< 14 December	16 December >

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 02:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kung fu Wushu Federation of Serbia[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. does not even have a Serbian WP article. no coverage in gnews. google indicates mirror sites mainly. LibStar (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree that, under the proposed guideline, WP:MMANOT, this essentially provincial amateur martial arts group is not notable. Bearian (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to satisfy notability requirements. Janggeom (talk) 13:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found no reason why this should be considered a notable organization. Jakejr (talk) 13:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy as "no context" or "no assertion of notability". They might be borderline notable (probably not), but last time I checked we don't consider pages containing 0.75 sentences as articles. No such user (talk) 08:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This doesn't even measure up to a basic stub. -- Whpq (talk) 16:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cordell Simpson[edit]

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

Non-notable, fails WP:ENT. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A Google News search for the "Doc Simpson" "House of Blues" together turn up 3 Chicago Sun-Times hits behind pay walls. However, given the titles of each article, these simply appear to be mentions of his funeral. I can find no significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Will Haven. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 01:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Martin (Will Haven)[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP with no indication that can meet WP:MUSIC standard. brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no verifiable independent source found or likely to be found at this time. Try another wiki.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Will Haven as he is a former member of the band. He has apparently since gone on to form another band, Ghostride (see [1], [2]), but we have not article for the band nor does the band seem notable. I found no other coverage about him, but "Mike Martin" is a rather common name making it rather difficult. -- Whpq (talk) 16:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Will Haven, in complete agreement with Whpq. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Rick Santorum. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 01:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Garver Santorum[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable on its own. Perhaps it should be merged/redirected to her husband from which she inherited her main claim to notability.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect would be a good solution. I would change my position if more noteworthy information came to my attention.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Open source film. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Open content film[edit]

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

Not notable. Two barely contextual mentions and nothing else. Delete. Merrill Stubing (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a hard time finding a source that makes any distinction between this an and open source film, which seems to be the name primarily in use in the world at large. However, I can find sources that document open source films (ISBN 9781847286116 pp. 169 and ISBN 9780955014321 pp. 163 for examples). This article is confused (stating that there's no definition of the subject and presenting one seemingly obtained from thin air immediately afterwards) and cites no sources for almost all of its analysis. (The content with accompanying sources that there is contradicts the rather different sourced content in the articles on the films concerned, moreover.) However, it's a credible alternative title for open source film, and there's been a merge request on Talk:Open source film, noting this duplication, since November 2009. So just redirect there and let people hoist things out of the edit history to merge if they find sources that actually support them. Uncle G (talk) 04:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to open source film, substantially per Uncle G. The content here is not sourced well enough to merge directly, but the history might be of use, and this is a reasonable search term. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - per above. The current article appears to be original research to a degree with the claim that there is no accepted defintion and then immediately providing a set of criteria under which a film would be considered open content. There is no verifiable content here to merge. -- Whpq (talk) 16:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to open source film, as per Uncle G. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 17:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reception of country music[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Reception of country music

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

This entire article seems to be written by one person, has no links to within Wikipedia, and seems to be an attempt to circumvent the discussion under Talk:Country_music/Archive_1#Criticisms, in which the user responsible for the article seems to have expressed his opinions here. You have to mine Wikipedia to find this article; it appears to be completely POV. Seniortrend (talk) 20:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is the article POV? What opinions are supposedly being expressed? Hyacinth (talk) 21:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are there Wikipedia:Deletion_criteria#Reasons_for_deletion you think this article should be deleted for? Hyacinth (talk) 21:15, 15 December 2010
- Comment: This article is made entirely of Talk:Country_music/Archive_1#Criticisms, which was summarily rejected so an editor made a new orphaned page based on the opinions of what seems to be three people. Wikipedia is not an Opinion Piece, Wikipedia is not a place fo an article, page, template, category, redirect or image that was created primarily to disparage its subject. Again, this article is basically the Criticism section of country music as you can see in the history and talk pages. Furthermore, as per WP:QUOTES, "Where a quotation presents rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias, it can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided." This article is made of nothing but them. Seniortrend (talk) 21:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A valid topic for discussion, but I agree, article should be thoroughly reworked (with any intentional or unintentional POV slant eliminated), and then merged into overall Country music article. It needs other viewpoints, and should, in my opinion, also address the diverse audiences that span not just mainstream commercial country, but folk, bluegrass and other associated roots musics, as well. The article's POV is apparent in that the author goes out of their way to reference an obscure performer, Johnny Rebel (whom most of us, even devoted country music listeners, have never heard of), and yet doesn't counter with references to the many dozens of much more well known artists -- especially over the last couple of decades -- who are known as politically pogressive, and who've publicaly rejected anything approaching racism or bigotry. (Mary Chapin Carpenter, Rodney Crowell, Emmylou Harris, Garth Brooks and Kathy Mattea come immediately to mind, I'm sure there are countless others.) The article needs this kind of balance, in my opinion, to be valid, and even then (once POV has been eliminated), should be merged into general country music article.--134.174.110.7 (talk) 15:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article's style and presentation remind me of a paper where the writer gives "both sides" of an issue intending from the start to prove one as correct. Yet there isn't enough information here to even support the broader thesis that country music is controversial. Of course, we know it is, but after reading this, I'm left with the impression that the criticism is for the most part limited to race and that those raising the issue are largely extremists (e.g., Schiller Institute and Johnny Rebel) making much to do about nothing. While a separate article could be done on the subject, this one doesn't come close to meeting the standard. Allreet (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If Hyacinth is seeking valid grounds by which to advocate deletion - as opposed to mere editing for the article's numerous peacock and weasel terms - I've sure got them: WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH and WP:SOAPBOX. That country music is "controversial" at the face of it is an unusual premise that even its detractors would likely reject, but, oh, that's my opinion. Quite different from the opinion piece masquerading here as an article, but one nonetheless. Ravenswing 18:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Without reviewing all of the policy links, etc, whcih in the end seem to be merely guidelines subject to interpretation, I have to say that I don't know why anyone would eb interested in an "encyclopedic" article on something that would best be covered in a discussion forum, or an academic treatment, or a just plain opinion piece. If someone wants to bring facts on record sales, or the demographics of those those sales, concert attendence figures, number and location of radio stations devoted to country western by decade, etc, that may be pretinent. (In fact some of that information is in the article. But this article nominated for deletion seems out of place in wikipedia. Furthermore, the material in the artcle under discussion does not seem appropriate for an encycopedia. In summary, I am in favor of deletion. Steve Pastor (talk) 19:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not sure what this article is supposed to serve as? It's severely under-sourced and seems like it does fall under a POV. I think a section at Country music could easily be added concerning this topic, but surely not an entire article. Ga Be 19 23:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete useless. ~~STRONG KEEP~~ Merge select notable, properly sourced content to own section in Country music. Nowyouseemetalk2me 00:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blatant WP:SYNTH and WP:SOAPBOX. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it reads like a personal essay and says nothing useful that could not be said more productively in a few sentences in Country music.--SabreBD (talk) 10:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The way I see this is as if someone wrote this for a school project and thought it'd be neat-o to make it an actual Wikipage. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 15:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Completely unreferenced WP:BLP that fails WP:NSPORTS. Krakatoa Katie 06:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Antonio Carter[edit]

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

Nothing in this article makes him notable enough to warrant an article. Has also been tagged for 15 months as questionable notability. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete agreed. I would change my position if notable coverage was brought to my attention.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sign of reliable sources establishing notability. Does not meet WP:NSPORTS. --CutOffTies (talk) 21:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was article has been speedily deleted as a hoax. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Acrobioligic chemical acid[edit]

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

Semi-narative story that appears to be about a nasty mixtrue of ingredients whose purpose is to cause people to vomit. Seems like nonsense, but I didn't think it qualified for CSD. Hasteur (talk) 21:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied as a G3. This can be closed. Hasteur (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firework (Key Of Awesome Parody)[edit]

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

Non-notable, unsourced article about a parody of a music video. Snap Snap 20:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing to indicate notability. Also, "non-notable article" doesn't sound quite right since it's the subject's notability that is in question. NotARealWord (talk) 17:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to indicate that this is a notable parody. -- Whpq (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kezia Noble[edit]

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

"Seduction community" coach - doesn't seem notable per WP:BIO, article is written like an advertisement. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "Seduction community?" I was almost ready to write this off as a joke, but the links do seem authentic. Nonetheless, this doesn't come close to meeting WP:BIO, let alone the GNG. Ravenswing 18:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

these also need to be looked at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_La_Ruina

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Lyons

these are also seduction community, if kezia page is deleted, then these pages should also be delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.129.201 (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is about Kezia Noble. If other articles about people in this "seduction community" need to be deleted (as I'm sure many do) then they can be considered in separate discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Killed By Death (albums)[edit]

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

Non-notable bootlegs —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to explain why? --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't answer the question. Allow me to quote WP:JNN: 'Simply stating that the subject of an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable. This behavior straddles both "Just unencyclopedic" and "Just pointing at a policy or guideline".'

