). I suggest editors of the article get this inline with policy. Overall notability can be established and the article needs work, but no clear consensus to delete. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SH906i[edit]

Product placement. Also fails notability as this phone is no more notable than any other phone. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 00:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is not uncommon for mobiles to have their own articles and a Google search shows significant coverage by secondary sources. Aditya ^α _ß

Keep: Notable in Japan. High-end SHARP phones sell more than Nokias by myriads in Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. AfD argument is blatant western-centrism. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 07:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~changing !vote. see below: How is this notable? Is it incorporating any new or unique technology or are its sales high or what? I tried to find info like this, but couldn't. The article just describes a normal phone like any other and unless something notable about it is there to be included, I think we should delete it. Chamal ^talk 08:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think coverage by secondary sources satisfies notability. Aditya ^α _ß 08:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, why don't you delete Nokia 5070, Nokia 3110, Nokia 8850, Nokia 1600 and Nokia E51 for the same reason? How are they notable? Again, you are following the idea of argumentum ad populum, where the coverage in Japan does not count, but rather of only those that you recognize. This would be the fallacy of Argument from ignorance. Go onto Yahoo.jp, and I am sure, there will be more hits than "Nokia N95". The inclusion of the latter few because they are from Nokia, and not Sharp, is systematically a form of bias. Also, how is this not notable? Why is there a perfectly existing page on the Japanese Wikipedia, w:jp:SH906i, does this void your argument regarding notability altogether? QUOTE: Is it incorporating any new or unique technology or are its sales high or what? Name me one phone from the western hemisphere, created in mid-to-early 2008, for western consumers, with a 3.0+ inch screen, apart from the iPhone. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 10:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Aditya ^α _ß 11:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just about every phone is covered by secondary sources. I don't think that itself is enough to assert notability in this case. Benlisquare, how about being a little less aggressive? I'm not going over OTHERSTUFFEXISTS again, but the notability of the subject should be clearly given in the article and not given through offhand comments in AFD discussions. If it is so popular as you say, this data would naturally be available. Include these sources and information. All that is available now is just a description of the phone. Chamal ^talk 02:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The notability of this phone is not clearly explained. However, so is the W580i, or W910i, or the numerous Nokia phones that have seen the light of the day. In fact, if only the clearly important articles are kept, then Wikipedia might as well be taken offline, because there would only be so many articles with significant importance. I do not think covering each model of different Logitech mice clearly important, nor do I think that having different pages for different types of tea clearly important. However, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform users, regardless of the number of users, about a topic if they do seek information for that particular topic. -Edwin- (talk) 07:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is again another WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Also, Wikipedia:Notability is moot according to what you say. Look, the author and other people knowledgeable about the subject may know why it's notable, but how the heck is the reader supposed to know if it's not given in the article? I'm not asking you people to lose a leg, I'm just asking you to provide details in the article as to why it's notable. I don't have a problem changing my !vote if this can be done. Chamal ^talk 08:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify; it has been mentioned here several times that the phone has a large number of users and is popular. This would be enough IMO, and should be added to the article with a ref. The external links given in the article (which also seem to have been used as references) include Sharp's page on the phone and a softpedia article. If the links given here are RS, please add them also to the article as references. A simple description of the phone is all that is available now, and I don't see why you can't add all the information you mentioned here in the AFD discussion to the article as well.Chamal ^talk 08:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some info (turns out there was something important about the phone and it is covered in english sites too) and the edits today have improved the article somewhat. I'm changing to Neutral. Just wish we had used the time we spent here bickering to find these intstead. Chamal ^talk 13:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I see no evidence that the phone has been covered by external reliable sources. LK (talk) 08:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consider expansion over deletion. You can help to contribute on Wikipedia by improving. Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't make it non-notable. Consider consumers located on the other side of the world. SHARP/docomo makes some of the most high-end phones in Japan, and the SH906i is one of them; so to preserve this article, there is a number of things which need to be done. Firstly, moving to Sharp SH906i would be logical. Second, to add inline citations (right now, it provides a few external links). Then, a quick cleanup may help as well. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 10:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You want external sources? Here they are:

