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 deletion (G7).

Matt Brown (actor)[edit]

Matt Brown (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

it's a blank page BurtonH0123 (talk) 16:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete since the page author requested deletion (G7), and there doesn't seem to be any objection to deletion. JamieS93 19:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Bangellame[edit]

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

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

Recently published book written up by the book's publisher who is also the grandson of the book's author. Despite requests, no evidence of notability has been produced, either for the book or its author. -- Sgroupace (talk) 22:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The information with strike through above is false information. There is no evidence to support the above description, which is very misleading. --123flamenco (talk) 13:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the strikethrough. It is inappropriate to alter another editor's comments in an AFD. If the information is wrong, then you are free to point it out, and the original editor is free to retract the statement. -- Whpq (talk) 14:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this discussion was already taking place here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Bangellame Shall I migrate the contents of the discussion to this page now? --123flamenco (talk) 13:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to copy the material here. The link you provided above allows editors to review the material. This discussion here is a result of a formal nomination for deletion of the article. -- Whpq (talk) 14:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - It's unclear why the nominator believes the original author of the article is also the publisher. The publisher is Su Su Publishing which has published very little. The original author has acknowledged that he is the grandson of the book's author. -- Whpq (talk) 15:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apolgies. For "book's publisher" above, read "person instrumental in getting the book published". The strong, and admitted, COI is what I wanted to convey. Sgroupace (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This article is about a book that was published only last month. It does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for books, and represents inclusion criteria for Wikipedia and is not a comment on the worthiness of the book itself. I can find no reviews in reliable sources about this book which shouldn't be too surprising as it was published last month. The book has not won a major award. It matters not if an illustration used for a book won an award, as the award is not for the book. Nor is the author of the book so historically significant that all their works are notable. James Joyce would fall into this category, but not Miriam Wilkinson. -- Whpq (talk) 14:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, mainly per Whpq. If there are news articles on this book, I am unable to locate them. Alternatively, we need a date and page reference for any news article that isn't online - Something like "New book released; Indianapolis Star, Page G7, 27 October 2009" would work, so long as it provides enough information for someone to track down a copy of the article. If there is additional information about the author or the book itself, now is the time to bring it forward. Please focus this debate on the article, not on other contributors. Thank you. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that some people at least give some thought to what they say in such discussions as this. I do not believe that this information can be found online. The articles from the early sixties are mainly kept on microfiche. Anyone who has ever searched through such archives will realize that 7 days to locate sources of this nature is rather too short. I simply haven't finished searching, however I know that several newspaper articles will be found, because I have seen them with my own eyes about 40 years ago. Not that I am suggesting that the wiki policies should change. I was simply unaware of these policies when I posted the article, which happens to be the first article that I have ever posted on Wiki. --81.135.80.178 (talk) 21:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now there seems to be a problem. No matter how anyone tries to argue the contrary, my credulity is on the line and I have no choice other than to react with strong words. Perhaps some people try it on, I am not one of them. The way I see it: Sgroupace seems to have nothing better to do than invent false information. This by the way was both damning and extremely rude. Considering that anyone can read these words, I feel compelled to delete the damning tag once more. Though it should be somebody else that does that. Rather than suffer anymore indignation, I suggest that someone delete the whole article without further ado, including all links to this page because I am sick to the teeth of having to defend claims which are known to be true by not only myself, but by several other people. --81.135.80.178 (talk) 21:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want to see a page that says THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN DELETED written in bold. That would be worse than me digging a deeper hole for myself than I already have, with the help of Sgroupace - might I add. Just ERROR 404 will do! --81.135.80.178 (talk) 21:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 81.135.80.178 please sign in before editing. Why should your credulity be on the line? I believe every word you say. It is just that a) your claims are insufficient to establish notability and b) for Wikipedia we must have evidence. -- Sgroupace (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, maybe I'm overreacting, it's just that the description at the start of this page makes it sound as if I am trying to avoiding providing you with more tangible evidence. The fact is that unearthing it could take a while, because I can't invest an unlimited amount of time searching through archives. The buildings I need to visit are not just on the corner of my street. It is not necessary to explain the criteria any further, and I apologize for my words above. I appreciate your last comment. --123flamenco (talk) 22:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why you would need to search for archived material from the 1960's. At issue here is the book, and not Miriam Wilkinson, and since the book was published in September of 2009, there wouldn't be material to substantiate the notability of the book in those archives. You need to provide sourcing to establish the notability of the book. If you are trying to establish that Miriam Wilkinson is of such historic significance that all her works are also notable, then I'm, afraid you will not convince me, as that level of significance should be very evident, and as such would have a plethora of material available online. -- Whpq (talk) 23:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine. However the archives will be searched. The relevance of the materials I uncover remains to be seen. I am sure you will appreciate that opinions sometimes change. I myself am not an art critic. The Bangellame is art, poetry, calligraphy, a puzzle. Unique among books, but then again it's not for me to judge that. --123flamenco (talk) 23:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless notability can be established. 123flamenco, what the article really needs to avoid deletion is third-party sources to establish its notability, such as book reviews. The only citation it has now regards Wilkinson's tapestry, which is not the subject of the article. If the AfD does result in deletion, don't worry, the article can be userfied for you to work on and find sources for without a deadline. BlazerKnight (talk) 23:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that I could resubmit the article at a later date. I see that there would have to be more substance to the article and some history to the book. Well it has 30 plus years history, so far. It's just not notable by Wiki standards. Thanks for the advice. --123flamenco (talk) 23:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW - Wilkinson's tapestries. There are several.

Voicing Concern: The Bangellame Wikipedia article appeared on Google search results faster than it was created, and was flagged within 60 seconds. Will Google's database be updated so quickly upon deletion? If not, what message will people see when they click on the link? Most people are not aware of the policies employed by Wikipedia. The first impression that I get when I see a notice of deletion is one of inappropriate content - usually meaning something bad. Are there any assurances that this will not happen? Would it be possible to display a message that does not convey this impression, or will The Bangellame have to wait up to three months as a consequence of my mistake? Updating Google search results can take up to three months. What exactly are the consequences of this deletion in terms of bad publicity? Perhaps three months is nothing compared to having already waited over 30 years to reach the printing press. Still I am having sleepless nights worrying about this. Would it be possible for Wikipedia admin to delete the page entirely rather than displaying a notice of deletion. I would prefer the following message: ERROR 404. Thank you. --123flamenco (talk) 05:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will point out that Wikipedia is NOT a vehicle for the promotion of the book which appears to be the reason for this article. As such, its appearance on Google is not relevant. However, you may request speedy deletion as the author, and an admin will evaluate and determine if the request is within policy and act accordingly. -- Whpq (talk) 11:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't answer the question about Google search results. I have more understanding now, after this discussion, and I am not contesting the point. Please understand that I have invested nearly a whole year in doing research, writing text and learning how to display it online etc... to promote something that I consider worth promoting. Adding an article to Wiki was a bad idea, but in no way an unreasonable one. Miriam Wilkinson has created some beautiful art after years of painstaking labour. She simply deseves recognition. I would not dream of promoting my own work on here because I am not at all vain. I would like her artwork, including The Bangellame, to be reviewed. Perhaps I should have invested more time in my own art which happens to be music, but instead I have sacrificed much of my time to this, and not without risk. I cannot make such a decision to delete the article until I know what the consequences are. This article is quite simply bad publicity and I do want the whole affair to end ASAP. I am not sitting at my computer day and night responding to all of these comments for nothing. This means rather too much to me for that. I have read more of the regulations regarding new articles and the deletion process. I didn't find an answer to my question above. I did discover that this AfD has not been conducted as and according to those regulations. I have allowed myself to become embroilled in petty arguments. Perhaps I didn't take much goading, but that is what has happened. The first result on Google points to this page which I am not in favour of - as it does not give a fair representation of Miriam. Nor would a sign saying THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN DELETED - as I have tried to argue above. I admit that I have made a mistake, but it was not intended with any malice. Three months with Wikipedia having the first link on Google pointing to a deleted article about the Bangellame is quite simply unreasonable. I have been pressed to meet deadlines and made some mistakes. What I want to know is what can be done about it. Thank you. --123flamenco (talk) 14:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely if Wikipedia can magically make search result appear on Google within seconds, they should be able to make them magically dissapear too. As you point out: This is not what the discussion is about, but I don't see the point in starting another discussion elsewhere. That might be of interest to someone else, and perhaps I could contribute, however my attention is focused here. --123flamenco (talk) 14:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to say thank you to Whpq who has sent me a PM and been most helpful. If I were to request a speedy deletion, and the message were to read 'This article has been deleted at the request of the author'. I would find that acceptable.

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 Not a deletion discussion. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Identity fraud[edit]

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Identity_theft#Identity_fraud_to_be_created Elvey (talk) 23:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Certainly a notable topic (to some extent it's my day job), article shortcomings merely need some expansion.

OTOH, how about deleting this user with extreme prejudice for their choice of username? 8-( It's impossible to reconcile that username with any pretence of GF. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I usually tend to lean towards the deletion end, but this is an important notion and absurdly nominated.WildHorsesPulled (talk) 23:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did any of you follow the link I provided explaining the reason I proposed deletion? I think not! OF COURSE the topic is notable. Why do we need Identity theft and Identity fraud??--Elvey (talk) 00:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close - AfD is not for discussing mergers. If editors feel the two topics are one and the same, that is a reason for merger or redirection, not deletion. (And there isn't sufficient discussion to determine consensus at the link provided anyway.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. After reading all the arguments, and every comment, I think it's fair to say that the only consensus garnered here is that global warming is controversial. The title of the article is clearly problematic; a significant amount of editors requested a rename if the article was to be kept, and considering that the no consensus closure will default to keep, I would suggest all parties work to find a suitable rename. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming[edit]

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The question to ask ourselves: Is a list such as this one anything other than a POV-push?

In my opinion, any list of the style “X's who Oppose/Support Y” is a POV push. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• comment i dont like the article name. it implies that all the scientists listed are opposed to a single, monolithic assessment of global warming. since we know that there are thousands of shades of interpretation of the data and stances along multiple gradients (scientific judgement on global warming cannot be represented as a simple line from "very opposed" to "totally supporting"). the sections do break down the scientists into categories, but i would submit that doing this is OR, unless these categories are clearly defined outside WP and used by scientists to self identify themselves. I am not sure a name change is possible or could salvage the list. perhaps (let me think here), "Scientists wholly or partly critical of global warming theory". this would allow for scientists who may prove to be mostly supportive on balance, but have reasoned critiques. as it is, the title sets up a subtle POV: "aha, here are reasonable people opposed to the big bad mainstream" which, while obviously summarizing notable points of view, by omission ignores much of the debate within the scientific community around many of the specifics of GW. I would say, to leave out any critical voice, however close to mainstream they are, from a notable scientist, in an article with this subject is inherently POV.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Mercury above makes a very important point. Clearly there's a whole spectrum of counter-consensus opinion on climate change, ranging from people who disagree with aspects of the current scientific consensus to those who reject the whole thing out of hand. Lumping them all together into a single broad-brush category of "opposition" is not only inherently POV, it grossly misrepresents the gradient of opinion that exists. The conception of this article is fundamentally flawed. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per others who say the concept of the article is fundamentally flawed. There's no value a list like this could serve beyond what might be covered in Climate change denial or something similar, if the scientists themselves are notable and have a position to contribute to that article. If they don't have a notable position that would go in that sort of article, there's really no point in listing them off. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree - inherently misrepresents. Categories will handle this better than a list. Hipocrite (talk) 01:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know how to link, but I'm pretty sure you'll find that we had categories of this kind, and they were deleted, on the basis that they were too blunt a classification device and that something like a list article was needed. JQ (talk) 02:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I suspect that the reason the category was deleted is because most of the scientists on the list wouldn't fit into any neutrally worded category about climate change denial because the goal of this list is to misrepresent the views of people who have minor technical objections to various models as supporting the finge nutzoids who believe that cow farts are a larger threat to global climate that SUVs. Hipocrite (talk) 18:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is an important/highly current topic. It could go into a different article Climate Realists or similar, as long as it doesn't make the article to large. ^rossnixon 01:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Do you have an answer to the position that an article such as this is inherently pushing a POV and violating our OR and Synthesis policies? ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 01:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with my comments from the 1st AfD: The list starts by a short and clear description of what "opposing mainstream scientific opinion" is, and then describes the conditions that have to be met, to "qualify" for inclusion. The quotes are there specifically to ensure that each scientist is indeed placed correctly on the page (per WP:V), and has to be directly from the scientist (to ensure that WP:BLP is in order). They have to be quotes so that we can assure that interpretation of text is kept to a bare minimum. (again WP:BLP and WP:NPOV). All the scientists have to be notable (per WP:Notable - ie. no red-links), to ensure that we are not diverging into WP:FRINGE. All quotes have to be in reliable sources (of course) (per WP:RS). There are two common ways to view the list (which to me at least indicates that WP:NPOV is upheld):
  1. as a list to show that consensus doesn't exist.
  2. as a list to show how few scientists really are in opposition.

I suggest that people take a look at the discussion archives, to see that there indeed has been a very thorough review of each inclusion. The editors have strived to keep away from POV-issues - and an inclusion has been discussed by both "pro-" mainstream and "contra-" mainstream editors. A common topic on the discussion pages is for instance that "why can't i include X - he is obviously a sceptic", after an inclusion has been reverted. The article is imho WP:NPOV, since we have "anti-" people who are pushing to get as many scientists on the list as possible (to show that statements of consensus is wrong (i presume)), and "pro-" people who are trying to keep people out of the list. --Kim D. Petersen 17:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If point #1, it probably runs afoul of WP:UNDUE, giving too much weight to an argument that consensus doesn't exist (consensus never means everyone agrees). Listing off every scientist that doesn't agree gives the false impression that there is a "controversy" greater than there actually is.

If point #2, it probably runs afoul of a number of things Wikipedia is WP:NOT. The Discovery Institute, by comparison, publishes a list of scientists who disagree with evolution, for the sole purpose of making it seem that there is a controversy and that intelligent design is something scientists seriously consider, when of course that's not actually the case. This "article" is exactly like that, and that's not the purpose and goals of Wikipedia. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And my argument is that the article is neither #1 or #2. And exactly because people divert in how they are interpreting the list from two such very different positions - shows us its NPOV. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The "science of GW is settled" POV is predominant, and this article/list shows that there is notable opposition to the "consensus" position. The mainstream position is made up of key conclusions, and the list is grouped to indicate where the various opponents "stick". Opposing a key (i.e. crticial to the position) conclusion doesn't put one on the "gradient of opinion" it puts one in opposition to the position. To suggest that this list belongs in "Climate Change Denial" is to assume the POV that those listed are inherently wrong in their conclusions (as if the very "denial" name of such an article). If the general GW related articles related such opposition in an open and objective manner, then I would say delete it as redundant. LowKey (talk) 02:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That argument, that the purpose of this article is to list off the oposition in the way you describe, makes this article a POV fork. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Rather biased title and impossible to declare what 'mainstream' means. Czolgolz (talk) 02:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  If a position endorsed by every national science academy and scientific society that has commented on the matter does not qualify as "mainstream," then what does qualify? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I find it a useful reference list. I think readers can make up their own minds about whether the group listed here constitutes a significant body of dissent.02:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Quiggin (talk • contribs)
• Delete this blatant POV-push/fork/whatever wiki-jargon applies. The issue(s) represented in this article can easily be accomodated within Climate change denial as noted above. Crafty (talk) 02:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, WP:SYN and WP:OR issues concern me with this article/list/whatever the hell it is. Crafty (talk) 04:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per previous AfD discussions. It's a legitimate article. (If any particular bias or POV is evident, it's probably from the exclusion of particular scientists.) ~ UBeR (talk) 02:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While the list is POV, it counters that by explaining right from the get-go that these scientists oppose the mainstream view (which is explained). The quotes acceptably show the stance of each individual scientist (And NOT the opinions of their fields of study, employers, publishers, etc), and are very reasonably organized into section based on their position in the gradient of opinions regarding global warming. The fact that these are the minority counter the argument that "X's who Oppose/Support Y" is POV, as such lists will always be POV. To have an article listing all the scientist who have formed an opinion would be pointless, and this list serves to show the minority viewpoint. If only the majority viewpoint is shown, that is just as much a POV violation.