And furthermore: 'Instead of just saying, "Non-notable," consider instead saying, "No reliable sources found to verify notability", or "The sources are not independent, and so cannot establish that the subject passes our standards on notability", or "The sources do not provide the significant coverage required by the notability standard." Providing specific reasons why the subject may not be notable gives other editors an opportunity to research and supply sources that may establish or confirm the subject's notability.' Emphasis in the original. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - My vote is based on the language about reliable sources in the policy copied above, and I can do this without simply pointing at guidelines. The Killed By Death series, while bootlegs (which are assumed non-notable elsewhere in WP:NALBUMS), have been praised in the punk community for preserving old songs that disappeared in the age-old transition away from vinyl records. Sources include some semi-reliable webzines for collectors like Perfect Sound Forever, Terminal Boredom, and The Unblinking Ear. Note that I admitted that the webzines are "semi-reliable" and there is little verifiable coverage outside of hardcore fandom, so my informed vote is Weak Keep. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the L.A. Examiner, Dave Thompson's book Alternative Rock, and Stewart Home's Cranked Up Really High: Genre Theory & Punk Rock. Killed By Death did for early punk rock what Harry Smith's Anthology of American Folk Music did for prewar folk music, albeit not as well. Keep. Morganfitzp (talk) 02:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to Sherman Hospital. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Future of Sherman Hospital[edit]

The Hospital has been open for a year and has its own article. The Future of Sherman Hospital article is not needed anymore. The new Sherman Hospital has been open since December 2009 and the article on it details the construction of it, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.18.16 (talk • contribs) 2010-12-15 19:22:38

Nomination rationale from this edit, which the editor without an account was unable to make to this page directly. Uncle G (talk) 20:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Film & TV Music Awards[edit]

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

No evidence in article for notability, this is a creation of Film Music Magazine for which we don't seem to have an article. It's being used in other articles to suggest people have won prestigious awards. Dougweller (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, but without prejudice. The lack of an article for Film Music (magazine) might be indicative of it being time now for an article to be written.[3][4][5] The awards themselves appear to have been around for three years and there are g-hits,[6] but we should really FIRST consider the notability potential for the magazine itself, before considering their awards. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Clearly fails WP:NFOOTY. Krakatoa Katie 06:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ángel Trujillo Canorea[edit]

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

Fails wp:NFOOTY, plays in Segunda División B, which is not a Fully profesional league Yoenit (talk) 18:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article should not be excluded, because the player is constantly being called to the first team, and sources are the maxims that I found. When I find more I will add to the article. MYS77 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

And I also think that the Segunda División B is a "fully professional league", as it contains, in addition to 'B' clubs, historical and traditional clubs. And this division generates promotions for the Segunda División. MYS77 (talk) 15 December 2010, 18:43.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The number of times a player is called up is not at issue. It's whether he played or not. Barring evidence that he did, this fails NFOOTY. Also, the FOOTY crew has a list of recognized "fully professional leagues"; Segunda B is not on it. Ravenswing 18:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 22:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence this person meets WP:ATHLETE or WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 22:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above. Playing in Segunda B does not make a person inherently notable, and he fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Energy Detective[edit]

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

This looks like advertising to me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep this seems like an article I started long ago (years+) as User:Reswobslc, and I have no WP:COI nor relationship with the maker other than owning one of these. The external links at the end look unnecessary (not added by me) and have all been removed, otherwise... article certainly isn't meant as an ad, doesn't contain sales-oriented language (WP:ADVERT) and has stood on its own quite a long time. Casascius♠ (talk) 06:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep I found this useful when researching energy meters exactly because it's not an ad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.245.57 (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC) (Note: This comment constitutes the first and only edit by this user. --MelanieN (talk) 03:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Delete The device does not appear to be notable. No Reliable Source references are provided. It may "not be advertising" but the website for the manufacturer of the device is prominently displayed. --MelanieN (talk) 03:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. Article is almost like a product review, no proof of any notability established. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 17:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MidStates Football League[edit]

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

Non-notable organization/sports team. Also violates WP:OR (original research) and does not provide any reliable sources other than the organization's website. Potential self-promotion/advertising comes in as well. Paul McDonald (talk) 17:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Paul McDonald (talk) 18:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You can't delete all semi pro football pages. They need to stay because they are important to the sport of football and the world of semi pro. Like i said before, this is a witch hunt.
- Response I'm sorry you think this is a "witch hunt" but it's not. As you are aware, we have set up a general discussion on semi-pro football at the American Football project work area. I realize that the topic is one of great importance to you but that does not qualify it for a place in this encyclopedia. If the pages were important to the sport of football, then there would be articles written about the subject in newspapers, on TV, in books, etc. But so far, there have been very, very few produced in reliable independent sources. Among other things, Wikipedia is not a free webhosting server.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - another article on a league of questionable notibility. Does not have significant coverage in independent third-party publications (no references in the article at all, currently), and therefore does not meet the general notability guidelines. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This source shows the league to clearly be "amateur" in nature.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks sources. -DJSasso (talk) 14:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep Baxter, delete Ryan. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Lynn Baxter[edit]

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

Seana Ryan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Like Tammy Chapman, these two receive very little in notability. :| TelCo NaSpVe :| 07:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Baxter after reviewing the Google News and Google Books hits. I consider her notable under the GNG along with PORNBIO since she's been featured several times on the Howard Stern show. Article should be expanded with use of the sources that demonstrate her notability. As for Ryan, delete since I can't find the same.Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No substantial sourcing. Appears to be spam for the porn industry. Tommy1964 (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What's she actually done? Anything worth noting? Nothing there yet. Having a Wikipedia article seems to be a desirable thing when a career is flagging, but I can't see much evidence of a career having begun in this article. Peridon (talk) 23:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS The two other pets from that year that are blue-linked have at least something to show in their articles (that was not intended to be a funny..) - one has a Filmography section (but how notable the films are might be debatable elsewhere). Peridon (talk) 23:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note & Comment: - I updated the article reflecting some of free news sources from Google News. I believe editors should review outside available sources to determine notability rather than the one that was originally put in the article. This is not a game of gotcha. IMDB shows she has been in several movies but I can't gauge their notability. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I quote from the ref about the Playboy radio feature "As it turns out, Playboy didn't corral any New York personalities, unless you count Tempest and Amy Lynn Baxter, who are frequent visitors on the Howard Stern show and about whom the real question is whether they even own clothing." I've never seen the Stern programme, and having just read the article here can say that even if I had a TV I probably wouldn't watch it. I wonder if the girls were there for some deep intellectual discussion or just as decoration? The NYDN obviously doesn't regard them as anything of particular note. (I'm not sure who Tempest is - the NYDN refers to the 'Baxters' presumably indicating she is a sister of the subject here.) Peridon (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a very sloppy nomination. Article about Baxter in USA Today [7]. Article about Baxter in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch [8]. Numerous other citations in many newspapers, with 66 Google News hits. Former Penthouse Pet of the Month. Ravenswing 20:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I should amend my vote above as pertaining to Baxter; I have no opinion regarding Ryan. Ravenswing 18:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Baxter due to Morbid's edits. Dismas|^(talk) 20:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Baxter per Morbidthoughts and Ravenswing, and Keep Ryan per coverage meeting WP:GNG.[9][10]. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ravenswing. Ample RS interest to satisfy WP:GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Since its stated the sourced content is already available in the proposed merge I think the outcome is clear and the consensus is that this is a tainted POV ridden article we do not need. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Racism in the Islamic republic of Iran[edit]