Regards, -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 11:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is unrelated, but WP:RS might be of interest to you. Aditya ^α _ß 11:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This AfD, as of now, is null and void as per AfD guidelines, as not all AfD steps have been met; the original author has not yet to be informed, as required by AfD policy. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 11:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please. AfDs don't become "null and void" if the author isn't informed. Assume good faith and inform the author yourself if you wish. The AfD was listed today, right? It's not closing today. An error of a few hours is inconsequential. Aditya ^α _ß 11:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete cause 李博杰 says keep. (yes I know. no need to tell me.). Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Now you're just being unreasonable. User:-Edwin- —Preceding undated comment added 07:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- ? -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 15:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. No admin will take this vote into account. Aditya ^α _ß 15:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck the vote now. AfD isn't a joke. Aditya ^α _ß 17:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. And call me an ethnocentrist all you want, I don't see the notability. Nor do I see adding more articles over non-notable stuff or explanding articles about non-notable stuff as improving WP. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. And I remind those who need reminding that badgering people to change their 'vote' will achieve nothing (WP:VOTE). Another issue is that of sources asserting notability. It's clear external links have been provided (note, they are in the section 'external links', not 'references'), but, in all frankness, I can't read them. I can't, therefore, judge them to be either reliable or asserting the notability of the cell phone in question. For all I know, they're talking about the notability of fried plantains. And this is english Wikipedia. I would expect most sources to be in english. --Slartibartfast1992 20:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 01:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:V specifically contradicts you about sources needing to be in English. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, thanks for pointing that out. Don't know how I missed it, totally my bad. However, it does say that English sources are preferable. I naturally prefer what's preferable. Certainly a couple of English sources would do no harm.
    I guess it's not so much what the sources are saying, though, but rather what the pages look like. I don't mean to sound overly concerned with the aesthetic, but these pages just don't look reliable. I took the liberty of plugging a random one of these pages into Babelfish translator, and the translation confirmed my ongoing suspicion that it was indeed a catalog. Catalogs for a product hardly seem like a reliable, third party source asserting the notability of the product in question. No notability asserted generally means that the article cannot be kept. --Slartibartfast1992 07:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The reason I included those links were because they were the ones present in the Japanese Wikipedia. I can definitely find some sources from DoCoMo themselves if you would like. -Edwin- (talk) 07:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - That'd be great. If I can tell they're reliable, I just might change my opinion to a keep --Slartibartfast1992 07:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As the original writer of this article, I have several reasons to keep this article.

First, this phone has a large custom-user base outside of Japan. I personally also own this phone, and I was blessed that I can read Japanese, so I was able to look up the specs from the Japanese wiki. However, for those who cannot read Japanese, it is important to have a place to go where it is possible to read such info.

Secondly, it is not uncommon for phones to have their own article. For example, the Sony Ericsson W580i is not special at all in any shape or form, but its article is longer and more detailed than this. I do not see people screaming to delete that particular article, either. Or for anther example, the LG KE970 Shine, which I also own. That has no special notability for LG or the world either. No firsts, not innovations, just a shiny screen, but it has its own article in good standing. Hence, there is absolutely no reason to not have this article, or to delete this article.

Thirdly, Wikipedia is supposed to be a aggregate of all knowledge of humankind. While that's overstating this article's importance, I still think it's important to consider all contributions no matter how small.