I think this nomination is a misrepresentation of what wikipedia is striving to achieve with its NPOV guideline. The list could be cleaned up, but certainly not deleted, on the basis of NPOV. It's removal would make a POV assertion that all scientists agree that global warming is real (Which is certainly not the case). So I ask: What POV is being pushed? That global warming isn't real? Hardly the case. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. While it would be very very easy for a list such as this one to devolve into POV-pushing COATRACKism, and it could, in principle, be an overly blunt classification tool, in this case it skillfully avoids those traps by having a very clear set of inclusion criteria, and carefully documenting how each listed individual meets those criteria. So it's avoids the POV pitfalls that the nominator is concerned about. Also keep per consensus at the prior 3 AfDs--no new issues have been raised in this AfD thusfar. Yilloslime ^T_C 04:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Change to neutral I stand by most of my "keep" reasoning, but the presence of non-scientists, non-practicing (emeritus) scientists, and scientists from fields unrelated to climate change on the list is problematic, and undermines the list's usefulness and neutrality. Yilloslime ^T_C 18:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Nobody has yet answered how this list is not violating WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. This is a major problem. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 04:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Because the list specifically sets out that it is a list of scientists who have made quotes regarding their stance on the subject. While I'd argue that some or many entries could very well be WP:SYNTH, none of them are WP:OR since they are sourced quotes (at least I'd hope that every single quote has a reference), only the decision to connect those quotes with a set opinion would violate WP:SYNTH, though in many cases the quotes explicitly state the position of the scientist in question. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      The quote has to explicitly state the opposition, that is the only purpose of it (per WP:V). No position is taken on whether the quote is scientifically valid or not (that would be SYNTH). What the more nuanced view of the scientist is, is something for their biographies, which is the reason that they must be notable and not be red-links. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The last time, this was a snow keep, and the arguments apply still. DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If this was merged with another page, then that page would be too large. If this page was simply deleted, useful information would be lost. Claims of POV are nonsense when considered in context with all the other Anthropogenic Global Warming pages. Q Science (talk) 05:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete The list's inclusion criteria inherently demands original research and the list is a potential WP:BLP disaster because the editors are charged with defining what exactly "mainstream" "scientific" "assessment" is and who, precisely, is in opposition to it. The IPCC consensus statement, for all that's great about it, is only a proxy for what a "true" "mainstream scientific assessment" is, and Wikipedia is not equipped to figure out the actual mainstream scientific assessment. Additionally, the criteria for what makes one a "scientist" (always a conundrum and essentially a fallacy) who "opposes" a scientific fact is something that Wikipedia editors are not equipped to delineate. Our job is not to interpret a person's entire outlook and complete opinion. As it is, a grand total of zero reliable sources exist for this particular topic. Sure various motivated anti-scientific groups (that are not reliable sources, mind you) publish lists that certain editors may think are evidence that such lists can be made, but attempts to compile these very lists have been so fraught (and, in at least one case, been subject to court orders for libel) that we are essentially opening ourselves up for BLP violations by labeling any person with this stigma. As it currently stands, there are not reliable demarcation lists for this particular idea in the same way that there isn't a reliable way to find a List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of evolution or a List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of the cause of AIDS or a List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of the 9/11 attacks. I think that a better idea is to write articles on the actual published lists of the anti-environmentalist political action committees. Write an article about the The Heartland Institute's controversial list. Document it in the same way other famous published lists of so-called scientists who disbelieve scientific facts have been handled. Just dispense with this attempt at original research and libeling living humans as though Wikipedia can peer into their souls or really evaluate what their "oppositional status" "truly" is. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well said, i wish id said this.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep This is a key page that captures an important section of the debate on global warming. It would be inappropriate to delete it. Tom Dietz (talk) 05:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)This user is a confirmed sockpuppet of Scibaby.[reply]

• Delete or rename to 'List of scientists by position on climate change' and give WP:DUE weight to all the scientists supporting the "mainstream scientific assessment". I doubt if the latter is practical, the current format gives WP:UNDUE weight to the "tiny minority" of nay-sayers, so I suspect deletion is the most practical alternative. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's an inherently NPOV article that fairly and accurately describes what those listed believe. The Squicks (talk) 06:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What is your view of the WP:SYN and WP:OR problem? -- ChrisO (talk) 07:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 06:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 06:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Did anything change since the last time? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The arguments in favour of deletion seem to be different. I don't see anyone in the last discussion making the case that we've seen in this discussion that this article is a piece of synthesis and original research. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with ChrisO. How is this article not synthesis? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 09:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it be synthesis? What "conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" does it reach? It's a collection of different opinions, not a synthesis. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a quote farm of any scientist who has ever made a statement that doesn't match -a- IPCC consensus statement, irregardless of the current 2007 conclusions, which would be the current mainstream assessment of climate change, and irregardless of whether the person actually opposes the current IPCC consensus statement. Many of these quotes are pre-2007, with no indication of whether the person quoted has revised their opinion in response to that assessment. There's little indication of whether the quotes are actually about the IPCC statement, whether they were speaking directly to the consensus statement, or just commenting about climate change in general. These are not quotes opposing the consensus itself (which would refer directly to the 2007 consensus statement by IPCC), but rather random commentary on climate change from random dates. It is sythesis to take the climate change commentary, attach them to the consensus statement, and then push the original position that these are opposing consensus itself. One may, after all, disagree with various aspects of a consensus without directly opposing the consensus. We see that all the time here at Wikipedia. It's fully WP:SYNTH. It says so in our own article's lede: In judging opposition to the consensus, each scientist's statements are compared to the most recently released IPCC report at the time of the statement. If not OR, some reliable source independent of Wikipedia needs to have made that comparison, not Wikipedia editors. The concept of the article is fundamentally flawed and not compatible with WP policy. That these are scientists who oppose the mainstream assessment of global warming is impossible to verify given pre-assessment quotes that don't actually refer to the current assessment, and given comparisons to assessments performed by Wikipedia editors rather than reliable external sources. This issue is independent of NPOV issues, and a bigger issue I feel. I mention this because NPOV seems to be what the Keeper's arguments have centered around in this, and past, AfD discussions. The article fails a lot more in the five pillars than just NPOV. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 10:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For brevity: if a quote doesn't refer directly to the consensus statement itself, and doesn't state that it's in opposition of that consensus statement, and here we push it as being opposition to the consensus statement, that's WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 10:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note: In theory, an ambitious editor may want to write an article titled "List of scientists who have opposed a mainstream scientific assessment of global warming", and list only quotes that directly refer to such an assessment, but that's not this article. It's fundamentally broken because it makes a present-tense assumption that is impossible to support without original research, real-time sourcing, and immediate maintenance. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 10:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can document or rationalize that any of those on the list do not hold that opinion anymore, then please point it out - since then they must be removed (and are). Great care and extreme amounts of discussion and weighting has been applied to each and every scientist on this list. You seem to be of the opinion that this list represents a specific viewpoint, but have failed to notice that the editors of the list are from both sides of this issue. (and its very well weighted as well between those sides - roughly 50:50). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're asking me to prove a negative. I think the burden of verifiability works the other way. The title says "opposing" (present-tense).--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 17:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep - the reasons given for deletion are exactly the same as have been given, and rejected, in previous deletion debates for this article. They are, as they were before, incorrect. As someone who strongly disagrees with the folk listed (has anyone noticed that the people listed are not all scientists?) it is clear to me, and has been explained on talk, and in previous AFD's, that this article *isn't* POV pushing. Those not capable of reading the past are doomed to repeat it, it seems William M. Connolley (talk) 08:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and cleanup (for example, remove non-scientists). Per other keeps. Verbal chat 08:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Not possible. There have been repeated attempts to remove non-scientists and those working in unrelated fields; all have failed. Skeptical editors are adamant about including astronauts, has-beens and never-weres to make the numbers look bigger. They've even pressed for including dead people. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • In light of this huge POV problem of including non-scientists, and considering some of the other "keep" comments (such as "it documents the ongoing debate") I'm changing to weakSTRONG delete. Verbal chat 14:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete Inherent violation of POV in structure and format, has had three chances to be cleaned up after previous AfDs, and is still exactly the same POV-pushing list of WP:Original research quotes promoting a fringe theory, with appeal to authority from peacock statements about the qualifications of the people who once said something against Global Warming. A check of the talk page archives will show them going through advocacy lists for the POV this list pushes, selecting the supposed "best" from the list, and then doing original research to find a quote for the page. Violates WP:OR, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, WP:POVFORK, and others. Furthermore, the talk page archives show numerous examples of attempts to find the most extreme quotes possible, instead of allowing any nuance to their views, e.g. Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming/Archive_12#Freeman_Dyson, which makes much of this a probable BLP violation. That the article has attracted enough POV-pushers to vote keep on it before does not mean it should not be deleted. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 213 FCs served} 09:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with other users above that call for this to be delete per the policies they site. I just read this and it doesn't look like a list, it looks more like an article that needs a lot of work done to it. There are way too many quotes made, why? Shouldn't the WP:RS be enough? As has been said above, though this list/article claims to be 'scientist' a lot of them are not scientist. I think if this is to remain then it needs to be rewritten to follow WP:LISTS. With what I checked into, a lot of the entries listed are people who have written books not that they are scientist. I think the policies that are not being followed, (ie. User:Shoemaker's Holiday and User:ScienceApologist. have convinced me that this should be deleted and anything that is useful merged into one of the many articles available. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutralize by revising the list to include all scientists who have stated a position on the issue, not just one side. The present list would then be a section of the more inclusive list. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Support the view on violation of WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Additional concerns: (i) Notability. That those scientists are notable in their field and thus have WP articles does not mean they are notable in the global warming area. (ii) The article makes an impression of a vote, i.e. that there are more voices in one section makes it look like that view is more substantiated. (iii) The article is not a list of scientists, but a list of weakly related notes, i.e. it is rather an article than list, a lengthy article without a clear structure. Materialscientist (talk) 12:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the argument "any list of the style “X's who Oppose/Support Y” is a POV push" is complete nonsense. Our Holocaust denial article contains a list of "Notable Holocaust deniers", but that is certainly not promoting Holocaust denial. List of Ufologists is not promoting ufology. No POV is presented in this article either; it is well-sourced, balanced and well-written. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has serious attempts to find the most extreme statement possible for each person, throwing out more neutral views. Check the talk page archives. That's both a POV-push and a BLP violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk • contribs)
    • I see your assertion of that, but the only case you cited was a discussion of Freeman Dyson's position from December 2007. I checked a cross-section of names from the list and found that in each case their main article contains a statement of their position that is consistent with the what this list article says. If there are a few controversial cases then they can be ealt with through normal editing process - AfD is not cleanup. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator's argument isn't the only argument under consideration. The article has many other problems that make it inappropriate for Wikipedia. The real question is: Is this article fundamentally flawed as it is conceived? The answer is yes. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 14:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From your rhetoric I understand that you don't like the article, but that's not a good argument for deletion either. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not that I'm arguing. I'm arguing that it fails Wikipedia criteria. There's a huge difference. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 15:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You said "The article has many other problems" but didn't specify what they were, then you asked a rhetorical question and answered it, now you say "it fails Wikipedia criteria" but don't say which criteria or why it fails them. I see rhetoric but no substantive arguments there. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gandalf, my objections and what criteria are failed have been stated clearly. Please read the entire AfD. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 15:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invitation, but no, I'm not going to chase round the whole AfD responding to all of your comments elsewhere. That would be a rather obsessive sort of behaviour, wouldn't it ? I am done here. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hostile much? I meant this thread. Geesh. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 15:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This article, as conceived, is always going to have serious problems with WP:SYNTH. Moreover, it constitutes a violation of WP:WEIGHT, inasmuch as it attempts to overrepresent the significance of a minority viewpoint contrary to the scientific consensus. ("Anthropogenic climate change isn't real! Look at this long list of scientists who oppose it!") TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that it is important for people to see who opposes the mainstream science and what their arguments are. It is easier to combat the arguments that way rather than having some nameless bunch of 'scientists' muddying the waters with occasional quotes and half baked research. Wikipedia makes this possible by giving the reader the information rather than hiding it away. Polargeo (talk) 14:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• keep Certainly not a POV reason to delete, the article neither puts forward a viewpoint one way or the other. I appreciate the possibity for an original research aspect but don't think it is really. For original research by synthesis we would have to come to a conclusion different to the individual references. Seeing as no ultimate conclusion is being reached on wikipedia other than this is a list of people who have made statements or done research that places them into this list it does not cross the line (close but not across!). The argument about wikipedia not being a directory is very weak. This goes way beyond a list of losely associated topics or contact details. It is a useful encyclopedic list. Polargeo (talk) 14:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem regarding SYNTH, though, is that our list makes the claim that these are people are opposed to the mainstream consensus, which isn't verifiable. That one might grumble certain conclusions, or voice a disagreement on a particular point, isn't the same as directly opposing a consensus statement (for example, by signing a petition or something similiar). That's why it's SYNTH. We're assuming these people are directly opposed to the stated consensus. That's simply not sourced. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 15:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's an inherently POV quote mine, no less than the "Scientists who dissent from Darwinism" list put together by the Discovery Institute. The only purpose of the list is to have something to point to in arguments about climate change, not to present a coherent topic of educational interest. There is no inclusion criterion for "scientists" so all sorts of unqualified people are included, and the whole thing is improper synthesis, as it is Wikipedia editors who are making the judgement on what constitutes the mainstream view on global warming and who opposes it. As others said it also lumps together vastly different views, unreasonably dichotomising scientists into "supports" or "opposes" the mainstream. Material like this should be worked into Climate change denial or Global warming controversy as part of normal editing and giving it due weight, rather than putting in on its own pedestal. Fences&Windows 15:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Of course there is an inclusion criteria for the scientists, some of us may not agree with the broad definition - and want a more restrictive one (i'm one) - but to say that there isn't one is to ignore the lede of the article: A) Must be notable (no red-link) B) Must have published at least one peer-reviewed article in the natural sciences (in reality there is also a requirement of an academic background) C) They must disagree with one of the 3 general consensus items. The quotes are not random, nor are they there to provide any form of point (positive or negative) - they are there to verify that the scientist indeed is sceptical (per WP:V) of the very general items of the mainstream opinion. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article is fundamentally flawed and broken at the outset. The article presupposes that the IPCC statement is the statement of mainstream consensus, then lists off a series of quotes about climate change that are supposedly in opposition to the IPCC statement. That's the concept of the article. However, it is unverifiable that the commentor is even commenting on the consensus stated by the IPCC. It's just a list of comments about climate change, not a list of people verifiably in opposition to the IPCC's statement. The idea that these people are in opposition to the IPCC statement on climate change is completely the invention of Wikipedia editors, versus the conclusions of independent reliable sources, for example a reliable source that identifies these people as signing a petition against the IPCC statement. The list states that "In judging opposition to the consensus, each scientist's statements are compared to the most recently released IPCC report at the time of the statement." Add a "by whom" tag to that analysis. Who did the comparison? The answer is, Wikipedia editors. It's an OR fail. The NPOV discussion goes round in circles while the article is based almost entirely on unverifiable original research. Keepers, please address that. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 15:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Easy. Each group of scientists in the list is categorised by exactly what their research/comments say. For example 'Believe global warming is primarily caused by natural processes' or 'Believe accuracy of IPCC climate projections is questionable' therefore not wikipedia OR to put them into these categories if that is what their research/statements say. Each of these subtitles expresses a view contrary to mainstream scientific opinion on global warming. There is little doubt that the IPCC report is the best guide to mainstream opinion on global warming, it being an intergovernmental body set up by the World Meteorological Organization and the UN! Polargeo (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The article is not fundamentally flawed. It's a bit innovative in demanding quotes, for instance, which are not part of any policy or guideline, but consensus decisions to do things like that should be OK as long as nothing is violated. It isn't OR to be "judging opposition" or making a comparison -- that's just exercising normal editorial judgment based on research -- which is verifiable. The article is fought over because the subject is fought over, and content disputes should not spill over into disputes over whether there's a violation of some Wikipedia policy or guideline until those violations actually take place. JohnWBarber (talk) 15:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Enough said already. Ignignot (talk) 15:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nothing about the article violates any Wikipedia rule that justifies deletion. ScienceApologist and others dispute that the IPCC statement should not be equated with mainstream opinion. That isn't a deletion argument because it's best left to the article's talk page where it can be debated whether or not it's OR to come to that conclusion. If it is OR, the problem could be solved by renaming the article to replace "mainstream" with "IPCC" -- no deletion necessary. Another objection is that the necessarily short items on the list don't account for nuances of opinion. But there isn't space for nuances, and it's reasonable to summarize opinions. Nuances are best left to the individual articles on the scientists, but if someone has said something contradictory, conceivably both quotes could be put in the list article. This is not the forum to take content disputes. The solution to a content dispute may be elsewhere or nowhere, but not here. Repeatedly returning here wastes a lot of people's time. JohnWBarber (talk) 15:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep If those supporting the consensus about global warming on Wikipedia had been a bit less POV in their attempts to quiet any mention of dissent by knowledgeable scientists, their arguments for deletion would make more sense, but that horse left the barn long ago. Article is entirely composed of otherwise notable figures who have publicly dissented from the claimed "everybody who knows agrees" consensus. htom (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--The following (down to the "so moved" comment) was moved from the top of the page. Let's all wait our turn in line. I won't edit war over this, but it would be fair to say that sticking comments at the top over the objection of others is disruptive. Admins please take note. JohnWBarber (talk) 15:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[Addition by Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 213 FCs served}:

Other issues include:

• The talk page archives show numerous examples of attempts to find the most extreme quotes possible, instead of allowing any nuance to their views, e.g. Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming/Archive_12#Freeman_Dyson, which makes much of this a probable BLP violation, WP:SYNTH, and Original research.
• WP:NOTDIRECTORY explicitly forbids lists of quotes
• WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, WP:POVFORK, and others do not allow articles which advocate for the fringe view at the cost of the mainstream. The severely weakened presentation of the mainstream view, with constant references to the dissent from it, misrepresents acceptance.
• This article is typical of advocacy lists. For instance, [1] discusses a creationist quote mine book, [2] is an example of a typical quote-mine in the wild.]

  Objection (your honor :-) ) I find Shoemakers addition here at the top problematic. He is not the nominator, and thus this is an attempt to get his view a preferred spot. Now i have nothing against Shoemaker presenting his argument - but it sets a bad precedence to move comments around this way. I could also answer several of his assertions - but will refrain and prefer that his and my comment be removed - or moved to the correct spot. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--so moved JohnWBarber (talk) 15:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not at all unusual in an AfD to mention other policies there's problems with for consideration in the debate. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 213 FCs served} 16:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep along with a list of scientists that argue there is a very serious problem. I doubt the sincerity of many of these people but sweeping it under the rug won't make it go away. There should be some way of getting the choice between when in doubt polute or when in doubt don't polute into one of these articles. Even if they don't get the details right this should carry more weight than when in doubt argue. Zacherystaylor (talk) 16:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Huh, bunch of wikipedians interpreting some quotes and categorizing scientists accordingly? Ridiculous. WP:PSTS.--Staberinde (talk) 17:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per ScienceApologist. Sasata (talk) 18:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article is very well resourced, so it would pass WP:RS. But the the title is awkward and the contents are repetitive, with multiple versions of the same conclusion. I would sooner fix those problems than throw the whole thing away. Warrah (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Concept of article is fundamentally flawed as explained by others above. Kaldari (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The inclusion criteria are arbitrary, and whether someone meets those criteria is a judgment call left to the editors. The entire list represents vast amounts of original research. Suggestions to change the scope of the list to include both sides would still be original research. There is nothing in this list that can be salvaged for an article or list that would be appropriate for WP. -Atmoz (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Just to add another argument that the list is absurd, unless you wish to assert that each of the scientists in question presently opposes the present assessment. Speaking as an expert statistician, as of 1997 through 2002 or so, the evidence supported the warming being limited by some unknown mechanism. No climate model came close to modelling the changes, and extrapolation would have rationally shown a limiting effect. Now, the climate models may be mature enough to support a theory as to the amount of warming to be expected, but any statement then by a climate scientist saying that "global warming" is a scientific fact would be fraudulent, whether or not mainstream. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  comment There is an "unwritten" rule that any scientist on the list must have stated dissent after the previous IPCC report - this means the TAR (third assessment report) or the AR4 here. And in general no inclusions now are made if they aren't fairly recent. (i believe consensus was for <5 years) The statement must be unambiguous as well as not contradicted by other information on that scientist. [this is a close call, since some will (inevitably) call for inclusion, while others will oppose] I just went over the list again - and as far as i can see, all of those on the list are still sceptical (the thorn in the eye is Dyson - who is included within a section with a large caveat). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's part of my complaint. If the inclusion criteria involves the IPCC report, how many of these have nothing to do with the report? Looking over the list, I find that some of the quotes directly reference it, but many (most?) are just comments on climate change in general. Which is which? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per ChrisO, Nealparr and others.PelleSmith (talk) 19:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or rename, seems to be a POV fork, but perhaps if some alternative suggestions can be implemented it can become more neutral. Cocytus [»talk«] 19:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or rename - Article seems to me to contain a substantial amount of encyclopedic content, but the title and list format seem likely to ensure that it will never be likely to not be a serious, regular, target of well-earned criticism. John Carter (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or rename to a neutral title like 'Scientists opposed to global warming theory'. Strongly object to the word 'mainstream' in the title. The entire article attempts to obfuscate that there are is a very large body of scientists that have rejected global warming theory, and attempts to portray dissent in only select segments as the only dissent. The topic should have more coverage of the large body of scientists who disagree with the theory of global warming.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This smacks of sweeping scientific dissent under the carpet, the disruptive use of tags should also be removed. Justin talk 20:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep obvious time waste doing this again. Sure not perfect but adequate --BozMo talk 20:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep There is a conspicuous under-representation of minority and/or dissenting views on any of the other global warming articles; Keep is conditional upon Renaming the article and changing the format to something more encyclopedic (i.e. not a list) Voiceofreason01 (talk) 01:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve. I don't think it's hopelessly OR, but summarizing the quotes would be good. It's kinda like wikiquote right now. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is under-representaion of minority / dissenting views on global warming both within and without WP. Protection of rationally-expressed opinion is important, and even more so when it concerns a minority. Problems with the article can & should be fixed, but that is difficult to do when it is under such consistent attack. I would suggest that if keep is decided, then there should be a longish period before the issue is mooted again. Contributors deserve a chance to cool down, and put in some hard work. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Many of those who want to keep the article seem to argue as follows: Global warming is wrong. Therefore anything that supports the 'fact' that global warming is wrong must be right. Clearly this is not true -- bad arguments can be advanced even for good causes. This list, for reasons clearly spelled out above, is a bad argument. The question of whether global warming is a liberal lie is moot. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep That there are people willing to suppress free speech is frightening enough, that they want to suppress it while screaming they are doing it for the good of mankind is downright scary. The people who are screaming for deletion remind me of the Inquisitors trying to root out heretics. All the scientists quoted in the article are well respected and they have points of views that need to be heard over the clamoring sameness of what people get to hear in the main press outlets. Post the "the objectivity... blah, blah, blah warning and let adults decide for themselves. Say no to censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottca075 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Please mind WP:CIVIL. There is no need to start attacking editors who disagree with you about the deletion of a deeply flawed article. Simonm223 (talk) 15:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't see issues here that can't be fixed by measures short of deletion. For example, there is a valid criticism that scientists change their mind, and someone who denies global warming in 2006 may not currently deny it. That can be fixed with just a bit of rewording here and there. Gruntler (talk) 20:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This approach fails WP:WEIGHT and WP:OR and can't be fixed. We have articles on climate change and the notable opinions and theories. They should be sourced reliably and give appropriate weight. This per-person list format just allows any Tom, Dick or Harry who claims to be a "scientist" of some kind to have equal weight in the debate as someone who might actually know a thing or two about climate change. It is also extremely fragile as opinions do change yet the format allows the cherry-picking of any disenting quote made in the past without any means to remove them based on a more recent quote (highlighting the WP:OR issues involved -- if sourced to a third-party list, we would have a compilation-date we could mention). As noted by others, it breaks all of our policies in some way, though even if we managed to eliminate the WP:V and WP:NOR issues, the approach just breaks WP:WEIGHT and there's no way to fix that IMO with this format. It is for this reason that it becomes a POV fork. Colin°^Talk 09:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is important to be able to have access to the opposing views on climate change and its causes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.67.164.37 (talk) 16:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary break[edit]

• Delete. We don't need POV-based lists on Wikipedia. This article is questionable regarding WP:NPOV, because it is an obvious attempt to advocate, not to just provide information, and WP:SYNTH because it is compiled based on the creator's own judgement and interpretation of the scientists' views. It is probably not in a dire breach of the policies, but has way too many problems and potential problems. In addition it is simply not encyclopaedic, because it's based on a POV criteria. Offliner (talk) 21:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What does the list advocate? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure the list "advocates" anything much. The problem is more with the methodology used to compile it, as Offliner indicates. If its title matched its subject matter, it would have to be called something like List of people with scientific qualifications who have said something at some point in time that contradicts some aspect of climate science in the view of some Wikipedia editors. This is not a sound basis for an article. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (e/c)I'm not entirely in disagreement on the scientific qualification part, but that is something to discuss on the talk page - the trouble is getting an agreement on what a "scientist" is. I'm open for opening up that discussion again. As for the "said at one time" part, i've just been over the list again, and there are very few where i would be in doubt on their current scepticism, most of them have a long history of stating things contrary to the current consensus. But again - if you are in doubt about any of them, the usual procedure is to remove that person, and start a discussion on the merits of inclusion (here is an example [3] (by random - i didn't check how it went, nor read through it)) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How can any list be NPOV when the lede starts off outlining inclusion criteria that are, in fact, POV and OR-ish.

• It should not be interpreted as...
• Inclusion is based on specific criteria that do not necessarily reflect skepticism toward climate change...
• In judging opposition to the consensus, each scientist's statements are compared...
• For the purpose of this list a "scientist" is...

None of those POV statements are sourced to a third-party reliable source. They can't because they are solely the opinion of Wikipedia editors. By comparison, consider the proper Wikipedia statements such as "Dr. Smith argued that this list should not be interpreted as...", "The AAAS stated that the criteria for inclusion to the list is...", "Dr. Smith made a comparison of...", "In the AAAS's list, "scientists" were defined as..."... It's impossible to write these properly written statements when it's original research. We have no one to attribute the statements to. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bang on. Nealparr hits the nail on the head. Fences&Windows 02:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. Every Wikipedia article involves necessary editorial judgments about what to include and how. It's impossible to avoid that. Normally, articles don't discuss that, but WP:LIST strongly urges it: Further, non-obvious characteristics of a list, for instance regarding the list's structure, should be explained in its lead section and gives as a good example [4] Since everything is contested here that has to do with global warming, it's understandable that the criteria here needed to be laid out in detail. Nothing quoted in Nealparr's four-point list implies a POV for or against global warming. The first two quotes in Nealparr's list are caveats meant to avoid misinterpretations of the list; the second two are simply editorial judgments. The fact that they're explicitly laid out also works as a caveat for the reader. User:Staberinde makes a related objection (and a better one), that the list violates WP:PSTS -- in other words, a reliable source should be cited for each name on the list. But not even that means the list needs to be deleted. JohnWBarber (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LIST does not state that while including a statement of criteria for inclusion, ignore NPOV, and ignore OR. For or against global warming isn't the issue. The list tells people not to misinterpret it, and it makes non-neutral statements about things like what is and isn't global warming skepticism, who is and isn't a scientist, and what is and isn't harmful. Those are all POV issues regardless of the for and against global warming issue. Editorial judgement does not excuse OR, there's no third-party reliable source that compiled the list. The list of compositions by Franz Schubert is referenced to a dictionary of Opera, ie. a third-party source that compiled the list. Ours is an original list, compiled through original research by Wikipedia, and it certainly isn't reliable research (as we're discovering going through the list item by item). The criteria for inclusion fails basic core Wikipedia policy. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 15:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nealparr - are you arguing that any Wikipedia list is OR unless it has been sourced from a single, specific third-party reference list ?? Really ??? Gandalf61 (talk) 16:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. I didn't say that. While most lists do mirror a real-world published list or catalog independent of Wikipedia (list of countries, discography, list of books by an author, etc), a fact-based list doesn't necessarily have to mirror a published list. A list that is inherently opinion-based certainly does, is certainly OR otherwise. This list explicitly states that it doesn't reflect, for example, a petition list published elsewhere. It relies solely on the opinion of Wikipedia editors to decide what does and doesn't constitute opposition to the IPCC consensus statement, who does and doesn't qualify as a scientist, what does and doesn't qualify as global warming skepticism, etc. It's not a fact-based list. It's an opinion-based list. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 16:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we assumed that you were right and that the article violates OR, you still haven't shown that the list is so inherently WP:OR that it can't be fixed, therefore you haven't given a deletion argument. You certainly haven't shown that WP:OR or any other policy disallows lists based on the opinions of the people listed. Either each of those opinions can be reliably sourced, using basic editorial judgment, or they cannot. More important, your objection that this is an "opinion-based list" is contradicted by Wikipedia:Content forking#Articles whose subject is a POV, which allows such articles (Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally, and each article cross-references articles on other appropriate points of view.). Nowhere does it say that an article about a POV can't also be a list. JohnWBarber (talk) 17:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By opinion-based, I don't mean that it is problematic because it is a list of opinions. I don't personally have a problem with that. It's the inclusion criteria that is opinion based, and that inclusion criteria is the basis for this "article". That's why the article itself fails, inherently, and (I feel) should be deleted. Recovery of the article to make it policy-compliant would require formation of neutral inclusion criteria that outlines a solid plan for avoiding original research (for example, requiring a reliable source that states that the opinion is in opposition to the consensus, versus relying on editors to make that judgement), removal of entries that don't meet that criteria, retitling, and so on. I'm not opposed to any of that. A list of dissent to global warming consensus is not by itself flawed. The thing is, with the necessary changes to make it policy-compliant, it would no longer be this article. It'd be a whole new article that barely resembles this article. I don't feel that the concept for this article can be fixed. I feel it's inherently broken, and that the general topic idea from which the concept of the article derived deserves a do-over. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 17:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:PSTS (tertiary sourcing) standard I brought up is not applied when editors add sourced criticism to a regular article (for example, we don't need a third-party source saying Roger Ebert disliked The Adventures of Foo to simply state that in an article with a quote or even just a footnote to the review -- and we do this kind of thing normally, throughout the encyclopedia). So it's debatable whether or not we need that kind of third-party sourcing here. I should have read PSTS more closely. The subject of this article is to list what various scientists believe on certain subjects, and WP:PSTS actually says it allows that kind of sourcing (Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. The "descriptive claim" would be to describe what that subject's opinion is). Editors are normally considered competent enough to identify criticism or (in this case) skepticism when they see it. It doesn't seem like a leap to say that a comment that is skeptical comes from someone tho is therefore skeptical and could be termed a skeptic, at least skeptical about a particular point. And the article tries to make distinctions about what these people are skeptical about. If the article fails in that regard, it doesn't seem too complex a problem that simple editing (no matter how contentious) of individual items can't fix it. So the inclusion criteria used by the article look like a solid-enough plan already. JohnWBarber (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A primary source is fine as a reliable source if the person is explicitly stating that they are disagreeing with the IPCC consensus statement (like a petition or some other example of expressed disagreement, or them outright saying they are disagreeing, for example). All I said is that the criteria should state that a reliable source needs to demonstrate the opposition rather than relying on editor's judgements. A primary source can do that, sure. It doesn't need to be a third-party. How that contrasts to what is going on in this article, however, is that editors are sourcing "X said this" and originally synthesizing that "it contradicts Y" to form the "conclusion Z" that X is in opposition to Z. None of that is reliably sourced (primary, secondary, or tertiary) and is based on the opinion of the editor. I've stated my opinion that this means the concept for the article is fundamentally flawed, but I'll let everyone come to a consensus on whether that is true, but that is what's going on in the article due to the current inclusion criteria. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the scientists on the list have statements that are in contradiction to the basic points of the scientific consensus. Where you go wrong here is to assume that the consensus is only and singularily defined by the IPCC, and thus that any statement must be specifically directed towards the IPCC. Sorry but that is incorrect. The IPCC is an assessment of the scientific consensus - not the definer of it. See Scientific opinion on climate change for this. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then drop the line "In judging opposition to the consensus, each scientist's statements are compared to the most recently released IPCC report at the time of the statement" from the criteria that the list is based on. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More problematic: Drop that line and then decide how to justify entries that were made according to that line, entries that are sourced based on the consensus "at the time of the statement" (temporal problem), like sources that are pre-2007 consensus. According to the IPCC, there's stronger evidence in recent years that man is the likely contributor. Earlier comments wouldn't be opposing that consensus. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge: Not seeing any new arguments here in favor of deletion. Criteria for inclusion is very strict, built from prior consensus. Viewpoints and individuals discussed are sourced and noteworthy, and total elimination of any description of AGW dissent would be a disservice to the encyclopedia. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 02:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT If it's so strict why are non-scientists included? Verbal chat 10:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not to be confrontational, but who in the article would you classify as not being a scientist? A large part of the controversy surrounding this article is the question of how we determine who is or is not called a scientist; such as whether the field of one's doctorate prevents them from being classified a "climate scientist." »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 20:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is a fine article that describes an important part of the debate on global warming. Please keep this article in place. Razor Occam (talk) 04:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC) This user is a confirmed sockpuppet of Scibaby[reply]