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

The article contrast multiple Wikipedia policies,WP:ATTACK,WP:POVFORK,WP:NPOV,WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTOPINION,WP:NOTADVOCATE,WP:MADEUP, WP:SYN,WP:NOT#STATS as I am explaining:

we must take into account that the article is about Islamic Republic of Iran, not Islamic republic of Persia; Azeri, Kurdish and Balochi ethnics are from Iranian Race!!
The article name contrasts its content. The constitution of Iran is based on Islamic laws. 98% of Iranian, including Ahwazi, Azeri, Kurds, and Baluch ethnics are Mslims. Now when there is a punishment like execution, it's same for all of citizens and it's not limited to special groups. More over, it should be noted that western interpretation of human rights is not recognized for Muslims communities who are part of the International world's communities: [11][12].
The judiciary system of Iran has been based on Islamic law for over 1300 years. Oxford University research confirms this fact:a loosely sewn and frequently resewn patchwork of conflicting authority in which the different and sometimes conflicting sources for Islamic law - the jurists, the actual judges, and the non-Islamic law officials of the king - disputed with each other over the scope of their jurisdictions.... some aspects of the law always remained in the hands of the mullahs ... The village mullah was the natural arbiter in matters of marriage, divorce, and inheritance; and the exalted jurisconsult, in order to carry out the very function for which he was exalted, gave opinions on those matters of law on which he was consulted. In between the village mullah and the jurisconsult there were mullahs with courts which, while sometimes sanctioned by the royal government, depended for their power on the prestige of the presiding mullah judge as much or more than on the government's sanction.(Mottahedeh, Roy, The Mantle of the Prophet : Religion and Politics in Iran, One World, Oxford, 1985, 2000, p.208andp.225)[13]. The intention to confine this fact to Islamic Republic just can provide propaganda.
A detailed information is provided in Ethnic minorities in Iran and the current article is obviously contrasts WP:POVFORK and WP:NOT#STATS
More that 1/2 of the article is discussing Ahmadinejad, who is only individual part of a system called Iran's government.
An important point is direct and destructive interference of western and some of Iran's neighbors countries. A wikileaks document reveals westerns policy regarding minorities in Iran as follow:Instability in Iran is driven by inflation and tension among ethnic minorities.[14][15]. Most of the provided sources are in this category.
Most of the sources deals with one case that happened or one person and they are synthesized to show a whole conclusion.
The tone and the way article is written is only gallery of indiscrimination of information. (Just compare it with Ethnic minorities in Iran) Aliwiki (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran. This is not a good article (to put it mildly) and smells of POV a mile away. But there is sourced content, and the title/topic is not an improbable search term. I'm notifying the editor of this discussion. Drmies (talk) 20:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Drmies, transferring only sourced content. Edward321 (talk) 00:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, cleanup after a merge can be tricky. I am going to assume that with such a tendentious topic there will be lots of eyes--oversight is more likely to happen on the bigger article anyway. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : The article is a classic example of WP:POVFORK. It can be grouped under WP:ATTACK and at best only two sentence from that can be mentioned in Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran (far more less than a Merge!) --Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Alborz, I can't say I disagree with your points. I come down on a slightly more positive balance, but I won't shed a tear if delete is the conclusion--the sources are not likely to go away, and no doubt they already are or will be used in my proposed target article. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The topic of the article is not notable and it's WP:POVFORK. NPOV parts can be merged with other related articles, and article should be deleted. --Wayiran (talk) 15:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Drmies, carefully filtering content as we go. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge using reliable sources such as ''Iran and the challenge of diversity: Islamic fundamentalism, Aryanist racism, and democratic struggles by Alireza Asgharzadeh. The topic is a good one and can be written well with good sources. Binksternet (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Wayiran, "delete and merge NPOV stuff" is not an option. To merge requires keeping the page history intact and available for viewing, while deleting makes the page history inaccessible to most people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotARealWord (talk • contribs) 17:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An unbalanced WP:POVFORK, WP:ATTACK essay created by a suspicious WP:SPA, and an obvious WP:SOCK. [16] The salvageable content is already available under the Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Kurdo777 (talk) 22:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 17:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rajiv Gandhi assassination in popular culture[edit]

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

Per WP:IPC. Lacks reliable sources and contains only two entriess. PCPP (talk) 11:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge I can think of three more films based on the assasination, but this belongs in the assassination article as a small para--Sodabottle (talk) 19:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge in Assassination of Rajiv Gandhi. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge Deletion is not compatible with merger for legal licensing reasons - see WP:MAD. There's more to be said on this topic. For example, a brief search immediately tells us that the award-winning movie The Terrorist was inspired by this incident and yet the current draft of the article says nothing of this. The topic therefore needs more work in accordance with our editing policy and deletion would disrupt this. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 17:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Quite aside from the baroque nature of one of these idiotic "X in popular culture" articles for an assassination, the main assassination article is not overly large. Beyond that, this article bumps up against WP:SYNTH. Ravenswing 20:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not an encyclopaedic subject --...Captain......Tälk tö me 04:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 20:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Ioan Davies[edit]

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

Questionable notability. Also was unable to find any sources other than Facebook and Wikipedia mirrors. Kbdank71 17:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless there's a clear reason why a sportsperson is notable through coverage in third-party sources, WP:ATHLETE generally only gives notability to sportspeople who play in either a fully-professional league or the highest level of amateur sports. At the moment, he is neither. Come back if he makes it into the main national team and not just the U-21, then we'll see. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable per WP:ATHLETE. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Afterall, the article states that he is only "promising". -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 23:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One Night of Queen[edit]

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

Generic tribute act, sources are all trivial, listings or self-sourced. Well, I suppose one could almost count the Grauniad review that said they were not terribly good. Guy (Help!) 21:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Coverage in reliable sources is quite abundant. Much is behind pay walls but these are all concert reviews that establish this as a notable show: The Scotsman, Pegasus News, Highland News. -- Whpq (talk) 17:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is it likely that this article will be searched for by our readers? Yes. It has received 500+ hits per month consistently for over a year. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep content with reviews and sourcing available indicating notability. Article can be improved though but thats for a seperate discussion on the page itself Ottawa4ever (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of the more notable tribute acts. Plenty of coverage on Google News. Probably one of the half-dozen most notable tribute acts around at the moment, even if their "Bohemian Rhapsody" leaves something to be desired. What exactly is a 'generic tribute act' anyway? --Michig (talk) 21:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela Gallagher[edit]

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

There is no indication in the article or via Google that this author and academic is notable. I could not reliably verify that the person passes WP:PROF, let alone WP:GNG. Drmies (talk) 22:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gscholar h-index is 10, the book published by Springer has her as one of three editors, and the front matter verifies that she is a senior lecturer in psychology in the School of Nursing at Dublin City University. This one is somewhat borderline, I suppose. Springer doesn't pick just anybody to edit volumes in a field. Ray^Talk 02:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, but at the same time Springer isn't always considered the creme de la creme, and editing (or writing) a book doesn't make for notability by itself. Do we have any kind of standard for h-indices? Thanks for your input, Drmies (talk) 05:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, I don't mind being proven wrong here; in fact, I'd appreciate it. Drmies (talk) 05:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, I'm not sure where this all fits. H-indices are strongly field dependent, and I suspect for psychology 10 is on the low side of notability, but I was just burned in a recent discussion when my attempt at normalizing went awry. That's why I offered up a comment and not a !vote - I'm not sure which way this one goes. Ray^Talk 15:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Don't go with me, then--I'm not tenured yet, and I doubt that my h-index would impress anyone. Still, the closing administrator will no doubt take your comments into account. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Citation counts not enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1. Nothing relevant found in Google news archive. No other evidence of significance apparent in the article. "Psychoprosthetics" and "Enabling Technologies" are both reliably published books, but they're edited volumes rather than monographs so they don't really do anything to demonstrate the impact of her research. Unless something else turns up during the AfD, this looks like a failure of both WP:PROF and WP:GNG to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Harper[edit]