Furthermore, for those who stated that the sources are all in a foreign language, that's the truth for these things that were not meant for foreign use. Many other articles have exclusively foreign sources but those are not considered for deletion. I feel like I am being discriminated for writing something that does not see massive mainstream appeal.-Edwin- (talk) 07:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Just completed a series of major changes to the article: Rename to a better title, added a few inline refs, restructuring, copied GFDL images from the JP Wiki. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 09:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Can a Japanese speaker confirm whether or not the above posted links confer notability, as in do they provide "significant coverage" for the phone? One of those links looks like a blog, so I think that's out. If they do indeed provide significant coverage, then it should be kept, just as we'd keep the Motorola RAZR. I personally dont think a company such as sharp would engage in product placement on WP Corpx (talk) 08:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I speak Japanese, and I took a look at the sources. Of course, I put them in there, so it does have relevance. One of the sources is from DoCoMo, the carrier of the phone themselves. The other is from a site similar to the English GSMArena.com which independently covers mobile handsets. The GSMArena-like site, Keitai-watch, is a reputable mobile handset reviewer in Japan. -Edwin- (talk) 20:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Could someone please explain to me how there are 158 handset articles in Category:Nokia mobile phones? There is no way that all of them can be considered notable; Nokia may well be the leading manufacturer, but they are not that innovative. Sharp are currently a relatively small player in the world mobile market, but they have been a top supplier in Japan for many years. And don't forget that they supply LCDs to numerous other manufacturers, including Nokia! Sharp handsets are under-represented in Wikipedia compared to other companies (as shown above) and many of the handsets that would be considered notable (eg GX10 -- first camera phone into many markets) are absent. I realise that this is not making the notability of this particular handset more obvious, but it is certainly not product placement (I would have hoped Sharp could have provided a more detailed spec, for example!) What I'm asking for is a level playing field. I understand that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a sufficient argument to keep it, but if this article is deleted I would hope that the notability of ALL the other mobile phone handset articles would be considered too. [Note that I have marked this as 'comment' rather than 'keep', as I must declare a COI here.] -- EdJogg (talk) 11:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to mention 44 in Category:LG Electronics mobile phones, 63 in Category:Motorola mobile phones, 89 in Category:Samsung mobile phones. and 77 in Category:Sony Ericsson mobile phones. What's the difference another 1 out of 7 for Category:Sharp mobile phones will it make? And it seems that opponents are not worried about non-innovative Sony Ericsson phones cluttering up Wikipedia, yet this particular phone is of great and particular concern? Is this of any great logic, or am I blatantly incorrect? -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 12:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that I'm not worried about the other phones, it's that I happened to stumble on this page because it showed up on WikiProject Physics' recently created articles list. If there are 44 LG phones, 89 Samsung, etc..., they too should be considered for deletion IMO. However it would probably be more reasonable to merge these articles into lists by manufacturers (or by series if they get really long) than to blanket delete them. Very few phones should have their standalone article, much like very few mp3 players have them. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 13:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't create articles based on statistics. But I agree with you that some (maybe most) of these articles do not qualify WP:N. Some brands (eg: Nokia) are popular in the western world, from where most Wikipedia editors are from. That is obviously why there are articles on these and not on products intended for the Asian market. Asia and Africa are under-representated in all areas and not only this. But that does not mean we should fill the place with articles that are not conforming with Wikipedia guidelines. Chamal ^talk 13:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case which you are arguing that the Western bias is justified, I will vehemently argue against that. Just because Wikipedia is western based does not allow the English one to become a biased collection of articles against the Eastern nations. -Edwin- (talk) 20:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The correct argument, Edwin, is that how are all 158 Nokia phones notable? How are they different, significant towards society, using new technologies? I'd doubt that all 158 fall into such a category. Then, why is it that notability is one of the arguments against the SH906i, where there are clearly a whole range of articles which are non-notable. Do Two wrongs make a right? And you are lynching Negroes? I believe all this talk on "this Japanese phone" being non-notable simply because a western "audience" has never heard of it is rather foolish. Why are we even onto this? This argument should have never even arose in the first place. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 07:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have participated in numerous AFDs for mobile phones - there was an editor who kept nominating them. For the most part, those articles were kept because such topics are notable by virtue of the coverage in third party sources - reviews and the like. Phones are not required to demonstrate any particular importance because importance is not at all the idea of notability - the point is to identify topics which others have written about. This phone seems quite similar to those other cases and, as we have adequate sources, should be kept too. At the very least, the content would be merged with a higher level article upon the range of phones or the manufacturer. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. only two keeps were by the original author. Generally the deletes were inline with established policy. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great south band[edit]

I've initially deleted the article but flipped back on my decision as being border-line a speedy candidate. The main concern was the notability of the group (not making WP:MUSIC). JForget 01:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability for young band. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've searched for sources both in Google News archives here and in a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, but could not find any relevant sources that would help support WP:N notability of this band. Delete unless more sources turn up. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is the original author here, hello. I understand the notability concerns of all in this discussion, and will endeavour to address those concerns.