• Delete: The article from beginning to end is a synthesis of sources, with each quote removed from its original context and used instead merely to justify the scientists' inclusion on this list. Very few of these quotes were intended to self-identify as a "climate change skeptic" so the list really shouldn't be here. Alex Harvey (talk) 16:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whose positions are being misrepresented? If you can demonstrate that content has been taken out of context in order to change its meaning and synthesize a position for anyone in this article, please do so so that the error can be corrected. If not, then this charge is groundless. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 20:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given several questionable ones have been found and are being discussed on the article's talk page, at a quick look-through, I think that the burden of proof is that they aren't misrepresented. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 214 FCs served} 20:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly - and the claims are under review, which is what I suggested in the first place. Demanding burden of proof that the positions aren't misrepresented as criteria for inclusion is logically fallacious; WP:RS will have to do unless we intend to personally petition each of the listed individuals for confirmation that they made those statements. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 20:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excatly wrong. Well, at least "Jc-SOCO" and "Shoemaker's Holiday" mean completely different things. However, because misrepresntation is common in the real world for these views, it should be the burden of the editor adding the material to ensure that the quote really is in opposition to the IPCC consensus, was after the IPCC consensus, and was not taken out of context. Richard Lindzen is a good example; the quote doesn't show opposition. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is the editors responsibility, as well as the responsibility of the editors that watch the article. You are wrong with regards to Lindzen's quote - it was/is in response to the TAR (which he was an author of), the SPM quoted was accepted Jan 20, 2001 and released right after. Lindzens quote is from April 2001 after the release. And as you can see on the talk page, he still holds that view (with statements from 2009) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I find the delete arguments unconvincing. Selecting and classifying the quotes is not OR, but rather normal editorial discretion - we do the exactly the same thing whenever we decide what to include and what to reject for any article. The fact that both proponents and opponents of the AGW consensus claim that the article is (the other) POV and that other opponents and proponents claim that its NPOV is good evidence that it is in fact reasonably neutral. Of course its not perfect, but then what article is? On the positive side, this article gives us a way of properly accounting for extreme minority positions that otherwise would be impossible to integrate without giving them undue weight. It also concentrates the debate in one central place where it can be presented in adequate context. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Random Break[edit]

• Keep — This is one of the most pivotal issues to mankind. The list of scientific luminaries opposed to the consensus view is of intense, profound and growing interest to millions of people, and wikipedia is performing a vital function by maintaining it. ► RATEL ◄ 00:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's a lot of editors that claim the IPCC as a concensus statement, and that disagreeing with that statement is opposing mainstream consensus. However, there is, AFAIK, no connection like that in any WP:RS. (It would have to be a sociology of science paper, I'd imagine.) ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 00:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You might want to take a look at Scientific opinion on climate change#Scientific consensus and the linkes statement. The IPCC position has been explictly endorsed as the consensus by joint statements from the major national academies of science, and by several individually. They are definitely WP:RS for this. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The good-faith intentions of the article are not achievable without extreme WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. First, a Wikipedian editor has selected a quote that they think justifies inclusion in this list; no secondary source may be known with an analysis of the scientist's beliefs and with a conclusion justifying inclusion in this list. Second, there is no verification that the scientist has not later repudiated the statement (people change their mind, particularly scientists upon viewing new data). Third, the lead claims that the list shows scientists who have opposed one of three principle conclusions; however, many of the quotations appear to have no connection with the particular IPCC conclusion (the scientist may very well oppose the conclusion, but it is up to the reader to infer that without verification). Johnuniq (talk) 02:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• First: We do actually check whether or not these scientists have changed their minds, the addition of a scientist is usually a very thorough process (see archives), where the quote (and its context) is turned and discussed between the pro and contra editors. Second if the quotes do not have a connection to either of the criteria (which isn't just the IPCC, see: Scientific opinion on climate change) then the scientist should and isn't included in the article. There is a rather large number of editors and admins who watch this list, so its not just a "drop in, and hope noone notices article". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It is still fundamentally original synthesis. The argument seems to be, 'yeah, but it's really good original synthesis'. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 10:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is needed to maintain NPOV balance, amongst the current crop of global warming related article. It serves a necessary function. Green Stoole (talk) 03:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Green Stoole is indef blocked as another Scibaby sock)--BozMo talk 08:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)— Green Stoole (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete per Science Apologist ATren (talk) 03:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unlike previous AfDs, history of the article has shown this to be in fact a POV and soapbox magnet; pardon the mixed metaphors. Bearian (talk) 18:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  How? And what has changed in the article/list to make it so? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This article is inherently non-neutral, and no amount of editing can fix that. Kevin (talk) 22:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per ScienceApologist. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I do believe that this article has POV and OR issues, but I don't believe that those issues are inherent in the subject matter; they can be fixed. I don't see why this page is any more WP:POV or WP:UNDUE than any number of lists of controversial subject matter, as noted above. Overall, I find the deletion arguments to be unconvincing and I don't see what has changed since the previous AfDs. Oren0 (talk) 00:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - How is the argument presented in this AFD any different than that which was posed in the first AFD? What conditions in the article have changed since that first AFD resulted in a decision to Keep that justify re-examination? Rather than offering a new perspective w/supporting evidence, this AFD seems to be the latest round in a perpetual effort to keep re-nominating the article for deletion until the desired outcome is achieved. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 02:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It is quite a stretch to apply a single stereotypical "List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming" to a group who holds a wide variety of opinions on a wide spectrum of "opposition" (as opposed to disagreement--a quite different issue [even the title is blatantly WP:OR ]) with certain scientific assessments. Many of the scientists support "other" mainstream and peer-reviewed scientific assessments. Claiming it's a majority-held scientific viewpoint might be debated (and is in separate WP articles, but that's not the phrase the title uses. It is useless to try to stuff a cadre of scientists into a one-size-fits-all title like this one. What I think the current discussion will illustrate is how it is impossible to delete articles once inserted regardless of how tenuous the proposition it purports to try to address. Might as well call it "List of scientists supporting different scientific assessments of global warming"--at least that one doesn't require an OR/POV personal definition of terms. --John G. Miles (talk) 09:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article is factual, accurate and a useful source of reference. Clearly a lot of work has gone into it. It should only be deleted if there are convincing arguments to delete it, and there are none. Nothing has changed since the earlier unsuccessful attempt to get the page deleted. Poujeaux (talk) 10:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As currently structured, this article is an inherent violation of WP:NOR, especially the WP:SYNTH provision. It takes a large number of scientists with a wide variety of different opinions and puts them into this list and subcategories thereof based on Wikipedians' own interpretations of their views. I see it as unlikely that this issue can or will be fixed, so deletion is the most appropriate solution to this violation of Wikipedia core policy. *** Crotalus *** 13:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not a BLP problem, useful and encyclopedic. I see no OR problem. The synth problem is pretty much the same problem we have with most lists and categories--what to include and not is rarely published elsewhere. So a list of Jewish Inventors (for example) can require some editorial thought, but not so far as to be a violation of WP:SYNTH. Hobit (talk) 18:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment when an article is tagged so badly, and it's detractors edit war over the removal of tags that are strictly false, the article must be worth keeping and they must know it. Call it Hobit's Law. Hobit (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is your argument anything more than WP:ILIKEIT? ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 19:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The first comment is (about synth etc.) is that there is no policy/guideline based problem with the article. As deletion requires a problem, that's a darn strong keep argument. The second one is that people are acting poorly in an attempt to delete an article and that usually implies a real underlying problem (IMO). Not ILIKEIT as much as DONTREWARDBADBEHAVIOR. Not a good reason to keep (that's the first part), but worth stating. Hobit (talk) 21:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:SYN is among the real Wikipedia policy real problems with this article. Among items not yet discussed, as far as I can tell, there's the implication that the scientists in each section agree on where they disagree with the IPCC consensus. That implication is clearly false in some cases. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see nothing in the article that claims or indicates that they agree on where they disagree. Could you show such an example? In any case, that would be an argument to improve, not delete unless you claim such an issue can't possibly be avoided. Hobit (talk) 03:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Let me explain it like this: The article may list person X as believing that A is true and B is false, and list person Y as believing that A is false and B is true (the "true" beliefs are by implication because they are not listed as believed to be false). What is the purpose of the article? Is it a list of contradictory stuff? Is it a list of factoids to prove a POV? Does the list show only confused people who fail to understand the IPCC report? Or does it show clever people who have seen the faults in the IPCC report (yet, for some mysterious reason, they fail to agree on what they disagree with)? Are there any secondary sources that have analysed any of the statements expressed? Who compiled this list? Johnuniq (talk) 09:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • The purpose of the list is for navigation. If you are interested in opposition to the mainstream scientific opinion on climate change, this is one place to start. The reason that some of the scientists are saying contradictory things, is that the opposition is on the fringes, which is made clear in the lede, thus no two scientists are holding exactly the same opinion. There are clever people on this list, and there are some very confused people on it as well, the list itself takes no stand with regards to who is who. (that would be POV), or if any of the opinions are valid or not. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and change name. The article should be titled "List of scientists who disagree with one or more tenets of the IPCC's view of climate change". Cla68 (talk) 00:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  This would equate to "List of scientists," period, because I don't know of anyone who agrees with everything in the reports. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, given the weak definition of "Scientist" used, it would just be "List". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Almost impossible to keep BLP, SYNTH and NPOV violations at bay. If no consensus for delete then listify (yes I know it is currently entitled "List" but I mean make it a proper list and not a quotefarm). Itsmejudith (talk) 10:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Without the quotes (the verification for inclusion), how will we ensure that WP:BLP violations aren't going on? As a "pure" list, no reader or editor will be able verify whether a scientist merits inclusion on the list or not. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That is something to consider. If this list can't meet WP:V and WP:BLP if made into a proper list, then why should we have it? This just proves the point, this list needs those quotes in order to support the results it synthesizes. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 21:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Erm? That would make all article inclusions that need a citation original research and a synthesis. When one is looking for references/material for an article, the editor is making the exact same original research and synthesis that this list is accused of. Whenever a ((cn)) tag is placed in an article, we might as well give up. Since it would be original research/synthesis to look and insert a reference for the requested citation needed. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source A + Source B = Unsourced C is original synthesis. Providing sources that state C directly is not. It's entirely possible to write a list that uses C sources without running afoul of the original research policy. Sourcing C directly is just research. Combining sources that don't say C directly and concluding C anyway is original research. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, some of the sources in the list do directly state C. What's wrong with just using those and having a shorter list? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Very Strong Delete and salt With issues centered around WP:NPOV, WP:RS (there have been concerns that the list of "scientists" is mostly made up of non-climate scientists and that credentials have been inflated), WP:DUE, WP:NOT (it's a directory, wikipedia articles should not be) there is absolutely no way to salvage this article. Would have commented sooner but just noticed the AfD now. Simonm223 (talk) 12:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you please expand, which POV is this list catering to? The rather wide definition of scientist is purely a content issue, subject to changes of consensus. What exactly are the problems with sourcing? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This list is just a quotefarm used to fuel talk page soapboxing; it's not here for encyclopedic purposes. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WVBluefield (talk) 19:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Violation of WP:POV, WP:PSTS, WP:SYNTH, and WP:UNDUE. This also misrepresents who these people actually are, as many are not climatologists. It wrongly synthesizes people with a veriety of opinions into this catch-all conglomeration. Per Johnuniq (talk · contribs), this is only WP:OR in taking a single quote from these people and does not take recent changes into account. Reywas92^Talk 20:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firstly, the article never claims that it is a list of climatologists. It is a list of scientists. Secondly, many diverse scientists such as geologists, oceanographers, meteorologists, and many others are qualified to comment on the subject. Also, recent changes have been handled very well on the talk page. I challenge you to find any example, now or in the past, where an individual's current position (at the time, of course) was misrepresented on the page for any significant amount of time. Oren0 (talk) 04:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Overall the list is clearly original research. The classification of scientists into categories based on bullet points in the IPCC is not supported by any reliable source. The characterization of "scientist" is arbitrary and runs afoul of original-research concerns as well; there is no particular reason, for example, why one would expect an emeritus professor of nuclear physics to be more of an expert about global warming than anybody else. I don't see any way that this sort of partisan list can be constructed from individual quotes without conducting original research. Eubulides (talk) 22:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I can't decide on the deletion of this list. But as one of the first few editors to heavily push on BLP on the list and someone who has some occasional involvement in it, I can agree BLP issues come up all the time and there is a push by some editors to include people without sufficient sourcing to demonstrate they are opposed to the mainstream assessement. However on the whole I feel we do achieve a resonable job in keeping that out. On the other hand, perhaps the list is fundamentally flawed as some claim. I think issues like 'what is a list' and 'what sort of lists do we have on wikipedia' are important here, I've never really see any good discussion and I think a number of the issues raised here apply to many lists on wikipedia. One final thing, it's clear to me both from this discussion and my experience with the article that people on both sides (i.e. editors who support the mainstream assessement and those who oppose it) want it gone and want to keep it. I don't know if there's a clear distinction between the two. This shouldn't matter but I think it's important to say to avoid any claims of some sort of conspiracy from either side. Yet there will be some editors and some external parties who are glad when/if it's gone because they've 'removed propaganda by climate change denialists' and some editors and some external parties who say we're 'engaging in more suppresion of the real science as part of the climate change conspiracy' if we delete it and of course some editors/external parties who think 'oh no, we've removed a good list which demonstrated the claims of a conspiracy are nonsense and those actually opposed are a tiny minority' and some editors/external parties who think 'yes we've removed another attempt by the climate change conspiracy to smear good scientists because they dared speak out against the conspiracy/non-science' and some editors/esternal parties who think 'yes we've removed another attempt by the climate change conspiracy to mislead people into thinking there isn't a lot of scientific dispute about their conspiracy'. Again this shouldn't influence the outcome in any way, but I think it's important to understand. Nil Einne (talk) 00:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree completely, and as a sidenote, i will also add that i believe that the push for inclusion of the more fringe views on the main articles about climate change will be increased if this article is removed, since we now won't have any navigational aids to these. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BHTT --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Gandalf61, Hobit, Stephan Schulz, JohnWBarber et al. As they demonstrate, the "problems" are ordinary ones encountered in compiling any list or writing any article. None of our policies are being materially violated here. Perhaps it could be titled better, perhaps some normal editing is necessary, but something which is essentially this list is a real and positive contribution to wikipedia, and is well within our rules and practices. Many deletes amount to saying neutrality is impossible, understanding what the majority view is is impossible, understanding what A says and whether it disagrees with B is impossible, and that we must have a third source to tell us as to what these sources really say (and why don't we need a fourth one to tell us what the third one said ...?). Well we do that, and overall do a decent job, everywhere and all the time. Wikipedia works in practice, although perhaps not in some people's theories.John Z (talk) 01:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This isn't the kind of AfD I'd normally comment on, but some of the editing on that page seems inappropriate, particularly the addition of four warning tags defacing the article, and immediate reverting when I tried to remove them. The list seems useful, and the fervour surrounding it seems suspicious. It needs to be well-sourced, preferably with secondary sources, but so long as it is, there's no reason within policy to remove it. Because the idea of man-made global warming is a contentious issue, a list of scientists who oppose it would seem ipso facto to be notable. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, such lists are compiled by participants in the climate change debate, so it is a notable issue; however, isn't the task of Wikipedia is to report on such lists rather than compiling original ones?? (I think of Scientific Dissent from Darwinism as a good example on how to report on a list, explaining its role in the debate without becoming an active participant by publishing one's own list.) The underlying assumption, POV if you will, advocated by such lists is that scientific opinion is best measured through an opinion poll of scientists. The alternative might be to have a list of papers in high-quality journals that dispute the mainstream assessment on climate change. That kind of list is advocating other assumptions about how to assess the state of scientific research. The point is that Wikipedia should certainly report on lists of dissenters, but it should refrain from actively validating the assumptions that such lists are based on by creating its very own lists of dissenters. 77.4.79.151 (talk) 01:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, or change editing rules Unlike what many uninitiated editors think of this article, rather than being a POV mine for the skeptical side, this article is actually a cleverly designed POV mine for the believer/alarmist side. Over time, it has been twisted in a way to create the illusion that opposition to the IPCC consensus is restrained to a few 30-40ish crackpots. In this context, no matter what I think of the climate change debate, this article is good for the trash.