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

Autobiography of self-help author and motivational speaker. Cannot find evidence the subject meets the notability guideline WP:AUTHOR or has been the subject of sufficient coverage to meet the general notability guideline. Unaddressed notability concerns dating back to 2006. If there were adequate sources on this topic, four years is enough time to rustle some up. The purpose of the article is likely promotional, but G11 is likely to be declined and PROD will probably be contested. -- Rrburke (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: After a google search of his name and books I've come up empty. I can't find any sort of notability online and I am surprised this has existed since 2006. I found a mention on a website advertising his books that he is ranked "#1 Motivational Speaker by Google" but I don't think Google ranks motiviational speakers nor would it neccessarily be a reliable source on such things if it did. I also read on the same page that he owns one of the world's largest gyms, but I could not find any support for the claim. Most of what I found was self published articles or advertising. I could not find anything worthy of article inclusion.--v/r - T P 16:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black Buddhist[edit]

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

Not a notable expression or concept. The article is mainly about black people (mostly Americans such as Tiger Woods and Tina Turner) who are of the Buddhist faith. There is nothing very remarkable about this, nor do the people seem to form any kind of group or community. A little extra is thrown in about Southern Indian Buddhists who have dark skin and might also be called "black." I will also nominate Buddhist Nation which seems to be related since there is a proposal to merge the two articles. Borock (talk) 16:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC) See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddhist Nation. It was deleted in 2007. I tagged it for speedy deletion as a recreation of a deleted article. Borock (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what's good is unremarkable; what is remarkable is probably not true. The article all but says that there's no connection between race and Buddhism. Mangoe (talk) 13:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violates WP:No original research by creating a new topic where one did not exist before. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Incubate. Incubating. Possibility of rescue. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Parting gift[edit]

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

Unsourced stub that contains a few trivial anecdotes. Sottolacqua (talk) 16:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, expand and reference --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing more than a dictionary definition, "a gift given at parting." There is no reason to think that examples given of ancient Greek, modern Japanese, and American game show use are in any way related. Borock (talk) 16:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Keep dictionary definition at best. Try another wiki, perhaps Wikitionary.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge The Roman poet Martial wrote a book about gifts and works such as this may be used to reference the section about Ancient Greece, for example. The related articles gift and parting tradition need a lot of work too and so it might be sensible to take all these together. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Change position Hard to argue with that logic (mostly because I don't even understand it) but if there are experienced editors enthusiastic about the article and willing to take it on, then I say "have at it!" Worst case scenario is that it will come to no harm.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Martial's Xenia deals with gift-giving during the Roman Saturnalia and is not a treatise but a series of couplets that describe (or suggest) particular gifts; it's rather difficult to see how it could be used to "reference the section about Ancient Greece". Once again Colonel Warden has performed a Google search and lit on a result of quite dubious relevance. Deor (talk) 11:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: article offers no sourced information on why a parting gift is notably distinguished from any other form of gift-giving (welcoming, Christmas, birthday, etc), nor does ((find)) suggest any evidence of this. Lacking secondary sources that actually discuss the significance of this form of gift-giving (and there's no indication that Martial does, even if he weren't essentially a primary source in this context), I see no notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I fully believe that the article, if presented with valid contributions, could expand beyond it's current form. I also believe if done in the right contexts it could be made different from any other gift-related article.--ForgottenHistory (talk) 12:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mullah Rahmatullah[edit]

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

WP:BLP based solely on primary sources, and with a very unclear subject. Half the page seems to deal with Rahmatullah, a Guantanamo detainee, while the other half seems to be about a possibly separate commander of the same name. Fails WP:BIO and WP:BLP. Fram (talk) 15:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A1, not enough information to identify the subject of the article. --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the article has now been rewritten, and contains nothing of the original text or information, and doesn't seem to be about the same person(s) anymore. Whether the current article, based on one longer and a few very short mentions of Mullah Rahmatullah in both reliable and unreliable sources, is about one person or different persons, is completely unclear (one operated out of Pakistan, one was captured in Kandahar, Afghanistan, and one was killed in combat half a year later. Whether the one captured was ever released is not known, but considering that "Rahmatullah was responsible for kidnappings of influential elders in the province, extortion, "guerrilla attacks and some other terror activities" (according to the source about the capture), it would seem strange that that same man was free six months later... So basically we have an all-new article which happens to have the same title, and which has brand-new problems, i.e. the lack of any confirmation that the three facts (the leader of a small group operating out of Pakistan, the one captured in Afghanistan, and the one killed in Afghanistan) are one, two or three persons. Such WP:OR on (for two of the three) possible living persons should be deleted. Fram (talk) 08:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, in source 1 he is alive, and in source 4 he is dead. Here we have some random guy taken prisoner claiming to be Mullah Rahmatullah. Is he the Mullah Rahmatullah or a different one? We don't know. If we don't even know who we are talking about there is a serious WP:BLP issue here. This is like writing an article entitiled "Sargent Johnson" who was a black man and a woman. --Pontificalibus (talk) 10:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's unclear if this is all the same person. It might be fit for an encyclopedia article if it is the same person, but it might not be. we shouldn't cover multiple things in one page just because they share a name.

In Wikipedia, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by.
— Wikipedia is not a dictionary

NotARealWord (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WRT to whether he is dead or alive -- Abdullah Mehsud was reported to have been killed three times. When WP:RS differ over whether an individual has been killed, or when they were killed, neutral reporting of what the WP:RS say is in order. I suggest it is not our role to try to interpret which of the conflicting RS is correct. Geo Swan (talk) 15:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WRT rewriten from scratch -- I added new material, which is I believe completely compliant with our deletion policy. In this edit User:Iqinn removed all the old material, with the edit summary "remove the information that is solely based on the interpretation of primary sources in violation of WP:OR." I've requested input at the OR noticeboard on several occasions, over similar edits User:Iqinn has made that they justified with claims of WP:OR. Those who weighed in have not supported User:Iqinn's interpretation of OR. Geo Swan (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WRT whether there were multiple individuals named "Mullah Rahmatullah" -- It is possible that the Taliban had multiple leaders named Rahmatullah. In other ((afd)) challengers asked for more references after I had created multiple articles when I thought multiple references referred to multiple individuals. Challengers there expressed a challenge 180 degrees opposed to those voiced here. Challengers there thought I needed further references to support that all the multiple references weren't pointing to a single individual. Here, in this ((afd)), I am being asked for further references to substantiate that multiple references are all to the same individual. Geo Swan (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can we find any coverage about Mullah Rahmatullah(s) other than single sentences claiming he is a Taliban leader? Is there any significant coverage? --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question - What does WRT actually mean? NotARealWord (talk) 20:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a wiki-ism: [17] --Pontificalibus (talk) 09:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that's why WP:WRT is a red link. NotARealWord (talk) 14:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Now it seems that the article goes "there are multiple cases of some individuals called Mullah Rahmatullah, for some reason, all o them have some relation to the Taliban". Not really much of a subject unless they are the same person, or a bunch of people pretending to be.— Preceding unsigned comment added by NotARealWord (talk • contribs) 14:44, 20 December 2010, (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Anotherclown (talk) 12:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - according to the article the subject commanded ten men and therefore fails the notability guidelines in WP:MILMOS/N (which only affords notability to commanders if they "held the top-level military command position of their nation's armed forces" or "commanded a notable body of troops in combat.") AFAIK Rahmatullah did neither. Anotherclown (talk) 11:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proteopedia[edit]

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

Non-notable, no wide 3rd party reporting demonstrated. Deleted. Merrill Stubing (talk) 14:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has been the topic of an article in a peer-reviewed journal about the field of science, and a quick Google search turns up a profile and award by Scientist magazine. ERIC.gov, meanwhile, has a separate article/description, while Google Scholar throws up discussion of the website in multiple scientific journals. The Rhymesmith (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then fix the article and cite it. Non notable. Delete. Merrill Stubing (talk) 17:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is ridiculous. I have nothing to do with the article, and it's not my job to add citations. Moreover, your blanket assertion that the article is 'non notable' despite my supplying evidence to the contrary is simply obdurate deletionism which contributes nothing to the Wiki. The subject is notable, and reliable sources exist. Go read WP:Chance before doing this kind of thing again. The Rhymesmith (talk) 15:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Now cited. The citations make clear that the article is notable. Boghog (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it seems notable. Nergaal (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep mentioned in several peer-reviewed journals. Boghog (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RitchieWiki[edit]