The article meets notability criteria C9 (won or placed in a major music competition). The Australian Children’s Music Foundation runs the National Songwriting Competition for primary and secondary school aged children in Australia. The patron and founder is Don Spencer, OAM (Order of Australia Medal) an icon in Australian Children’s TV for many years. Ambassadors for the foundation include actor Russell Crowe, The Wiggles, Rolf Harris MBE, OBE, CBE, Australian Idol judge Ian ‘Dicko’ Dickson and Andrew Fariss from INXS. Judges for their competition in 2008 included industry notables like Ian Dickson, and Amanda Pelman, It Takes Two judge. The article references the First Prize award received by lead singer Shenoa South in the Environment category of this competition in 2008. The recorded entry was performed entirely by members of the Great South Band.

It could be said that the article also meets notability criteria C4 (non-trivial coverage in a reliable source ...) as it has received coverage in a reliable source, the Zhongshan Daily newspaper (Email:rbnews@zsrb.cn) when members of the Great South Band toured that area of China in October 2008. Date of newspaper article is 5th October. I have been given a copy of the original in Chinese characters, and I’m currently trying to track down a reference to an online or English version.

Coverage in both TV and radio also occurred and although less than half an hour, those Chinese news stories do go some way to meeting notability criteria C12 (subject of a half hour or longer broadcast ...). JohnSouthgate 08:00, 27 June 2009 (AEST)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I was unfamiliar with the ACMF National Songwriting Competition, and therefore was unsure of its notability as a major competition. However, after some searching, I found a reliable article about the competition.[27] It would seem that winning this competition is enough to be considered notable within Wikipedia policy. However, according to the newspaper article, Shenoa South was the one who won the competition. So that wouldn't apply to making the entire band notable. The band wasn't even mentioned in the North Shore Times article. In other words, the article either needs to get a reliable source about the band, not just one of its members. I would compare this to an award winning actress. Just because the actress is notable, that doesn't mean the whole cast of a movie she starred in is notable. I say weak delete because I'm believing the article's creator on the fact that the notablility is out there, and he will try and fix the issues. However, it's not a new argument, and it's not always true. So, delete if notability can't be established in another way. Also, the fact that notability is met if the band has been the subject of a broadcast by a media network needs to be verified somehow.

--Abusing (talk) 03:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unaware of the ACMF National Songwriting Competition. Why? Because it is a minor competition. Without evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources there is no notability here. Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware of every major competition? Are you sure there aren't notable competitions you aren't aware of?--Abusing (talk) 02:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is the original author here again. From Abusing’s comments, it would seem that winning this competition is enough to be considered notable within Wikipedia policy. Thank you, I agree.

Abusing goes on to suggest that the award winner and subject of the wikipedia article are two different entities, and that notability is not established for Great South Band by the competition win, but for Shenoa South.

But I would like to advise that ”Great South Band”, is often billed as Shenoa South and special guests. Shenoa is founder, songwriter and lead vocalist of the band and it carries her surname. And it is not the same as Dave Matthews Band and Dave Matthews which have separate wikipedia articles. Shenoa’s band is still relatively young and it makes sense to combine the total content of the two entities into a single article.

Notability is supported in another way. I can now refer you to the online version of newspaper coverage which addresses notability criteria C4 (non-trivial coverage in a reliable source ...) at [28]

I apologise for not being able to translate the Chinese characters, but if you can skip to second page of October 5th 2008 edition, you will see a photo of Shenoa South at the piano along with drummer and guitarist.

Also, it was suggested “broadcast by a media network needs to be verified somehow”. Offline video and audio records of the TV and radio broadcasts do in fact exist, and lend support to C12, but as pointed out previously their lengths are less than required half hour.