This being said, there is basically nothing wrong with having an article documenting a certain notable POV if that POV is not covered in a more general article (that is another debate). But the POV that is supposed to be documented here is not documented at all, thanks to ad hoc rules created by a group of activist editors who have all voted 'keep' I see (for instance, some rule not to include scientists who happen to not be the subject of a specific Wikipedia article about them - a rule with no relationship whatsoever with the Wikipedia editing rules - or a rule not to include scientists who have made their position public through a letter signed by other scientists - same comment).

If this article is fixed in order to make of it what it pretends to be, it has a legitimate purpose. Concerns such as BLP and SYNTH are really secondary issues because they are easily manageable. --Childhood's End (talk) 20:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Agree with the very first !vote cast (by User:Mercurywoodrose). 72.83.205.80 (talk) 23:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Obviously. A very notable subject. The POV pushing from both sides is similar to other hotly debated political issues. A rename or merger might be a good idea. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:OR was needed to create the list. An encyclopedia is to give facts. The fact of each person's views should be mentioned in his or her biography. Notable views should be mentioned in articles on the climate change debate. No reason to bring them together in this list which, to me anyway, has the feel of an enemies list. Steve Dufour (talk) 23:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep And wince. Likely to be a perpetual NPOV issue as long as the political wars on this subject continues. That said, overall benefit to the public debate is likely to arise from maintenance of such a list, provided it's carefully sourced. Ray^Talk 01:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but please change the title. That the authors have created specific inclusion criteria and made it backed up by sourced data clinches that this is acceptable. I would encourage hearty discussion of individual entries and individual sources on the talk page by those skeptical. Miami33139 (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't know if the article was updated since this afd was initiated, but some of the concerns raised by editors no longer exist. For one, the list includes clearly demarcated sections for the varied reasons out there that "oppose the mainstream." Although the mainstream may be hard to define, if sources say that "so and so opposes the mainstream...." that wouls suffice for inclusion.--Pink Bull (talk) 18:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with you that we could include a person if reliable, independent, third-party sources actually stated up-front that "so-and-so is a scientist that opposes the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming" or even a synonym to this, but though I've asked for these, I've yet to see one produced. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Geography of Cornwall. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 01:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of foreign-language names for Cornwall[edit]

List of foreign-language names for Cornwall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

An article dedicated solely to various translations of a cities name does not belong on Wikipedia. A translating dictionary maybe? listcruft. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 22:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I do believe Cornwall was once a nation, though, and we have a page at List of country names in various languages, so maybe there could be somewhere to merge this to rather than simply deleting it. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 22:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This is not encyclopedicWildHorsesPulled (talk) 23:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Cornwall is not a city. It is a county of England. It is also one of the six ancient Celtic nations with its own (technically extinct) language and cultural history. Guest9999 (talk) 00:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Please take time to read the start of the article, explaining why it is notable. Do to its unique history, it has something that normally only nations have, that being its own name given to it by various groups. A notable aspect for a notable geographic location. Dream Focus 10:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Geography of Cornwall in a more concise form. Interesting information, but not enough to merit its own article. I think the variations of England, Anglaterre, Inglaterra, Англия, etc. are interesting as well, but not enough that we should have a table on the subject, let alone a separate page. Mandsford (talk) 13:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No source is provided that states Cornwall has foreign-language names independent of transliteration, and since nearly all of them look transliterated, I don't see a reason to believe this is so. If a reliable source is cited in the article for this, then Merge a concise form of this into Geography of Cornwall as Mandsford suggests. That the Asturian name is Cornualles doesn't strike me as more than a WP:DIRECTORY listing. As WP:SALAT says, If you create a list like the "list of shades of colors of apple sauce", be prepared to explain why you feel this list contributes to the state of human knowledge. Looks like an apple sauce list to me. JohnWBarber (talk) 16:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Mandsfold. Bearian (talk) 18:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wiktionary already gives lists of translations, including for Cornwall.[5] At most, the Cornwall article should have a link to wiktionary. Wikipedia is simply not the appropriate venue for such lists.YobMod 20:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, bizarre relisting discounted.  Skomorokh, barbarian  00:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THUDD[edit]

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

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

A spoof of THX from 1 episode of Tiny Toon Adventures. No links. No Refs. No notability. Blargh29 (talk) 22:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete You've got to be freaking kidding me. A parody from just one ep of TTA? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I was going to say Merge but I don't think it's notable even within the context of Tiny Toon Adventures; I certainly don't know where you'd put it on that page. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It was a 10-second joke! Yet, judging from the lack of edits (the majority by correction and grammar bots) and that it was created by an IP during the early era of the site four years ago I'm just going to say this was a test article that has done a great job eluding AfD until now. Nate • (chatter) 11:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a joke book. This is a leftover from those early days when they were taking any random thought that popped into someone's head. Mandsford (talk) 13:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Seriously, an article about something that lasted 10s that isn't the men's 100m sprint in an athletics tournament? DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Mind you, it's got to win an award for the longest time that an article has had a tag on it - it was tagged as being an orphaned article way back in November 2006. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom.--Karljoos (talk) 14:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, one-off joke, no secondary coverage that would indicate notability or importance. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep for the lulz. • Anakin ^(talk) 13:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No notability asserted. Aiken ♫ 15:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Blargh29 (talk) 04:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Argh! Okay, then I suggest cleanup and promotion to featured, and nomination of 69.137.188.39 to adminship for his four stellar contributions (and no history of problems). • Anakin ^(talk) 13:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then I predict that 69.137.188.39 will soon be an administrator. You convinced an administrator to relist this for further debate, simply by saying "Keep for the lulz". Mandsford (talk) 13:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's not an admin. That was a user relist. I left a message asking why. -moritheil^Talk 17:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure it was just a joke, seeing as he nominated it for deletion in the first place. • Anakin ^(talk) 18:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But since he did it, we have to be clear, so I've asked him. -moritheil^Talk 19:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know what's worse, that someone thinks we'd get a laugh out of that, or that a non-administrator can post the relist message in the first place. So, if we've gone seven days and I don't like the way the discussion is going, I can just extend the time? To try that, I'd have to have some big ones, and they'd have to be gold plated. Mandsford (talk) 20:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Why has this been relisted? There are surely enough comments here. Aiken ♫ 15:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Blargh29 responded to say he has not actually relisted it. He has not offered further explanation. -moritheil^Talk 04:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Better tell him to change his password. Mandsford (talk) 12:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: It is difficult to know where to start. No references, not even an assertion of notability. As for the relisting it seems redundant since the consensus appears to be clear enough, although it still has not had a full seven days yet. As a side note, blargh29 does not appear to be an admin. CrispMuncher (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and if need be, merge one sentence into the Tiny Toons main article mentioning it. -moritheil^Talk 17:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: If the scope if really only that small and someone wants to argue keep for humor, even then I'd say it should be kicked per general consensus on 1-shot pop culture eventsy qualifying as notability. Only stuff that snowballs like crazy can get through that... like this classic and the AfD here[6] ♪ DaTheisen(talk) 13:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There are a number of claims on the Keep side that this topic is discussed heavily in a wide range of third party sources. There were however, no such sources when this AfD began, and far more importantly there still aren't. Subtract the primary sources, and one is left with a very large amount of synthesis and original research. Black Kite 13:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Differences in versions of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy[edit]

Differences in versions of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Pure trivia, fan-cruft listing of the minute differences between adaptations. Unencyclopedic and unnecessary. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 22:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • There are a whole list of references listed in the article.  BRIANTIST  (talk) 15:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. article provides no argument for why this material is notable. no references to reliable third party sources mentioning the differences and why they matter to anyone other than fans (or even why they matter to fans, if published in a nonfan source). the whole article seems to be original research, as this is not published elsewhere (no references to such publications given after 3 years), and required the authors of the article to watch and read and listen to each version meticulously, and record all these differences. thats different than simply quoting a single primary source, which is obviously not original research. this is really at the far end of the OR spectrum. As a fan (but not a fanatic), i would care about any differences that either changed the tone/style, character behavior, or story arc, esp. if not specifically approved by Mr. Adams. Im not sure there are any, from my recollections of the material. if someone can provide refs showing an active discussion among film/literature/radio critics of the differences, or published works describing the differences, i would bow to it being included in WP. and i will leave it to defenders of the article to find sources, and hopefully not simply say "notable" or "referenced" (it really would need page refs for text passages)or (god forbid) "interesting" or "useful". of course, this is being offered for discussion on a Thursday, and maybe im just having trouble getting the hang of ths day...Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Mostly harmless. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this may also be an in joke, so DON'T PANIC.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the material seems to be sourced to the works themselves, in my opinion going through them and making the comparisons/ noting differences in this way constitutes original thought. I cannot find any evidence that the differences between the versions have been the topic of independent reliable sources which would allow for an article based on a neutral, verifiable framework - not one based on original research. Being harmless is not a good reason for keeping an article, travel guides, directories and myspace pages are all pretty harmless - it does not mean Wikipedia should host them or that they belong as part of a high-quality, free encyclopaedia. Guest9999 (talk) 00:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition - the page in its current form is not an article about the Differences in versions of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. It is a list of every difference various editors have been able to come up with. Even if the topic was notable and the claimed third party sources do exist this list would not be the encyclopaedic way to present the information. An article on the topic based on verifiable information from reliable sources would cover why the differences occurred (limitations of medium, evolution of material, etc.), how they were received and other material that made it more than sections of plot summary bound together by original research. Guest9999 (talk) 01:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep and cleanup. A notable topic which has been the topic of multiple articles and books, and has significant coverage in books abut individual versions, in books, articles, TV and radio shows about the Hitch-Hikers guide in general, and biogrphies of Douglas Adams himself. Sources are easy to find. Note the differences aren't all minor, and some are referred to in different versions. This article has plenty of potential. Verbal chat 08:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources are easy to find, then why aren't they in the article? I would reconsider my delete if there were any non-primary sources provided. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree with Verbal. It has plenty of coverage, and is a notable enough topic. Dream Focus 10:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. TomCat4680 (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep I guess the referecnes need cleaning up a bit, but I also agree with Verbal.  BRIANTIST  (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The references are almost exclusively the source material itself - the books, cassettes, etc. Without coverage by secondary sources any two things could be compared in this way and the article could be said to have sources. For example for "Differences between The Beatles and The Spice Girls" it could easily be sourced that all five of one group was female and all four of the other were male, that they were formed in different locations and have different styles of music. The key thing is that nobody - to my knowledge - has ever put all this information together before. From Wikipedia:Original Research "you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.". The sources do not support that there are differences between versions, they simply support what each version says. Guest9999 (talk) 10:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Differences between The Beatles and The Spice Girls