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

Non-notable. Only two articles covering their launch. Delete. Merrill Stubing (talk) 14:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Press releases, lauch notices, and/or new product reviews do not confer notability. T Wikipediahe article was posted concurrent with the launch of the website, which means it could not have been in any way notable. The article therefore serves only a promotional purpose. The website is unremarkable.--Kudpung (talk) 15:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Since this article is about a non-notable subject and since the creator obviously only cares about promoting the wiki, I think that it's safe to say this article was made for promotional purposes.--Piast 93 16:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Raine Larrazabal[edit]

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

No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Says she's only been a contestant, not a winner in contests, and seems to be mainly noted as being a sister of another model. The-Pope (talk) 14:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 14:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 14:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sadly. I could not find enough reliable sources to prove notability on her own right, if her sister doesn't have an article here, what more her? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above failure to find references fails WP:N and WP:V JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: don't you hate it when you try to look at a source and your virus scan tells you its a bad place to be! Couldn't find sources in Phillipine Daily Inquirer, either.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 17:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant reliable, secondary coverage, I did find where she'd been named FHM's #58 sexiest woman for 2008 (from a site that's blocked by WP's spam filter), but it's just a name on a list, there's still no significant coverage of this model. (Resisting the urge to make any of a number of jokes here.) --j⚛e decker ^talk 22:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unable to find sufficient non-trivial coverage in reliable sources to sufficiently establish notability. —J04n(talk page) 14:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agnostic neutralism[edit]

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

Non-notable term already adequately covered in other articles. Eldamorie (talk) 14:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "Agnostic+neutralism"&btnG=Szukaj+książek&tbs=bks%3A1&tbo=1&hl=pl 5 Google Books hits. Could be notable, but... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't quite get that link to work out for me. :( GManNickG (talk) 21:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki dosen't like some google links. I am afraid you have to do the search yourself, go to print.google.com and search for "Agnostic+neutralism". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. GManNickG (talk) 08:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pseudophilosophical term not used in the literature. The Rhymesmith (talk) 16:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Dmol (talk) 21:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as explained, not a sensible term; no authoritative use.GManNickG (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've just added a section to the talk page pointing out where the article doesn't make sense. (Note that every sentence of the introduction has a problem.) GManNickG (talk) 21:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - term is non-notable and concepts are covered (far better) in other articles. Would consider redirect to agnostic atheism, from which it cannot be distinguished unless one holds (wrongly) that atheism means the positive assertion that there are no deities.--JimWae (talk) 18:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is wrong, see below. --SDMade (talk) 09:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't "wrong". Strong Delete Besides being indistinguishable from agnostic atheism, the term does not have contemporary currency. See the 4 hits at http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&tbo=1&q=%22agnostic+neutralism%22&btnG=Search+Books
- Burton 1888 & 1896 - very very old, uses phrase once
- Broad 1925 - not about religious views
- French 1961 - not about religious views
  - Re: Cahoone 2002 - does not use term - words are separate
  - Re: Platvoet 1999 - "'methodological agnosticism' or 'metaphysical neutralism'" uses terms synonymously, not one as qualifier of the other--JimWae (talk) 22:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agnostic neutrality has more hits (about 50), but the words are used together as an intensifier - not as a qualifier--JimWae (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just googling this, excluding Wikipedia, shows that this isn't a term-of-art. Most of the links on the first page of results either trace to here or are search traps. Searching in books returns five hits, and two of them are the same work, a lecture apparently delivered in the 1880s. All the rest of this blather is really beside the point. People may want to make these distinctions, but if the Real World of philosophy/theology doesn't make them and use these words, it's not up to us to create the term for them. Mangoe (talk) 13:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do you think "the real world of philosophy and theology" establish the meaning of terms? they study the existing definitions, then debate. What have we done here? --SDMade (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've made up a term and are trying to argue it into existence using Wikipedia to disseminate your invention. The very fact that you rely so heavily on this argument shows that you are so engaged. Mangoe (talk) 03:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of what you claim is false, however, I would like to help improve wikipedia by distinguishing the meanings of the various religious terms and philosophical positions, and by bringing attention to the position of "agnostic neutralism". --SDMade (talk) 08:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not up to you to make such distinctions. We can report them when they are widely made in the Real World, but it is not for us to define them ourselves. Mangoe (talk) 14:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The position of agnostic neutralism is widely known and accepted in the "real world". --SDMade (talk) 20:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's why you've cited so many sources, right? GManNickG (talk) 22:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please reconsider this deletion, as it seems many websites have embraced this definition already, and this viewpoint accurately describes the stance that many default Agnostics would take. UnReAL13D (talk) 11:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a negative stigma attached to "atheism". Statistics show that there are far less "atheists" in the world, 2.5 %, and being labeled one leads to negative judgment in the eyes of the overwhelming amount of theists. Agnosticism in general is considered to be the "neutral" position someone can take on the matter, as the typical Agnostic would simply answer "I Don't Know" to the question "Do you believe in god?" The typical agnostic wouldn't claim either "atheism" or "theism" as neither side has presented sufficient evidence. Thus taking a "neutral" stance on the matter. We feel the whole concept of "agnostic neutralism" encapsulates the initial default position of "agnosticism" that someone can take on any particular subject. Because when someone says they're "agnostic", the next proceeding question is usually "But are you Theist or Atheist?" This leads to confusion and frustration between the 2 sides if the agnostic is "neutral" towards the Theism/Atheism dichotomy, and eventually arguments over the semantics of the terms "agnostic" and "atheist" will ensue. This happens very frequently around the net, it's not hard to find people debating over the terms. That's basically all I can offer for my rebuttal. UnReAL13D (talk) 11:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Please reconsider this deletion, as it seems many websites have embraced this definition already, and this viewpoint accurately describes the stance that many default Agnostics would take." Many 'agnostics' are wrong. Most agnostics I've met are agnostic atheist's.

And negative stigma is both irrelevant and lessening. Negative stigma should be dealt with when it personally arises, Wikipedia is not a platform for removing it, nor is it reason to clutter up the existing terms. There simply isn't a middle stance, you either believe in a god or you don't. And when you don't, you're an atheist. One can go on further to find out that you're a negative (weak) atheist and that you don't assert the god doesn't exist, but that's up to private discourse. GManNickG (talk) 21:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep the philosophical position which the article Agnostic Neutralism serves to describe is NOT currently included in or described by any other article on wikipedia. until someone disproves the validity of the position itself or identifies fallaciousness in the article, the article should stand. if the lack of authoritative recognition is of significant concern, I suggest the article be shortened or edited to reflect that concern. there are numerous other articles on wikipedia which arguably misrepresent the terms and positions in which they attempt to describe, for instance: "ignosticism", "antitheism", "apatheism" "agnostic theism/atheism", all of these terms are highly controversial and their meanings are frequently debated within the realm of philosophy of religion. SDMade December 2010

See: (article discussion) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Agnostic_neutralism The article has been edited, simplified and reworded to provide a better understanding of and accurately depict the concept/viewpoint of 'agnostic neutralism'. SDMade December 2010

"until someone disproves the validity of the position itself..." You have the burden of proof, not us. Things are not to be assumed true until proven false, the one making the claim has to provide the proof for the claim. This is a basic epistemological understanding, and demanding otherwise is so common it's a regular old fallacy. Your lack of understanding in this respect reduces any weight you may have had on any philosophical issue, including this one; I sincerely doubt your experience in philosophy. GManNickG (talk) 03:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I sincerely doubt your experience in philosophy." yet you claim yourself to be a 21 year old autodidact... interesting. SDMade December 2010

It's quite possible to do so, though now off-topic. Why wouldn't I be able to teach myself until after a certain age? And attacking me isn't a response to what I've said above, care to try again? GManNickG (talk) 20:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you raised the question of "lacking experience", I merely pointed out your own deficiency, which is hardly an attack if you consider yourself a true 'autodidact' in the discipline. as for the burden of proof, I cannot prove something to someone who rejects the facts. --SDMade (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, how about this: I'm a newborn child and by some miracle I can type mostly coherently. I'm the dumbest person to ever exist and shall never ever say anything remotely ground-breaking.