Duffbeerforme – you are asking for “significant coverage” of the referenced competition to establish the article’s notability on the basis of C4. However, the music notability criteria does not refer to significant coverage, and refers twice to non-trivial coverage. Abusing’s reference to the news.com.au article is consistent with non-trivial coverage, as the site is a portal for major Australian news and current affairs internet and print publications.

JohnSouthgate 20:03, 3rd July 2009 (AEST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.48.95 (talk) 10:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of video games published by Nintendo. MBisanz ^talk 23:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of franchises established on Nintendo consoles[edit]

This list is overly specific - I don't see the merit of what brand of console a franchise was "established" on, not to mention that the franchise may have been a multiplatform release. There are no references and the list is the only one of its kind. While categorizing what company owns the franchise is important, this is overdoing it. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete – seems a tad trivial of an intersection. MuZemike 21:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and rd to List of video games published by Nintendo; duplicative, as franchises adds little else. JJL (talk) 02:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Information covered in List of video games published by Nintendo. Aditya ^α _ß 05:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per JJL, basically. This is far too similar to the numerous other categorisations we have already. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 19:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although some of these games aren't on the List of video games published by Nintendo (some of these are third-party published games on the consoles), there really isn't any need for this kind of list. If we were to keep this, we'd have to have List of franchises established on Sega consoles, List of franchises established on Sony consoles, and etc. -- right now, this is just a content fork. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 07:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We wouldn't have to do anything. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Aditya ^α _ß 18:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Duckworth[edit]

One of the two mathematicians/statisticians who developed the Duckworth-Lewis method for for recalculating runs targets in one-day cricket or Twenty20 cricket matches interrupted by weather or other circumstances. With greatest respect to Mr Duckworth, I would argue that article would appear to fail WP:NNC, WP:PEOPLE, and if despite these, still WP:GNG
Shirt58 (talk) 12:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also Delete: Tony_Lewis_(mathematician), for substantially the same reasons as above.--Shirt58 (talk) 12:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge both to Duckworth-Lewis method. Aditya ^α _ß 13:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've withdrawn my !vote. I'm now neutral on this issue. Aditya ^α _ß 14:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 14:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 14:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 14:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above - Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both. I think they pass WP:PROF #7 (significant non-academic impact of an academic work). Note that, although Duckworth's a fellow of the RSS, that only means that he pays an annual membership fee (it's not an elected honor) so he doesn't also pass #3, and I don't think RSS News is enough for #8. But there is also enough press that's specifically about Duckworth (and not just about his cricket scoring system), as I've added to the article, that I think he passes WP:BIO in his own right and should also be kept for that reason: if a New York Times headline calls someone a star, I think it's safe to conclude that they're notable. I haven't put as much effort into Lewis' article but I'm pretty sure it should be kept for all the same reasons. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both. Signifcant impact on the game of cricket. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Duckworth per David Eppstein and both based on the extensive coverage of their contribution to cricket (NYTimes, Cricinfo etc), although that contribution also has its own article. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 02:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question. I clumsily appended Tony Lewis to this discussion. It would seem that Duckworth's article has much stronger claim to notability than Lewis's. Nevertheless, it would appear that there are good reasons why both articles should be merged into Duckworth-Lewis method. Should Tony Lewis be AfD'd separately? --Shirt58 (talk) 11:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC) (nb: I started both articles, and would initially argue for deletion of both. It would seem that I was wrong to admit that I was wrong, and possibly that I was wrong to admit that I was wrong to admit that I was wrong. O tempora o mores![reply]
- You could withdraw your nomination for Tony Lewis from this AfD and start a new one. Give a prominent link from here and optionally leave a note on the talk pages of everyone who has contributed so far. Nobody above has expressed an opinion only about Tony Lewis so I don't see that as an issue. Thryduulf (talk) 12:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article says "He is also known for a system of quantifying risk perception." That notability even if he'd never heard of cricket. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Duckworth as the Duckworth (INES) scale of risk has generated coverage outside academia and could also be worthy of coverage in Wikipedia (perhaps not a separate article but as a section of e.g. risk perception). It therefore avoids possible duplication to have brief biographical info on him at one place rather than merging.
I'm not so sure about Lewis though: Extending the spirit of WP:BIO1E to "one thing" rather than "one event" suggests there's no need for a separate article on Lewis. An archived copy of his page at Oxford Brookes University gives no indication that he's worked on anything else of encyclopedic interest apart from Duckworth-Lewis or that he would pass WP:PROF on other grounds, so I think one or two sentences on him in the Duckworth-Lewis article would suffice. Qwfp (talk) 20:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both. Both are significant individuals in their own right. Content is verifiable, so I see no harm. –Moondyne 00:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've removed Tony Lewis (mathematician) from this discussion and nominated the article separately: that article may not meet notability criteria as Frank Duckworth apparently does - see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_July_1#Tony_Lewis_.28mathematician.29
--Shirt58 (talk) 12:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Lewis (mathematician) is the direct link to the debate. Thryduulf (talk) 15:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keeep appears to meet notability. Artw (talk) 18:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 09:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Parental Advisory albums[edit]