• False analogy. This isn't The Beatles versus The Spice Girls, it's Hitchhiker's Guide vs Hitchhiker's Guide. — goethean ॐ 23:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that all the references are primary sources is enough to make them ineligible. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'd like to see much more sources to show this is notable before further discussion. Bearian (talk) 19:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there are no reliable, third party sources, but willing reconsider should that change. WFCforLife (talk) 14:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is much discussion of the differences within the articles for Douglas Adams and The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and it is useful to have a summary of these differences. Unusually the books were written after the intial radio series and while being based on the radio series the books have significant differences in plot and order of events, so there is an argument as to which is the definite version of the story. There is a video clip of Adams himself discussing in an TV interview why the differences occur on this BBC page. Cjc13 (talk) 18:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup. I'm not sure whether linking to other WP articles that do have reliable, third-party sources satisfies that requirement, but the WP articles for those multiple versions that are compared here are comprehensive and could be good references for this article. Either way, I suggest someone archive this list to put on a popular or semi-official HHGG site and put a link to it from one of the HHSS WP articles. Resident alian (talk) 17:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I'm not seeing any secondary sources, in spite of the article rescue tag. Abductive (reasoning) 01:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Well-intentioned but basically a monolithic violation of WP:NOR, specifically WP:SYNTH. No secondary sources as mentioned above. Shereth 15:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All of the references cited are the original texts, and therefore primary sources and ineligible for Wikipedia. Once they are removed the article is completely unreferenced. That merely highlights that this is obviously a huge piece of original research. There is certainly a place on the web for this work, but Wikipedia is not it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A mess of trivia and original research. Triplestop x3 00:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:SYNTH. A list of primary sources wont help this article. It needs independent reliable sources that discuss the differences in versions as the title suggests. Sarilox (talk) 13:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The first time I read this series, almost two decades ago, the foreword to the collected edition discussed how the story changed between different radio versions, tv, and the first novel. The documentation to the text adventure from the 80s also mentioned that the story in the game did not scrupulously follow the radio or books either. Adams enjoyed these inconsistencies. There can't be any synthesis or OR if the author himself started pointing out the subject matter twenty years before Wikipedia existed. Miami33139 (talk) 17:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, but the author's own comments in the foreword to his own work can hardly be considered an independent source. Abductive (reasoning) 20:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Agreed, but by size this material would not be merged back to HHG2G. Miami33139 (talk) 21:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of pumps[edit]

Comparison of pumps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Seems like a marketing brochure; "Which pump is right for you?" Non-encyclopedic, and unnecessary comparison \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Jesus Christ, it shouldn't hurt to just make a grouped AfD? FunnyDuckIsFunny (talk) 21:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Group AfDs don't work when the articles are so different, and each one may have individual merit. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 22:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Still we don't need a new AfD relating to comparisions every ten seconds. FunnyDuckIsFunny (talk) 22:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non encyclopedic, far too subjective in terms of comparing one week's product catalogue with another, and I see no way in which this could be fixed. A prose description of the relative merits of each sort (and leaving comparisons or application choice to the reader) might have some value, but this isn't it. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- are we looking at the same article? There is no 'marketing' information here, no links to commercial pump suppliers, merely a list of different pump types with parameters. Aren't there articles on some of these other pump types? Only 6 or 7 are linked currently, but if these are all distinctive types (which they are, looking at the reference used) presumably there is scope for them being described in WP in the future. Since the list doesn't specifically mention a suitable purpose for each pump, it cannot be considered a "Which pump is right for you?" selection guide. To help counteract this, I have adjusted the lede to suit. However, I also agree with Andy that there should be more prose description of each type, possibly losing some of existing the columns (such as 'Difficulty of repair' (very subjective) and 'hazard to fish' (which column contains no useful info.) EdJogg (talk) 00:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I must say that I have the same feeling as User:EdJogg above: are we actually looking at the same article? Because I simply cannot see this as a "marketing brochure". The different pumps are listed only by their types, such as "Archimedean screw", "Chain and washer pump", "Coil and spiral pump", "Diaphragm pump" and so on. None of these types are tied to a particular company, and I simply cannot see this table as a marketing attempt (nor do I see it as "comparing one week's product catalogue with another", per User:Andy Dingley above).

I was somewhat worried about possible commercial references/external links, but the only reference is to a page from Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, and you can hardly accuse that of being a commerical (or "marketing") link.

Having said that, I should point out that I have no opinion on whether this table, as it stands, is worthwhile as a separate Wikipedia article. The nominator's arguments that this is "[n]on-encyclopedic, and unnecessary comparison" are possibly valid; all I wanted is to say that I do not see any marketing attempt here.

-- Ekjon Lok (talk) 01:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- per the above. Btw regarding EddJogg's comment, aldough it isn't quite stated that a specific type is more useful for a certain purpose, due to the pumping height, we can get an overall idea; eg if it states that it is 100m or more, it could eg be used as a potable water pump, lower lift heights typically refer to irrigation pumps. As for the discarting of columns, indeed some could be removed, but some (such as the "hazard to fish") are best kept. reason for this is that pumps are also used in national installations on rivers (eg locks, flood protection, ...). Some (even in developed countries) still use pumps very hazardous to fish (actually more than hazardous as it kills the fish anyhow).

KVDP (talk) 08:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article that described different pump mechanisms would be useful. Comparisons between them though becomes subjective and run foul of WP:OR. This article, as it stands, isn't good enough as a description to warrant inclusion. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't original research to list stats like that. And the perceived quality level of the article is not a valid reason to delete it. Dream Focus 10:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which "stats" are listed? Production costs of "medium-high" are too vague to convey useful information and even when these are quantitative, delivery heights that range "10m-100m" aren't much better, let alone a column of question marks. "Medium-high" isn't useful because it's not precise enough (not enough increments) and it's also unclear what budget we're judging it by. What's an expensive way to pump water for a village's irrigation is cheap for nuclear reactor coolant. These broad values are also unclear because "plunger pumps" work over a huge range, but don't become meaningful for comparison until we know which plunger pump (i.e. size, drive power) we're talking about.

I don't know what a "Progressive cavity (mono)" type of pump is. This article doesn't tell me, nor does it offer even a redlink that suggests it might try to in the future.

The article, as it stands, has two distinct problems. It doesn't convey enough useful information to be an objective list of descriptions - this might be fixable in a similar article, but this article isn't it and is currently no more than a list of names. Secondly a comparison in this sense becomes subjective: "high cost" only exists when you assume the budget available. Subjective judgements like that are inherently WP:OR, because they introduce that assumption for budget or manufacturing capabilities.

At risk of censure for WP:OWN, I'd compare this article to the (incomplete) List of boiler types, by manufacturer. That's a similar article in some ways: it takes a core technology with many different approaches within it then tries to enumerate the possible options and tie them into some organised taxonomy. It doesn't make comparisons between them though.

"quality level of the article is not a valid reason to delete it." Opinions vary on that. If someone fixes it now, then great. Otherwise it can be best to delete poor articles and re-create them again later. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A valid encyclopedia entry, listing the types of pumps, and information about them, plus linking to various Wikipedia articles about pumps that have already had articles made about them. Dream Focus 10:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to pump The main article has no real list of types, which is after all what this article really is. Mangoe (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is an indiscriminate collection of information drawn from primary sources (two failings in one). Guy (Help!) 18:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this indiscriminate collection of stuff. It isn't an encyclopedia article and i can't see how it could be made to be one.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep An article comparing, or even just listing, types of pump is valid. This article needs to be greatly improved to be of much use, but the potential is probably there. A tag such as Cleanup or Notability would be a better temporary solution than deletion. Globbet (talk) 22:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The topic has great notability as pumps are commonly required to perform continuously for long periods, like the heart, and so their characteristics have been extensively studied and compared. The nomination seems disruptive, as it appears to be part of a drive-by deletion spree contrary to our deletion policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per previous comments. If there's actually a violation of Wikipedia guidelines, it would be welcomed at Appropedia:, but I don't think there's any reason to delete. --Chriswaterguy talk 08:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the article needing improvement is never a reason to delete. Could be greatly expanded to provide a useful comparison and certainly has the notability to meet inclusion criteria. Too much information to merge into the pump article. The Seeker 4 Talk 13:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and make articles on each significant type that does not already have an article of its own. This should properly be regarded as a summary or navigation article. When there are factual things to compare, the comparison is not OR. DGG ( talk ) 01:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of the 12-hour and 24-hour clocks[edit]

Comparison of the 12-hour and 24-hour clocks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Comparison of the various advantages of different times. Content forks from the respective methods pages, and and uncited unencyclopedic comparison. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as this is largely original research. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 23:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as OR, redundant to 24-hour clock. I guess you can make an overly complex description of just about anything simple, although the difference between the two clocks is fairly obvious to any person who ever learned how to tell time. Beyond that, one can compare anything to anything. Imagine how much one could write about the differences between shoes with laces and shoes with velcro straps. Mandsford (talk) 13:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as just somebody's essay. Mangoe (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - subject non-relevant--Karljoos (talk) 14:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since it looks like someone's homework. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 19:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Let we explain why it was made to begin with. It was made following discussions [7], [8] on the inconsistencies between the two articles. The artilces were also being overrun with with comparisons instead of talking about the topics. This article was therefore made to work this out. Also there is significant content in this article that has never been and would be inappropriate to out in one of its two "parent" artilces. Zginder 2009-10-27T13:54Z (UTC)
• Merge to 24-hour clock, then merge 12-hour clock and rename the joined article. Miami33139 (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless a rescuer can come up with sufficient reliable sources for the comparison as its own subject. While I sympathize with the problem of keeping unwanted material out of the individual clock-type articles, a separate article for the comparison seems inconsistent with WP:FORK unless it can sustain itself as a notable subject in its own right. With nary a sign of a source anywhere in the article, this comes across as pure original research. --RL0919 (talk) 17:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of cricket bowlers[edit]

Comparison of cricket bowlers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-encyclopedic sporting cruft, inclusion in the list is purely subjective and none has any encyclopedic value. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 04:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Appears to be useful enough. -- ISLANDERS27 09:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The creator appears to have put a great deal of effort into the table, but it's not clear what the criteria for inclusion are or what the table is intended to show. JH (talk page) 09:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Query - a number of past cricket bowlers - is there any criterion by which the bowlers were chosen (the all-time leading wicket takers, or something?) or is it just a random selection of "former greats"? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a random selection, Jim Laker is the 57th leading Test wicket-taker and amongst 149 bowlers with 100 Test wickets Sobers is 128th in term of averages. Sobers also played one One Day International so his place on that table is very questionable. --Jpeeling (talk • contribs) 10:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm reluctant to delete something that someone has worked hard on putting together, but it's an analysis of 16 athletes who, I am presuming, excelled as bowlers in cricket. The American equivalent would be a comparison of the statistics of 16 great pitchers, or 16 great quarterbacks. I'm willing to listen politely, and without any discouraging comment, to any description of what the purpose of the table would be. As an alternative to this, I'd encourage the author to make rankings for bowling average, strike rate, economy rate, etc., similar to ones like this. Looking over Category: Cricket lists, I see that there's room for this, and Wikipedia is pretty generous when it comes to sports articles. Mandsford (talk) 13:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A well developed list but it is an indiscriminate list with no inclusion criteria. I'm struggling to understand why Srinath would be in, but not Kumble (for India); why pigeon isn't in the list etc etc. -SpacemanSpiff 15:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, indiscriminate list. I'm surprised how you could make a list like this and not include Glenn McGrath, for instance. Until some concrete criteria are drawn up for inclusion, this is inherently WP:OR. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Comment - I agree this list appear indiscriminate, although I don't know much about cricket, and so appears to be delete-worthy. But the creator appears to be a new editor who may not be familiar with all the Wikirules, and it sounds from the discussion above that the article may be salvageable if it is reorganized in a more appropriate fashion (including replacing some members of the list with others). It seems like it may be more productive to keep for now, but for someone who is more familiar than I with the content to explain the deletion concerns with the editor and how he might be able to bring it up to standards. Rlendog (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but expand and explain. The list is not indiscriminate, as it applies to notable bowlers with a Wikipedia article only, not evertyone who has ever played a game somewhere. But since it does not include all of them, there hneeds to be some specidic basis for the choi=ce of whom to include. DGG ( talk ) 01:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you here DDG. I'm not sure how familiar you are with cricket, but it's a notoriously statistics-bound game, much more so than conceptually similar games like baseball. Merely defining what makes a "good" bowler is a matter of oftentimes heated debate amongst cricket statisticians and fans; it could be someone who takes a lot of wickets (Brett Lee, Shane Warne), it could be someone who concedes very few runs (Glenn McGrath), or it could be players who have a good balance between the two (Heath Streak). There are also statistical aberrations like Charles Marriott and Wilf Barber to consider. Even allowing for the rather haphazard inclusion standards on the article at the moment, any standard you come up with under this title is going to be inherently WP:POV and WP:OR. I could see articles like Comparison of cricket bowlers with 100 test wickets possibly not falling afoul of this problem, but then again, we are talking about this article, not some other hypothetical list. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. As much as it pains me due to the work put in (I can respect and sympathize) the criteria for inclusion into the list strikes me as too random. I defer to WP:NOT#STATS. While there may be some guidelines for this particular list, I think in order to keep it some really specific rules would need to be put in place (even then, I'm not sure how notable it really is). I'm open to that possibility--but as it currently is, I must vote delete. Cocytus [»talk«] 04:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Søren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche[edit]

Søren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

An article dedicated solely to a meeting that may or may not have happened, and also how similar the two men were. Unnecessary content fork. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep There is vast scholarly literature investigating the philosophical relationship between these two thinkers. This topic is beyond question notable, and the content of the article would be undue weight if merged into either of the individual articles or philosophy sub-articles (Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche and Philosophy of Søren Kierkegaard). For an example of how an article like this might develop, see Relationship between Friedrich Nietzsche and Max Stirner.  Skomorokh, barbarian  22:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep: The IP nominator on the talk page said this article is uncited, but there are four inline references and five extra references, which is sufficient for an article that size. Also agree with the potential for growth and development. Poor Yorick (talk) 22:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - valid and notable subject. See http://www.amazon.com/Either-Kierkegaard-Nietzsche-Intersections-Continental/dp/0754654745#reader_0754654745. The Transhumanist 22:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep and ameliorate concerns through regular editing.  Skomorokh, barbarian  00:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of MD and DO in the United States[edit]

Comparison of MD and DO in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unnecessary comparison, US-centricism and a topic that can be easily dealt with in the respected articles. The precedent this article sets is also worrying. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I believe that comparison articles should be kept when they provide content that would not easily fit into any existing single article, and where the comparison itself is of interest. Comparison between Roman and Han Empires is a good example of this. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 22:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. This is a widely discussed topic. With numerous journal articles published on the comparison of the two degrees. Bryan Hopping ^T 02:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Precedents don't exist in Wikipedia. There are plenty of references in the article. And what's this US centricism nonsense? The Wikipedia has articles about things all over the world. No one would complain that the list of presidents in a country is centric to that nation and thus shouldn't be allowed, or an article about someone only notable in their nation. Dream Focus 10:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep very well researched article with many medical journals cited. Ikip (talk) 11:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is an interesting article, maybe. It's also a research paper, so it's WP:OR. But even beyond that, is such a narrowly defined comparison even a notable topic? I say Delete. Mangoe 13:58, October 23, 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Very interesting and well sourced article. I've often wondered the difference between an M.D. and a D.O. myself. TomCat4680 (talk) 14:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Health care in the United States. An interesting article, but "interesting" is not a criterion that's very useful when determining notability. Many of the "keep" arguments here boil down to WP:ILIKEIT, which isn't very helpful. SDY (talk) 15:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the AfD suggestion was made in good faith, but this is a frivolous AfD. The article is a very notable topic. The "comparison of MD and DO" is discussed in numerous books, scholarly journals, and media articles. Even a casual glance at the sources listed for this article would reveal that. The idea that this article should be deleted because it is "US-centric" is ridiclous. It's an article about a topic that exists in the United States. It is no more US-centric than the article about the Grand Canyon. There is no reason whatsoever to delete or merge this article. Bryan Hopping ^T 17:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I can't find anything wrong with the article. Just because it centers on a U.S. medical debate doesn't mean it is not encyclopedic. Warrah (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It'd almost make sense to have a "medical practitioners in the United States" article that would cover MDs, DOs, NPs, PAs, and such, but I'm very reticent about the term "comparison" as part of the title of any Wikipedia article: it implies analysis and evaluation rather than a presentation of facts. Even just renaming the article might be a good first step. "MD and DO in the United States" maybe. That it's US-biased is irrelevant, it clearly states that in the title and the distinction is important since the DO degree in the US is different from foreign degrees with the same name. SDY (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I haven't yet formed an opinion on keeping or deleting, but I must say that I am sure that any similar article about, say, India or Brazil would end up as a unanimous "delete". Please let's judge this by the same standards that we would use for articles about other large countries. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there were noteworthy comparisons from India or Brazil on similar topics, they would not be deleted. Please, look at the sources before you judge. This is a noteworthy topic, as the numerous sources for this article clearly indicate. There are many articles on this exact topic, the "Comparison of MD and DO in the United States" or as the article was originally titled "Comparison of allopathic and osteopathic medicine in the United States." Let's judge this article by the same standards as every other article. This topic is widely discussed by reliable sources. Isn't that the end of the debate? Bryan Hopping ^T 20:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So long as it's clear that it's not "Wikipedia's opinion" since we are the mirror, not the lamp. Calling it a "comparison" is problematic. Whether it's the US or India or Brazil or Uzbekistan is irrelevant. SDY (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I hope that, as with all articles, RS will guide us. In this case, those sources are listed in the references section of the article. Reprinting the sources listed in the article seems pedantic to me, but I will do so. Bryan Hopping ^T 03:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Wood, D. L.; Hahn, M. B. (2009). "Accreditation Standards of Osteopathic and Allopathic Medical Schools: Could They Affect Educational Quality?". Academic Medicine. 84 (6): 724–8. doi:10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181a8c296. PMID 19474546.