Now, how does this strengthen your position? It doesn't. Once again, you're attacking me instead of my points. That's fine if you don't want to actually defend the article, but if you don't want it to get deleted then you better start replying to the objections to it rather than to the person objecting.

In any case, now we're just talking about each other, instead of the article. The reason I brought up your experience in the first place is because you're the person saying the term is valid. I'm just doubting the grounds you have to show that. But that's fine, this isn't the main problem anyway, I just wanted to address your argument from ignorance. GManNickG (talk) 03:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately for you, this discussion is about deletion of the article, not your understanding of reasoning. That said, I have already explained why this stance is meaningless, but I'll do so again anyway. First understand beliefs, certainty, and what the stances and terms mean. Then acknowledge that theism/atheism and gnosticism/agnosticism are jointly exhaustive. There exists terms for each sub-category of these as well, and agnostics neutralism simply has no place to insert itself in to. That's it. It's up to you to argue that it does add something that isn't already covered; please do so. And no, citing the article won't help because as it stands it's incoherent and just throws words around. GManNickG (talk) 03:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

an agnostic who is not an atheist or theist, is a neutral-agnostic. a neutral agnostic can be a weak or strong agnostic, ignostic agnostic neutralist, or even an ignostic apathetic agnostic neutralist. fortunately for you, you are not required to comprehend this. SDMade December 2010

"an agnostic who is not an atheist or theist" Wrong, this is not possible; your premise is false. You either believe in a god or you don't, there is no between. GManNickG (talk) 20:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"You either believe in a god or you don't, there is no between." the absurdity of this is laughable. --SDMade (talk) 00:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you could demonstrate the absurdity, then perhaps you'd have a real argument we could laugh along with you. But this is just a claim, anyone can do that. Watch this: the absurdity of your comment is laughable. If you think your argument is sound, then so is mine. But thankfully it's not, so go ahead and try again. GManNickG (talk) 03:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"if the lack of authoritative recognition is of significant concern, I suggest the article be shortened or edited to reflect that concern." Or, per policy of Wikipedia, non-existent. If it doesn't exist as a real, authoritatively-defined word, then to Wikipedia it doesn't exist. And again, the burden is on you to cite these resources, not for us to (somehow) prove they don't exist. Wikipedia isn't for blog posts; if you personally feel the term is justified in its existence that's fine, but that doesn't belong here. GManNickG (talk) 03:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

like i've pointed out before, there are plenty other articles lacking "authoritative" recognition, perhaps I should open a proposal for deletion on those. SDMade December 2010

Yes you should, because it has nothing to do with this article. GManNickG (talk) 20:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it has everything to do with this article, and in fact, its your entire argument for why it should be deleted. perhaps you should consider rethinking your respones... --SDMade (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with the validity of this article. It arguably has to do with my argument, except that the terms I'm using aren't in your list, save the last one. And those are supported by references that you can find on the articles themselves.

Again, if you've got a problem with the other articles, bring it up on those articles. If you've got a problem with my argument, then please address my argument directly. GManNickG (talk) 03:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"there are numerous other articles on wikipedia which arguably misrepresent the terms and positions in which they attempt to describe, for instance: "ignosticism", "antitheism", "apatheism" "agnostic theism/atheism"" The wrongness of other terms has no bearing on the correctness of this term, this is a red herring. Even if they were indeed wrong, which they aren't, that makes no case for your own position. I think instead of being closed-minded and saying "My terms are definitely right, everyone else must be wrong", you reconsider your understanding and experience in philosophy and religion, and perhaps contemplate the possibility you may need to succumb to more authoritative sources. GManNickG (talk) 03:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

agnostic neutralism is not "my term", and it's well established online. SDMade December 2010

Then provide links to those well-established resources. GManNickG (talk) 20:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it's not my job to convince you to accept the facts, however, that being said I will add any resources I happen to stumble upon. --SDMade (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"it's not my job to convince you to accept the facts" Actually, if you don't want people to say your article should be deleted, it is.

And if it's "well established online" then you should have no problem getting those resources for us - let alone have to stumble upon them. GManNickG (talk) 03:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"all of these terms are highly controversial and their meanings are frequently debated within the realm of philosophy of religion." Simply false; unless your definition of "realm of philosophy of religion" is "laymen talking about religion". I find it rare to encounter a philosopher, intellectual, or theologian who doesn't understand the basics of belief and certainty, and the meaning of the terms. GManNickG (talk) 08:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

again, if I am to believe your user page, you're a 21 year old who thinks access to the internet makes you a seasoned philosopher and prized intellectual. SDMade December 2010

Funny, I don't see that anywhere on my user page. Anyway, care to respond to what I've said instead of who I am again? GManNickG (talk) 20:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it's actually quite astounding to read your responses, you seem to disregard what you have previously written in almost all of them. "Anyway, care to respond to what I've said instead of who I am again?"... did you not say "(I) find it rare" in your original response? read: "I find it rare to encounter a philosopher, intellectual, or theologian who doesn't understand the basics of belief and certainty, and the meaning of the terms. GManNickG" this is a personal account of your own experiences which I responded to. --SDMade (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am part of the argument by virtue then I gave you my reasons to objecting to a point. What you're apparently missing is that one of your claims is being objected to, namely "all of these terms are highly controversial and their meanings are frequently debated within the realm of philosophy of religion.", and that since that's your claim it's your responsibility to defend it. Next time I'll omit my reasons for objection, and simply ask the claim be supported: Where is all the controversy in the field?

And you can doubt my experience, that's fine, but recognize the difference between supporting your claim (what you need to do if you don't want this article deleted) and rejecting my reasons for the objection (which could be completely valid but not save your support for the article, because it's irrelevant). But if you're going to make an ad hominem attack anyway, don't do so by making straw man arguments. I again invite you to locate where on my user page it says I think I'm "a 21 year old who thinks access to the internet makes you a seasoned philosopher and prized intellectual". Can you locate this for me? No? That's because it's a completely exageratted fabrication you put up in place of a real response. Now stop talking about who I am and start defending your article. GManNickG (talk) 03:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last entry I will make in this debate.

If my understanding of your position is clear, You(GManNickG, others in favor deletion) are arguing that one can only ever choose to 'agree' or 'disagree' with any claim, concept, theory or conclusion. I am arguing that one has three options, to agree, to disagree, or neither, which is to suspend judgement. In other words, you believe the claim of "god's" existence can only be believed-in(agreed with) which is the position of theism, or disbelieved-in/"not-believed"/"lacking belief in"(disagreed with, "not agreed with", "lacking agreement/agreeance with") which is the position of atheism. I am proposing that one can take a middle position in the form of suspended judgement(neither "agree" nor "disagree"/ neither "believe" nor "disbelieve"), which is essentially a "neutral" position, meaning "agnostic neutralism"("agnostic-knowledge"-"neutral-belief") is basically the thought that "theism" and "atheism" are both premature judgements.