I feel this article fails at serving a purpose. It also has misleading information, and is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. KMFDM FAN ^(talk!) 21:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The list has no end in sight......also depends on OR in large part. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a collection of indiscriminate information. Reso lute 04:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List serves a purpose. Needs to be sourced though, which would take care of the OR concerns. Aditya ^α _ß 05:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Topic seems to be trying to be a directory and doesn;t seem like it is discriminate in an encyclopedic way. This list isn't a notable subject any more than any other list of anything is. Are these really all the albums? ChildofMidnight (talk) 10:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : I don't see how a list can be OR, simply looking something up is not OR or the whole project needs to stop. Since no original conclusions or ideas are introduced, OR should not be an issue. However, I'm not really sure what the point is any more than I understood why you need a list of insurance companies. Curated lists really need to be considered more carefully given automated alternatives- wouldn't you be better off asking the inquisition to create a searchable database on their site? It seems to me the publisher of the naughty songs list should provide authoritative information in this case.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- If you go to Wal-Mart and see the advisory sticker, then write it here, it is OR. Someone else needs to write that the advisory sticker is there. I really dislike that ideal. I can watch a bridge fall down, but until someone else writes about it falling down and puts it in a RS, Wikipedia pretends it did not happen. Look at the length of this list and then how many are sourced. How did that long list occur with those sources? Answer: OR. And of the couple of listed sources, at least one I recall is for a non-notable recording. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm not sure that is entirely right. You need secondary sources to establish notability- wiki doesn't pretend it didn't happen, just fails to care. Once you have notability, you are free to include primary sources if you can make them relevant. If the list topic is notable, then you can find examples as long as you don't need to inject a new idea- certainly with medical lit the encourage primary sources. Monkey see, monkey is do ok just don't think or add anything :)