• Johnson, S.; Kurtz, M. E. (Dec 2002). "Perceptions of philosophic and practice differences between US osteopathic physicians and their allopathic counterparts". Social Science & Medicine (1982). 55 (12): 2141–2148. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(01)00357-4. ISSN 0277-9536. PMID 12409127.

• Peters, A. S.; Clark-Chiarelli, N.; Block, S. D. (1999). "Comparison of Osteopathic and Allopathic Medical Schools' Support for Primary Care". Journal of General Internal Medicine. 14 (12): 730–739. doi:10.1046/j.1525-1497.1999.03179.x. PMC 1496864. PMID 10632817.

• Licciardone, J. C. (Jan 2007). "A comparison of patient visits to osteopathic and allopathic general and family medicine physicians: results from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, 2003–2004". Osteopathic Medicine and Primary Care. 1: 2–22. doi:10.1186/1750-4732-1-2. PMC 1805772. PMID 17371578.

• Phil Galewitz. MD or DO—does it matter to you? Palm Beach Post. 6 Nov 2007
• Licciardone, J. C.; Clearfield, M. B.; Guillory, V. J. (2009). "Clinical Practice Characteristics of Osteopathic and Allopathic Primary Care Physicians at Academic Health Centers: Results from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey". Academic Medicine. 84 (6): 744–50. doi:10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181a424fc. PMID 19474550. S2CID 913556.

Uh... OK. None of this tells me this article wouldn't be better titled without the "comparison of." Comparing things vs. documenting differences isn't a huge difference, and this is mostly a question of easy fixes rather than outright deletion. I never challenged that the article was unsourced, rather that it presented the information in a way that is not compatible with the expectations of an encyclopedia. SDY (talk) 06:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to 'Comparison of Osteopathic and Allopathic medical practice' or similar. The topic appears to be notable and have significant coverage, but the title appears to both make unnecessary use of acronyms & to unnecessarily restrict the topic to the medical qualifications, and to the US. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The DO degree and osteopathy are significantly different in the US than they are elsewhere, so restricting it to the US isn't inappropriate. See my comments above on why "comparison" articles are dubious by construction. SDY (talk) 07:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The DO degree" is only 1 of 13 disambiguations of DO, so using that acronym in the title is uninformative. (ii) if they are "significantly different in the US than they are elsewhere" then giving the US comparison in isolation is misleading. (iii) The article does not discuss either qualification (or either discipline) generally, but only the difference between the two. Thus 'Osteopathic and Allopathic medical practice' misrepresents the scope. The alternatives would appear to be 'Comparison of Osteopathic and Allopathic medical practice', 'Differences between Osteopathic and Allopathic medical practice' or 'Osteopathic versus Allopathic medical practice'. The former would appear to be the more encyclopaedic phrasing. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the acronyms are not ideal. "Versus" is clearly not the phrasing we're looking for. "Comparison" I'm not too happy with, as it implies review and analysis rather than presentation of information. "Difference" is probably a good choice. "Osteopathic medicine" is extremely light on the osteopathy, and this article is very much about "what's the difference between a doctor with an MD as opposed to a doctor with a DO." (answer: not too much) SDY (talk) 10:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This is a AfD. If there is consensus not to delete the article, let's close the AfD. Many editors will have an opinion on renaming the article, especially using the word "allopathic" in the title. They should be able to be involved in that discussion, held in the appropriate forum: the article's talk page. Bryan Hopping ^T 03:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The article has some problems, but deletion is not the solution. SDY (talk) 08:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Focus or merge I will address some of the points raised above. Though the topic may seem banal, it is actually quite contentious. Certainly, the historical difference between MD and DO in the US is both vast and fascinating. Is the comparison between the two, at present, encyclopedic? Perhaps, but the scope should be clear. The article as it stands suffers in that, for those familiar with the topic, it cherry-picks evidence and carries a bias in favor of one side. Regarding concerns about the US-centrism of this article, the article's name appropriately cues the reader to the fact that this is going to be a US-centric article. The rest of the world has DOs, but they are fundamentally different in that they do not confer the same legal privilege as an MD, whereas a US DO degree does in nearly every way. Finally, retitling to avoid acronyms would be appropriate but difficult: saying "Comparison of medicinae doctorae and doctor of osteopathy" is the literal expansion of the acronym, but is too "jargony." Perhaps, "Comparison of medical doctors and osteopathic physicians" would work, but the DOs would probably not favor this phrasing of the distinction. Finally, "Comparison of allopathic and osteopathic physicians" is an inaccurate characterization of the scope of MDs' practice, and is considered a pejorative term by the few MDs in the US who have even heard the term. This article could use a clean up, especially by someone who is not involved as a DO (Bryan Hopping) or MD (myself). Antelan 15:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Antelan as above, with one correction. In the United States in 2009, "DO" (D.O.) currently signifies the degree "Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine." There is currently some debate about changing the post-nominal letters to make the acronym proper. See http://www.do-online.org/pdf/pub_do0208dodegree.pdf Outside the US, "D.O." (DO) is an acronym for "Doctor of Osteopathy." Bryan Hopping ^T 03:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, this topic is well-debated among med-school applicants, and has sourcing. Also, it gets viewed 3000 to 6000 times a month. Abductive (reasoning) 01:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There may be all sorts of problems with this article, including its precise title. But the topic is still notable: "Like a well-worn comic book plot, the practice of medicine most Americans are familiar with has an alternate universe—a parallel world with its own history and philosophy. It is a world where physicians train in alternate institutions, belong to alternate professional organizations and sport an alternate degree: D.O. (doctor of osteopathy) rather than M.D." Thus starts one of our sources, a scholarly article entitled "Inside osteopathic medicine’s parallel world". This may not be our most necessary article, it doesn't have global scope (and cannot, since DOs are a phenomenon restricted to the US, osteopathy elsewhere being something much more "alternative"), and it may (or may not) be biased or focused on the wrong things. But given a considerable number of reliable sources focusing on osteopathic medicine / regular medicine comparisons, I believe the topic is notable.

This doesn't mean that we can't adjust the focus of this article, or that we must preserve it as a separate article. Since osteopathic medicine is a minority thing, it's natural for the osteopathic medicine articles to cover the differences to regular medicine. Whether they can do so exhaustively, or whether there should be an exhaustive article on the differences which those articles can then summarise, is a matter for a pragmatic decision rather than an AfD. Hans Adler 12:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Best regarded as a summary article. We may need a specific statement somewhere to clarify that these sort of articles are acceptable--sincethey are frequently cha;lenged, but usually sustained. DGG ( talk ) 01:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know if that is needed. All it takes is a few sources saying, "...unlike an MD, DOs are..." to justify this sort of article. But an article on Comparison of Oak trees and Avalanches should not be allowed. Where the line show be drawn can be determined by sources. Abductive (reasoning) 01:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This AfD is frivolous. The number of reliable sources explicitly justifying the article AND its title is large.

• Rothman, M. D.; Gugliucci, M. R. (2008). "End-of-Life Care Curricula in Undergraduate Medical Education: A Comparison of Allopathic and Osteopathic Medical Schools". American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. 25 (5): 354–360. doi:10.1177/1049909108319263. PMID 18812619. S2CID 38408427.
• Stockard; Allen, T. (2006). "Competence levels in musculoskeletal medicine: comparison of osteopathic and allopathic medical graduates". The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association. 106 (6): 350–355. PMID 16790542.
• Sinay, T. (2005). "Cost structure of osteopathic hospitals and their local counterparts in the USA: Are they any different?". Social Science & Medicine. 60 (8): 1805–1814. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.08.042. PMID 15686811.
• Still (2000). "Comparison of osteopathic and allopathic results in dementia praecox. 1933". The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association. 100 (8): 501–2. PMID 10979258.
• Hooper; Cox, C. C.; Cambre, K.; Wilburn, D.; Webster, M.; Wolf, T. (1999). "Comparison of the scope of allopathic and osteopathic medical school health promotion programs for students". American Journal of Health Promotion : AJHP. 13 (3): 171–179. doi:10.4278/0890-1171-13.3.171. PMID 10351544. S2CID 3278114.
• Stachnik; Simons, R. (1977). "A comparison of D.O. And M.D. Student performance". Journal of Medical Education. 52 (11): 920–925. doi:10.1097/00001888-197711000-00008. PMID 578816.

No one is challenging WP:N. This is mostly about WP:NOT. SDY (talk) 08:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of the article is "Comparison of MD&DO in US." That exact topic has many reliable sources. You are saying the topic is notable. We have a notable topic with reliable sources. What then is the problem? Bryan Hopping ^T 09:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are we to delete all the articles in Category:Comparisons? Bryan Hopping ^T 09:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When one of the first things I see when I look at that category is Comparison of Star Trek and Star Wars, I'm starting to think that's not such a bad idea. SDY (talk) 09:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's too bad, cause that article has great sources and is a VERY notable topic. Possibly the most discussed topic in modern film science fiction.Bryan Hopping ^T 09:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look's someone already tried. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Comparison_of_Star_Trek_and_Star_Wars Bryan Hopping ^T 09:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but notability and sourcing is not the concern for comparison articles, original research is, especially cherry picking from primary sources. WP:V is not the only criterion for articles. (as a side point, I've never seen a comparison of ST and SW outside of purely, umm... technical experts, so VERY notable is a bit of a stretch). Frankly, I think this particular AfD should be closed as keep at this point, since it doesn't have much in the way of original research issues. SDY (talk) 09:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To address concern of "Cherry picking": If there's ANY reliable, published source that anyone feels needs to be added to this article, please do so! The more reliable sources the better IMO. Bryan Hopping ^T 10:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per near-unanimity of respondents.  Skomorokh, barbarian  00:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of birth control methods[edit]

Comparison of birth control methods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A how to page on how not to get knocked up, any strengths and weaknesses of a particular method belongs on the page of the method itself. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: It does read very much like a medical instruction manual / advice column. Cheers, Ut Libet ヽ(;・_・)/ (talk) 23:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I disagree that this is in a how-to style. There's no list of instructions, no use of the second-person, and the statements aren't worded as advice. Instead there's a discussion of the various criteria commonly used to evaluate birth control methods; that's an encyclopedic topic. Moreover, whatever stylistic changes need to be made to the criteria sections, the list itself contains all the information I'd expect in a list of birth-control methods. With some work, I could easily see this becoming a featured list. --Chris Johnson (talk) 00:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep nothing instructing anyone. The whole point about contraception methods (well nearly so, except for a few medical indications) is that it is about choice for the woman (occasionally the man too), and whilst info on any one method is in the relevant articles, a comparison of effectiveness (perfect-use and typical-use) with consideration of other pros & cons factors is the very essence of an encyclopaedia distilling down information. Summary-articles is done all the time (take Diabetes as a top level article for type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, diabetes management etc), but equally this comparative data is far too long for inclusion in contraception and so is valid as a sub-topic article. Finally from the practical editorial management: the topics of contraception are heavily edited with tendency for editors to disagree over effectiveness rates, perfect vs. typical rates, and the acceptable sources to use. This article, with its past discussions/edits over these issues, is now relatively stable and so is the de facto consensus amongst editors. As such it both gives a localised focus for any disagreements over such matters, and may also help direct a new editor unwittingly refighting old ground in any single contraceptive article. David Ruben ^Talk 03:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Its a good comparison list, in a properly referenced article. Dream Focus 11:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Contraception is an encyclopedic topic, and, oddly enough, scientific studies have been made on what the nominator describes as "how not to get knocked up". This is rather well-sourced. Perhaps the most effective method of birth control is "Not right now, I'm on working on Wikipedia!" Mandsford (talk) 13:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm not keen on "comparison of" articles, but in this case as an adjunct to the main articles, this one is almost necessary. Mangoe (talk) 14:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Since there are many methods of contraception/birth control, with a common goal but different characteristics, it is important to have an overview that compares the methods. The comparison is too large to include in Birth control. To include this information in the articles on specific methods (to show how method x compares to others) would mean a lot of duplication (reader looking at several articles would have the same material to skim multiple times, harder to maintain, etc.). Factoring the comparison information into one article makes sense.