Suspension of judgement: Suspension of judgment is a cognitive process and a rational state of mind in which one withholds judgments, particularly on the drawing of moral or ethical conclusions. The opposite of suspension of judgment is premature judgment, usually shortened to prejudice. Whereas prejudgment involves drawing a conclusion or making a judgment before having the information relevant to such a judgment, suspension of judgment involves waiting for all the facts before making a decision. Suspension of judgment is a cornerstone of good research methodology. Much of the scientific method is designed to encourage the suspension of judgments until observations can be made, tested, and verified through peer review. In socio-political situations the suspension of judgment is the cornerstone of a civil society. Rather than prejudging people based on generalizations, preconceptions, or other forms of incomplete information, we should judge individuals only when we have adequate information about that individual. Within philosophy, the suspension of judgment is typically associated with skepticism and positivism, but it is not limited to these areas. The 17th century rationalist René Descartes, for example, used it as the cornerstone of his epistemology. In a process that he called methodological skepticism, he asserted that in order to gain a solid foundation when building one's system of knowledge and belief, one must first doubt everything. Only by eliminating preconceptions and prejudgments can one come to know what is true. Suspension of judgment is also a term used in civil law to indicate a courts decision to nullify a civil judgment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_judgment

If you understand and agree with this position, I encourage you to build upon the article to include "skepticism" and "suspension of judgment" and how they relate to agnostic neutralism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SDMade (talk • contribs) 20:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You said "You(GManNickG, others in favor deletion) are arguing that one can only ever choose to 'agree' or 'disagree' with any claim, concept, theory or conclusion." As far as I can tell, GManNickG is the only person making this argument. If it's not clear from what I mentioned above and elsewhere, my nomination for deletion is not at all about this issue. I actually agree with you on this issue. That being said, my reasoning for thinking this should be deleted is because the term agnostic neutralism is not used in any reliable sources, so to create the article under this title falls under WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. As far as I'm concerned, the argument about whether or not it is possible to neither agree nor disagree with a proposition has occluded this issue.Eldamorie (talk) 20:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

my response to "my reasoning for thinking this should be deleted is because the term agnostic neutralism is not used in any reliable sources" has been that this is false (there are reliable sources), and further my response to "so to create the article under this title falls under WP:OR/WP:SYNTH" is that many other articles fall under "WP:OR/WP:SYNTH", yet are allowed to remain available; such as the articles for "Weak agnosticism" and "Strong agnosticism" which both make note of these concerns. Why aren't these articles being "considered for deletion"? --SDMade (talk) 21:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"this is false (there are reliable sources)" Then link to the "reliable sources" already! You keep saying "they're there, they're there, I swear!" and then doing nothing. And for the last time, two wrongs don't make a right. If every article on Wikipedia was original research, that still has no bearing on whether this one is too.

If you think they should be considered for deletion, bring it up on those pages. They aren't the issue here, the issue is nobody has linked to a reliable source for this article. This one. GManNickG (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eldamorie, I've never made such an argument, and have put quite some effort into explaining a person can agree, disagree, or withhold judgment. If theism is an agreement, than atheism is not-agreement: withholding judgment or disagreeing. GManNickG (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you hadn't dismissed yourself from the discussion. It took me quite some time thinking out my responses to you on the talk page and here, and it's extremely offsetting to have you simply ignore them. But instead you've merely re-stated your position; that's intellectually dishonest, and for the good of your article you'd do well to come back and reply to my points.

It's also clear you never really read anything I wrote to you in honest light, because if you had you'd either have agreed with my lesson and we'd be done, or you'd have replied to the error in my lesson on my talk page; neither have occurred. Had you actually read what I took the time to write for you, you'd see that I exactly argue "that one has three options, to agree, to disagree, or neither". Thanks for wasting my time.

So I already have no reason to reply to you: you wouldn't read it, if you did you'd just run away, and it isn't worth my effort. If you want to put the same effort into this as I have, feel free to address my points and I'll be happy to care again.

In closing I'll say this: if atheism is "not-believed"/"lacking belief in"(disagreed with, "not agreed with", "lacking agreement/agreeance with" the claim of god's existence, and someone is withholding judgment (the "middle" position), have they formed a belief in a god? Of course not, they're withholding judgment. That is to say, they are lacking a belief in god.

Like I've been saying, you either have a belief in a god, or you don't (lack). It's not logically possible to fall anywhere else. GManNickG (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the "lesson" on your page (twice and then a third time), and I simply disagree with it. Your logic is false because it assumes the argument is over "theism" itself, when the true argument is over a claim(the claim that "god exists") of which 'theism' merely establishes an opinion of, i.e. one side of the argument, read:

Claim: "God" exists.

(responses)

Agnostic Theist: "I have faith in 'god'", "I think 'god' exists", "I believe, despite a lack of knowledge", conclusion: "Yes"
Agnostic Atheist: "I have faith in no 'god'", "I think 'god' does not exist", "I object, because a lack of knowledge", conclusion: "No"
Neutral-Agnostic: "I don't have faith", "I don't have thoughts(or can't decide)", "I neither believe nor object, I lack knowledge", conclusion: "Possibly"

because "God exists" is an unsubstantiated claim which, for all intents and purposes, is also a learned concept, "belief" itself is required to have an opinion or come to a conclusion. In other words, it is required that you believe the claim is true, believe the claim is false, or simply "lack belief" which is to suspend judgement. If you acknowledge this truth, you must see the positions regarding the claim, "God exists", as such:

Agnostic Theist: "I believe this claim is true, but I lack knowledge"
Agnostic Atheist: "I believe this claim is false, but I lack knowledge"
Agnostic Neutralist: "I suspend any judgement on whether the claim is true or false, due to a lack of knowledge"

you cannot "lack a belief" in the truth of a claim and still "have a belief" that the claim is false, this is a logical fallacy. the only way one could "lack a belief" in the existence of god and still be considered "atheist" is if they were ignorant to the concept of "god's existence" to begin with.

SDMade (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak atheists don't assert falsehood. --Modocc (talk) 06:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the real distinction between the varying forms of "atheism" and how they would respond to the question "Do you believe in god?"

Gnostic Atheist -- "I know there are no gods"
Strong Atheist -- "I believe there are no gods"
Weak Atheist -- "I don't believe in any gods"
Agnostic Atheist -- "I have no knowledge of any gods, therefore I don't believe in any gods"

-- A weak atheist would be basing their disbelief of gods on the lack of knowledge for any claims, which is why many atheists find that the last 2 categories aren't mutually exclusive. But to be labeled a "Weak Atheist" doesn't necessarily imply that they're "without knowledge", only that they're "without belief". An Agnostic Neutralist would reply "I have no knowledge of any gods, therefore I suspend judgment. I believe that the chances a god does or doesn't exist is equal in likelihood." Technically the Neutralist has a "belief" that either side of the Atheism/Theism dichotomy could be true.UnReAL13D (talk) 13:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Weak"/"Negative" atheist's are actually agnostic-atheists. what's written under the wikipedia page for "Weak"/"Strong" atheism is completely false, if you would like my to elaborate, reply and I'll get back to you. --SDMade (talk) 08:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you think is false about the article, positive/negative or strong/weak atheism is reliably sourced, whether or not the concept is called agnostic atheism, defacto atheism (see Richard Dawkins' Spectrum of theistic probability) or weak atheism (and weak atheism is considerably broader in scope than either agnostic or defacto atheism). --Modocc (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many things can qualify as a so-called "reliable source", that doesn't make it accurate OR even that the source is correct. Briefly scanning over the sources listed on the article I can only find one semi-reliable source ^ Flew, Antony (1976). "The Presumption of Atheism" in this essay the author uses the terms "negative" and "positive" atheism only to temporarily label the two different concepts which he attempts to explain, otherwise these terms are not well known or widely accepted within the "real world" of philosophy. --SDMade (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Agnostic Theist: "I have faith in 'god'", "I think 'god' exists", "I believe, despite a lack of knowledge", conclusion: "Yes"" You're wrong here. "Believing X" and "having faith in X" are not the same thing. I can believe in X, and may or may not cite faith as my reason for this belief. Faith can be cited as a justification for a belief, it's not the same as a belief. (In other words, it's sufficient but not necessary for belief.)

How did you get the idea that I was comparing the words "faith" and "belief"?- but more important, even if that were the case - "Faith" is the only reason an "Agnostic Theist"(they're without knowledge, remember?) would "believe" in god, therefore the word faith can be used interchangeably with the word belief, but again, your rant was pointless from the start. --SDMade (talk) 08:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're also wrong here: "Agnostic Atheist: "I have faith in no 'god'", "I think 'god' does not exist", "I object, because a lack of knowledge"". Namely, "I think 'god' does not exist" and "I object, because a lack of knowledge" are not the same thing. The second one can be a suspension of judgment, the thing you keep saying. If I object your claim, that just means I don't believe it's true. I could either cite my reasons for the objection as "I believe it's false" or "I'm suspending judgment."

And again, pointless rant. the individual (mini)quoted responses(note: commas after each) aren't supposed have the same meanings, they're supposed to represent the train of thought each experience while responding to the claim "god exists". "If I object your claim, that just means I don't believe it's true.", "not believing it's true" is the same as "believing it's false", if you lacked a "belief" in the truth of the claim, then you would be suspending judgment. --SDMade (talk) 08:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't have faith" So you're not a theist (because you don't have a belief/"faith" in a god), ergo you're an atheist. . The prefix 'a-' means 'not'. Atheist: not theist. Agnostic: not gnostic. Asexual: not sexual. This is the major point you're missing.