I'm being facetious but it does help sometimes, before you start making up things, to get a good grasp on all the data, and it can be hard to write an encyclopedia sometimes... So, I think you could look at it as a list entry being a primary source- if you find one it may be relevant once the list is notable.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 19:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A problem often faced in lists is that no valid criterion is specified. If the article was: List of Songs Kids Shouldn't Listen To, then that would be OR. Here the criterion is CLEARLY specified. OR my foot. Aditya ^α _ß 11:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't believe that original research is a significant concern with this article, but I don't see much point in the article either. I can understand being interested in whether a particular album has a parental advisory, but if you want to know that, you can look at the cover of the album. I don't see why we would need a list of all the albums that have parental advisories. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - indiscriminate trivial laundry list. Artyline (talk) 23:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Struck comments of banned editor. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I frankly do not see a reason why an encyclopedia should index such information. It's completely trivial and WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Corpx (talk) 08:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even though I nominated it, I just figured out a new reason why this list needs to be deleted, IT WILL NEVER STOP! There will probably be about 5000 records released with a PA sticker in one year! And this list only has albums with a sticker in North America. What if Japan has a warning label on all the Beatles records? Do we include that? What if Italy has banned the sale of Nine Inch Nails records to anyone under 18? Do we include that? There are two many exceptions and little flaws for this list. KMFDM FAN ^(talk!) 16:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may not vote twice, in this case your nomination is counted as a vote (or !vote). Also note many, many lists in Wikipedia go on forever (like a list of episodes). And finally, the article is pretty clear as to which albums should be included in the list: This is a list of albums and EPs that have the Parental Advisory sticker affixed to them in the US by the RIAA. All your arguments are now irrelevant. Aditya ^α _ß 17:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a never-ending list of no real descernible value. Who is going to visit Wikipedia and say, "I'd really like to read a list of every parental advisory album ever?" It has no use whatsoever. Esteffect (talk) 16:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't decide whether articles should be deleted or not by judging whether anyone is going to come to Wikipedia to read that specific article. That is way too subjective. Aditya ^α _ß 17:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: The author of this article, WP:Geekyboy87, came in a blanked the entire discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 1. It is in violation of WP:IINFO, part of WP:NOT, in being an indiscriminate collection of information. No relation exists between the contents other than this one relatively irrelevant attribute. 2. The list is not a "list of Parental Advisory albums", but a "list of Parental Advisory albums in the US", and I'm not even sure it is that as it depends on exactly how a PA album is ratified. The systems in other countries (eg UK, Australia, European countries etc) which maintain other Parental Advisory systems differ. See Countering systemic bias for more information. I actually don't think OR is much of a concern as if the rating is issued by one agency, it probably produces a list. Orderinchaos 07:40, 29 June 2009

Citing Countering systemic bias as a basis for deletion suggests dealing with for instance an under-representation of African heads of state by deleting, say, Polk, Taft and McKinley. 86.44.25.131 (talk) 03:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find a use! Some parents are concerned about these things! You guys are being cruel and unreasonable!!! Don't delete this, PLEASE!

Drama much? If parents need to know if an album is explicit, they can look it up on sites like allmusic. KMFDM FAN ^(talk!) 17:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We've got worse lists around - List of bow tie wearers - and although the current article is OR, there's a damned good case for an article on this, I feel. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A list of people notable for wearing a bow tie is more capable of being complete - A list of albums with 'explicit content' is certainly not, would go on forever, and has no use. I don't see what the case for an article is, it's like an article such as, "List of songs with 'love' in the title", and so forth. Esteffect (talk) 15:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a list that could go too. How often can that be sourced reliably? Is it s aone time wearing or a habitual wearing? Being useful sounds nice, but that's not really the standard. I have no use for an article about a soccer player from Cyrus, but it makes it in. I could use a good recipe for a new BBQ sauce, but that doesn't get included. Useful is far too subjective of a standard. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there are worse lists on Wikipedia is not really a good defense for keeping this list. That, and the bow tie wearing list seems at least somewhat useful. This list you can just go to sites like allmusic to find out if an album has explicit content. KMFDM FAN ^(talk!) 17:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how it's OR. Aditya ^α _ß 17:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research is not an issue with this article. Unless you consider that sometimes stores like wal-mart will take the liberty of adding their own little "PA" sticker. It usually looks like the one provided on the left.

to albums that we're never meant to have one such as green day's album "Dookie" or System of a down's "Toxicity". But anyway, OR is not the matter. The matter is the fact that:

This list is not useful
This list does not come up on any articles that would help the user
This list is based on a subject that is to large to be finished
The list has information that is found on several websites other then wikipedia,

KMFDM FAN ^(talk!) 21:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not useful to you, sure. How do you know it's not useful to anyone else? Your second point is basically the first one rephrased. And about the third, we're building an encyclopedia which can never be completed. If you think that list is too large then you don't have to work on it. There are lists about much larger "subjects". And your last argument really isn't an argument at all. Wikipedia is a collection of information found on other websites all put in one place. Aditya ^α _ß 06:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's always going to be a long list, but the topic of albums receiving this label is notable, and it is covered in reliable sources. It is possible to source, I made a start - all the references were added by me, using reliable secondary sources. Sites like band or record label websites would also be acceptable sources. Fences&Windows 01:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The list has information that is found on several websites other then wikipedia". Lamest reason to delete ever. Fences&Windows 01:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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