I don't see much of anything that is how to in the article either in terms of content (e.g. it does not cover how to select a method), or style. Perhaps you could raise specific concerns in the articles talk page? Zodon (talk) 05:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep a good summary article. This is the appropriate way to present the material--the individual articles will expand on the details. DGG ( talk ) 01:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Rhode Island Routes/Comparison of sources for numbered routes in Rhode Island, a subpage of the related WikiProject. I left the title in its original state, although I assume others may move it to a shorter title if needed. JamieS93 00:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of sources for numbered routes in Rhode Island[edit]

Comparison of sources for numbered routes in Rhode Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article analyses the differences between sources. While possibly helpful for a Wikipedia namespace page, aren't we meant to be acting as a source here, not telling everyone the differences between others? \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Wikipedia namespace. This information should be preserved as part of WikiProject Rhode Island Routes. --Polaron | Talk 21:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Numbered routes in Rhode Island. This information belongs in the State Highways page. --Triadian (talk) 21:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Triadian (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Just so everyone knows, User:SPUI hasn't edited in a long time. --Triadian (talk) 00:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Wikipedia namespace. While some of the information contained may be appropriate for various articles including Numbered routes in Rhode Island and articles about the individual roads, organisations and places named/discussed, the page is not an article. An encyclopaedic article might be able to be written about these discrepancies, and the information here might be useful for such an article or section, but it would need a fundamental rewrite to become encyclopaedic. Additionally, turning this into an article would stop it being a useful project page. I'll leave a note about this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads. Thryduulf (talk) 08:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Wikipediafy. --Rschen7754 (T C) 09:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is not encyclopedic. If absolutely necessary, this content could be moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Rhode Island Routes or a subpage thereof. However, I am of the opinion that the cases where sources differ are better left to be sorted out by the editor and mentioned appropriately in the article pertaining to the route in question. --LJ (talk) 09:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Wikipedia namespace. I agree with Thryduulf. --Fredddie™ 12:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unmitigated roadnerdery. I can see no way to take this beyond fancrufty speculation. Mangoe (talk) 14:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this reads like someone's notes or defense of using a given source in an FAC or similar review. I have no clue why someone would put this in an encyclopedia article. Dave (talk) 14:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Wikipedia space as a subpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject Rhode Island Routes. Looking at the history, the creator suggested this. --NE2 15:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Wikipedia space (subpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject Rhode Island Routes) as a resource for editors. It should be noted that it's a fairly unusual situation for a state DOT (the key source defining what is and isn't a state route) to conflict with itself with regard to route designations. Include any specific examples of conflict in the articles on the pertinent routes. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Wikipedia space within Wikipedia:WikiProject Rhode Island Routes. This information is not appropriate for an article, but is appropriate as a resource for the WikiProject. Dough4872 (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge -- If there is genuine confusion over the correct numbering of roads, it should appear in the article. However, I presume that the official numbering is the responsibility of State department, whose records will provide the definitive answer. Other sources will not be derivative, and quite possibly inaccurate, and I presume that the source of the confusion comes at that level; if so, a brief statement in the article would be appropriate and the rest (or rather the whole) converted to a project sub-page. No personal knowledge - I am in England. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• merge into the article on the routes, or into Wikipedia space DGG ( talk ) 01:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep.  Skomorokh, barbarian  00:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints[edit]

Comparison of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unnecessary list, another example of US-centricism by focusing on what is a dominantly American church, bad precedent etc. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The content cannot really be merged anywhere, so I would like to see an argument that would satisfy deletion of the page if it existed in isolation. We cannot delete a page for being Americentric, and "unnecessary" seems highly subjective to me. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 22:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It doesn't matter what country it is in. You can have a list of all the churches of any religion in any nation. Dream Focus 11:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm not aware of any policy that says we have to delete articles in order to maintain balance between U.S. topics and those of other countries. – jaksmata 13:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'd add that there are less than 150 such temples in the world. So what if it's a "dominantly American church"? We have an entire Category:Lists of religious buildings and structures out there. If one of them takes the form of a table, more power to it. Mandsford (talk) 13:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints These are differently formatted versions of data which all belongs together. I would add that the UScentric assertion is deeply ignorant, as simply looking at the list would show. Mangoe (talk) 14:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: By "merge" in this case I mean essentially replacing the "list" article with the "comparison" article and adding images as one of the columns. Mangoe (talk) 14:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as suggested by Mangoe. SDY (talk) 15:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Oppose Merge - The information in this article is sortable, unlike the other list. It serves a different purpose in that it allows the information to be grouped and compared. I don't know what to say about the nominators reasons. Although started in the United States, the Church is very international with deep history in England, Denmark, Latin America, South America...and the list itself has many temples listed that are located in various parts of the world. I really don't see how it is an example of US-centricism. --Trödel 22:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In general it seems to me that the "list" article is inferior to the "comparison" article. There's no reason that the sorting tabular features of the latter cannot be applied to the former. Mangoe (talk) 23:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how the information on the two pages seems to overlap, but I agree with Trödel that a merge would be inappropriate. The two pages have distinct purposes: The "list" article has less info, and it's purpose isn't to give a large amount of info on each temple, but to list articles on each individual temple. The "comparison" article would be unwieldy in that sense, but its many sortable columns are ideal for comparing different aspects of temples. You could use it to determine how many temples were dedicated by a particular individual, for example. – jaksmata 13:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the need to keep the list article in some state of purity by keeping this other data away from it. Also, the list article is actually the larger of the two (22,737 at present vs. 16,308 for the "comparison" article) and it is also much longer on the screen, due to the images and the non-tabular format. Depending on how you balance room counts against photographs, it doesn't really give significantly less information either. Mangoe (talk) 14:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The list article got its current format as a result of recommendations during the featured list nomination, and I'm not inclined to make any changes that would put its featured status at risk. --Trödel 11:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I dont see it as us centric, any more than required by the fact that the religion is US in origin. a good summary article. This is the appropriate way to present the material--the individual articles will expand on the details. Essentially, it's a list, and a very good one at that. How the articles should be edited is not a question to be dealt with at AfD. DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC) .[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 21:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Boland[edit]

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

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

Searches for this actor's name only find passing mentions in the local press. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not every person who's name has appeared in the credits is entitled to an article. Wikipedia is not the imdb. Mandsford (talk) 14:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete, he seems to just barely fail WP:ENTERTAINER, since I wouldn't call his roles necessarily "significant" nor the films/series themselves as notable enough to qualify him. Points 2 and 3 of WP:ENT are definitely not met. It's quite possible that in the future he would meet notability, but as per WP:CRYSTAL I think, at the moment, it should be deleted. It would be nice if someone (perhaps the author) could hold onto the information here for a possible recreate in the future, in the event he passes the WP:ENTERTAINER threshold. Cocytus [»talk«] 21:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to History of wikis. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Information annealing[edit]

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

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

The topic appears to be a neologism, and the article should be deleted per WP:NEO. The term doesn't appear in Websters, Oxford, or American Heritage, or even in the Dictionary for Library and Information Science. Neither LISA: Library and Information Science Abstracts, nor WorldCat turned up anything on the term. The Transhumanist 21:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• probably Delete It seems to be a proprietary term connected to the MaxThink software package. Mangoe (talk) 14:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or redirect to History of wikis. As a phrase, it never caught on. Mandsford (talk) 14:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect, agree with Mandsford. It is a phrase with a non-obvious meaning, that if encountered might give rise to a search. But it apparently is not often encountered. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Quite a few of the usual "it's notable" non-votes which are ignored as usual, and the nominator has a fair point, but no consensus to delete. A merge might be useful to create one slightly useful article rather than three pointless ones. Black Kite 13:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison between U.S. states and countries nominal GDP[edit]

Comparison between U.S. states and countries nominal GDP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Comparison between U.S. states and countries by per capita GDP (nominal) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Comparison between U.S. states and countries by GDP (PPP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unnecessary list which furthers our US-centricism and would set a precedent for other countries. The United States is not a special case. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Once again, Wikipedia has no precedent. Just because something else exist, is not a reason for other things to exist. The United States has all 50 of its states on its own, producing more output than many other nations. The US is the wealthiest nation on the planet, and has been for quite some time. Sure, the European Union is listed up top, but that's only because a lot of nations poor than the US decided to stick together, and since they are still independent nations, I'm not sure why that counts at all. Dream Focus 10:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Nominator is correct that these are US-centric. I think it would be ideal to add other economically powerful regions, like North Rhine-Westphalia, to a list of this nature (it would rank at #19 on this list). These are supposedly the figures for the last available year (2008), although the sources are all for 2006. Mandsford (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm a little tired of the assertion in these AFDs that because something might be primarily of interest to American readers, it should be excluded. On the other hand I'm not convinced of the notability of the comparison; it smacks of trivia. Mangoe (talk) 14:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There may well be a justification for an article the compares the GDPs of sovereign countries with those of sub-national units, but I don't see any justification for restricting the sub-national units to US states. I'm sure that there are Indian states, Chinese provinces, Russian federal subjects and German länder whose GDPs stand comparison with many independent countries and US states, so it would be better to have a list that incorporates all of these. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Comparisons of this sort are quite common,, for example, If California were a country... and so the matter is notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - where someone has had something relevant to say about such a comparison, let it be said in the appropriate venue. For instance, the point about California is already beaten to death here. Otherwise, this is just a game played by a bored Wikipedian, not to mention unmaintainable. No one has compared the GDP of, say, Kentucky to that of sovereign nations, and neither should we. Oh, and it's a slippery slope: see Comparison between Argentine provinces and countries by GDP (PPP) per capita for what I mean. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Insightful and interesting article. List contains valuable information that is difficult to find in a condensed form elsewhere. bosoxrock88 (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but possibly combine in some manner. Other regions can be added also, as suggested above. . DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn with no "delete" opinions (non-admin closure). Phil Bridger (talk) 19:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bodil Mårtensson[edit]

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

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

There are a few Google news hits for this author, but I'm not convinced (with my admittedly minimal knowledge of Swedish) that they amount to significant coverage in reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. GameOn (talk) 05:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Keep It is not easy to find an information in English language. I've found a review at the website of the Pontas Agency, an interesting article about stolen manuscript, Swedish review, and German profile at the Verlagsgruppe Random House website. Swedish editors could find out more about her. --Vejvančický (talk) 21:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals, she has released several books. GameOn (talk) 05:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She has an entry in Nationalencyklopedin, the swedish equivalent of Britannica. That should prove NOTABILITY and be a god enough source. Translation: Mårtensson, Bodil, born 1952, author. Mårtensson have written a suit of detective stories about officer Joakim Hill from Helsingborgs police force: En chans för mycket (1999), Torpeden (2001), Rebeccas blod (2008) etc. She have also published youth books and easy to read detective stories. – Married 1971–2005 to Bertil Mårtensson. Will add the reference later, if no one else beats me to it. --Stefan ^talk 07:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Nomination withdrawn. An entry in Nationalencyklopedin is enough for me. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1st Street (Tampa, Florida)[edit]

1st Street (Tampa, Florida) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Short, non-notable side street [9]. Dough4872 (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (highways).  Btilm  21:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. Notwithstanding the nauseating prospect of having little stub articles about every street in the world, this one runs for five blocks [10]. Click on street view and tell me what's notable about this residential neighborhood. I'll admit that 304 First Street has a nice carport. Mandsford (talk) 14:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable residential street, and only five blocks long at that. I couldn't even find the carport. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 05:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete yawn. Miami33139 (talk) 18:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael shortino[edit]

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

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

Despite the claim of "east coast fame" I can't find anything about this Michael Shortino via any of the Google resources. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No substantial coverage in reliable sources. Subject fails WP:CREATIVE. --Vejvančický (talk) 21:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - cannot find any sources about this artist. -- Whpq (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non-notable BLP. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 08:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Stylistic issues such as excessive linking can be addressed through editing, and don't usually merit deletion. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of radio stations in Venezuela[edit]

List of radio stations in Venezuela (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Linkfarm. Damiens.rf 20:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. -- Eastmain (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Eastmain (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a perfectly encyclopedia topic. Nobody would suggest deleting List of radio stations in New Jersey. -- Eastmain (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but remove external links. Appropriate topic. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Appropiate list. Joe Chill (talk) 01:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but clean up the excessive external links. (Why was this never tagged for cleanup or simply cleaned up before dragging it to AfD?) - Dravecky (talk) 06:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree it would look nicer if the entries with no article of their own were black instead of red, but the links serve a purpose in the meantime. If you're ever in Charallave, tune in to Sigma 105.1 Mandsford (talk) 14:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep encyclopedic topic, article needs a bit of work, namely the external links, RadioFan (talk) 01:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Valid list topic that just needs more attention and better conformity with WP:EL. --RL0919 (talk) 18:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no credible assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Liotta[edit]

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

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

Performed a google check on Gabriel Liotta and came up with very little. Person is either fake or lacks notability. Calling for deletion in compliance with wiki standards IndulgentReader (talk) 19:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely not notable, cited sources are either trivial or don't mention him. --Vejvančický (talk) 21:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roderick Miranda[edit]

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

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

Hasn't made a professional appearance and fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG Spiderone 19:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 19:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 20:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The club's website confirms he has yet to play a competitive match for them. This page can be easily recreated if and when he makes his competitive first team debut. Bettia (talk) 11:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 06:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails both WP:ATH and WP:GNG, Recreate if plays first team game Steve-Ho (talk) 12:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is consensus here that this topic merits an article, and that end is not served by deleting the existing content.  Skomorokh, barbarian  00:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sungdong Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering[edit]

Sungdong Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unenyclopedic lists of 'history'; there is absolutely no information to be found about the companies themselves. Would need a fundamental rewrite to be encyclopedic. Additionally, the only reference is a primary one, and that is definitely not sufficient when the article boasts claims of "ranked x in the world". GraYoshi2x►^talk 19:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep needs a ton of work, but can be done. 1 NY Times article maritime news and results from all kinds of languages speak of the notability of that company. --President of Internets (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would need a fundamental rewrite to be encyclopedic - nothing is salvageable in the current article and it would arguably even fail CSD criteria; Additionally, I'm finding it a bit suspicious that some of your first contribs were to AfD discussions. GraYoshi2x►^talk 19:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• delete. An encyclopaedic article about this company would summarise the history of these (component? predecessor?) organisations in two-three sentences at most and use nothing from this article. The content here belongs on the company website, not Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 21:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but start from scratch. This article needs a full rewrite, but there exists enough info MAYBE to make an article. Anyone want to embark on this task? --Triadian (talk) 22:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Starting from scratch would better be done as a delete-then-recreate situation, to make sure none of the rewritten info is influenced by the prior biased "history" content. You've got my point spot-on; just not the keep part. GraYoshi2x►^talk 02:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I added the New York Times reference mentioned by another editor to the page. -- Eastmain (talk) 01:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious enough that the shipbuilding company exists and is notable, but I don't see how adding a single reference is going to fix everything. It's just covering up (not patching) one of the many, many holes in the wall; doesn't really do much else. I'm more for the "tear down the poorly-made wall and build a better one" type of thing. GraYoshi2x►^talk 02:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Deletion policy does not support the "tear down the poorly-made wall and build a better one" option ("if the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion"). This can be fixed without having to trouble an administrator with pushing the "delete" button, so that is what anyone concerned with the current state of this article should do. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't specifically say that. It's actually part of the process of speedy deletion. GraYoshi2x►^talk 01:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I've added a source that shows that this company operates one of the world's top twenty shipyards (as of 2007), and I note that the subject has received coverage in a source that stakes a 275-year reputation on its reliability.[11][12][13] Phil Bridger (talk) 20:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TBA (Third M.I.A album)[edit]

TBA (Third M.I.A album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Another for the HAMMER - no title, no track-list, no source, no release date, nothing. Fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:CRYSTAL. JohnCD (talk) 19:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. M.I.A. is a hugely popular and influential performer so it would not be inappropriate to discuss an upcoming album if it was confirmed and had good coverage in secondary sources, but I'm not finding any reportage at all. Two years ago she said she had "no idea about the third [album]. I’m not even sure if I’m making a third one at this moment." Apparently, as the "TBA" article says, M.I.A. has been working with Christina Aguilera, but according to this that's likely something for Aguilera's next album. Pretty clear WP:CRYSTAL situation here. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:HAMMER, way too soon, no sources, etc. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 21:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, concur with Bigtimepeace. talkingbirds 22:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above: another WP:CRYSTALBALL to be smashed by the WP:CRYSTALHAMMER. Cliff smith ^talk 06:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete until such time as anything at all is actually known about the album -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with a crystal hammer. I'm not going to even get into the fact that the article's creator got the artist's genre wrong. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 17:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - First of all, there's almost nothing on the page. Secondly, she does electronica music, not hip hop. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 19:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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