This would be true, if "atheist" was acting as an adjective, but because the word "atheist" is being used as a noun it describes a person who believes the contrary of the original "person" i.e. the "theist", its the same with the words "agnostic" and "gnostic" when used as a noun. this may be why you thought they were comparable to the words "asexual" and "sexual", which are in fact, adjectives. This is the major point you're missing. --SDMade (talk) 08:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"you cannot "lack a belief" in the truth of a claim and still "have a belief" that the claim is false, this is a logical fallacy" It's a contradiction, not a fallacy. A fallacy is an error in reasoning, an invalid step. There's no steps here, just two contradicting statements. That's just an aside, though, we agree it's meaningless; I just don't think anyone said it.

Well... I'll give you this one, my mistake - sue me. --SDMade (talk) 08:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Important, feel free to ignore anything else, but please reply to this section.

You're in luck, I've written responses to everything. --SDMade (talk) 08:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about this: I'm going to make an semi-formal argument, and you tell me which part you disagree with, so everyone can stop all this guesswork and re-explaining, and pin-point the cause.

(Classical logic.)

Definition: G is the proposition 'a god exists'.

Definition: Belief is when a person holds a proposition to be true.

Premise B: For a proposition X, a person is free to believe X, or not believe X.

"or not believe X." -which is to believe that X is false if X is a claim, then "believing X" means "believing X is true", if one "has a belief" with regard to the "truth" of a claim, they're only options are to believe the claim is true or the contrary - false. suspending judgement would be to refrain from "having a belief". --SDMade (talk) 08:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, and I'm extremely surprised you're missing this, as you're the one so adamantly repeating the possibility to suspend belief. Please answer these two questions directly: (1) Do we agree "He believes X." is the same as "He believes X is true."? and (2) If someone suspends judgment on X, do they believe X? GManNickG (talk) 13:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Premise N: For a proposition X, a belief that X is false is the same as a belief that not-X is true.

Theorem T: For a proposition X, a person is free to believe one of the following: X, not-X, or neither. (Premise B & N)

Believing "neither" is a contradiction, one cannot logically believe something is "neither true nor false", they can only believe it is true, believe it is false, or suspend belief as to whether "it" is true or false. --SDMade (talk) 08:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Theorem S: A person may either believe G, believe not-G, or neither. (Theorem T)

Contradiction, see above. "believe (a god exists)", "believe not(a god exists)", or "a god exists and not a god exists"? you may want to rethink your theorem. --SDMade (talk) 08:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Theorem K: A person who does not believe G believes one of the following: not-G, or neither. (Theorem S)

Wrong. not-G is not-'a god exists' i.e. 'no god exists', "neither" would be a god exists and not a god exists- contradiction. --SDMade (talk) 08:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Premise T: A theist is a person who believes G.

Theorem N: A person who does not believe G is not a theist. (Premise T)

"A person who does not believe G" is "A person who believes G is false", because "G" is a claim. --SDMade (talk) 09:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Theorem I: A person who believes not-G or neither is not a theist. (Theorem K & N)

"Neither" isn't an option, see above. --SDMade (talk) 09:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Premise A: The prefix 'a-' means "not" [etymologically].

(Example Theorem: A person who is not sexual is asexual [etymologically]. (Premise A))

this is comparing an adjective to a noun, "sexual" to "a theist" - fallacy. --SDMade (talk) 08:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean I'm making a false analogy. (It's not helpful to simply state a fact then claim fallacy, you need to explain what fallacy. Otherwise we could just say "circles are round, you're committing a fallacy" all day.) In any case, you're not correct. My examples are to demonstrate that the prefix 'a-' can be taken to mean 'not', which is independent of the category of the base word to which you attach it. In other words, you're right in the basic sense, not in full: I'm using an adjective and a noun, yes, but I'm not comparing them; I'm comparing uses of 'a-'. If you want to explain why using an adjective versus a noun makes a difference to the prefix 'a-', that would invalidate my argument. So I ask: how does this noted difference change the meaning of 'a-' with respect to 'not'?

Theorem A: A person who is not a theist is an atheist [etymologically]. (Premise T & A)

Debunked, see above. --SDMade (talk) 09:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion B: A person who believes not-G or neither is an atheist. (Theorem I & A)

A person who believes "not-G" or "not-'a god exists" is an atheist, but "neither" is not an option, see above. --SDMade (talk) 08:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion E: A person is either a theist or an atheist. (Theorem K & Premise T & Conclusion B)

Wrong. A person is either a theist(one who believes 'a god exists'), an atheist(one who believes not-'a god exists'), or neither a 'theist' nor an 'atheist', in this case the person could be a number of things- one being an 'agnostic neutralist'. --SDMade (talk) 08:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now you may either say which premise you disagree with, or where a fallacy occurred. GManNickG (talk) 09:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're in luck again, I've spotted quite a few fallacies- which I tend to disagree with rather routinely.

--SDMade (talk) 08:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for deleting your "implication" responses, I didn't think you'd mind. I'm not sure how familiar you are with an argument, but if you disagree with a premise it's unnecessary and redundant to deny the theorems that rely on the premise. That's the entire purpose of presenting it in this format: if you disagree with a premise or deduction, you don't need to go on. GManNickG (talk) 13:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Blogs are not reliable sources and finding the terms used together occasionally is not adequate either. I read a review about someone who happened to propose agnostic neutralism, but otherwise I've yet to see any reference work or third-party reliable source that takes note of it, and probably because most self-described agnostics are already understood to be "agnostic neutral" in most cases, so the additional term is simply verbose. --Modocc (talk) 06:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Eh, not the place to debate it, but I'll say Conservapedia's value as a reliable source is close to zero. Obviously this depends on your ideology and how much bias you're willing to ignore, but no, that's not going to cut it, sorry." -- So would you mind explaining to me why Conservapedia isn't a reliable source? If the term "Neutralism" is real, which it is and primarily used in a political context, then why won't you accept the source citing the origin of the terminology? To conjoin Agnosticism with Neutralism is no different than conjoining Gnosticism with Theism, or any other combination of philosophical positions that one could take in regards to knowledge and/or belief. What your entire argument is hinging on is that there is no middle ground, no position of neutrality, in theological discussions. This is a Dualistic approach to theology if I've ever seen one. As SDMade had pointed out, the only way one could "lack a belief" and still be considered "atheist" is if they simply didn't understand the concept of "god's existence". They would have to be Ignostic Atheists.

Agnostic Neutralism is a concept being widely discussed and I've found some of the sources for the info on the original article:

"William and Mabel Sahakian say that agnosticism "refers to a neutralist view on the question of the existence of God"

http://www.greatcom.org/resources/handbook_of_todays_religions/04chap01/default.htm

"into four camps: optimists, pessimists, neutralists, and agnostics. The neutralists and agnostics dominate right now, though I will argue that their ..."

http://www.nber.org/papers/w9749.pdf

""Naturalism" has been associated with agnosticism and a spirit of compromise. ... from skepticism to absolutism, or a convenient but sterile "neutralism. .."

http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/sage/toward-a-naturalistic-philosophy-of-experience-ukdOqiAPFl

"The agnostic is the attitude of those who do not have a clear opinion as to ...... reflect a lack of mindfulness, ardent determinism or ardent neutralism ..."

http://www.wwwords.co.uk/pdf/validate.asp?j=elea&vol=2&issue=2&year=2005&article=6_Aviram_ELEA_2_2_web

"does not hark back to the 'cultural agnosticism' of neutralist liberalism."

https://doi.org/10.1023%2FA%3A1009975614456

"'active neutralism' are quite vague: but the first is definitely a common .... Kant and other agnostics do, that this suprasensible world is unknowable. .."

http://www.jstor.org/pss/25000185

After doing some brief research it's becoming abundantly clear that "neutralism" is an accepted position, and in many cases is being used to modify or accentuate "agnosticism", or vice versa. Just as someone can be a Gnostic Theist, Agnostic Deist, Ignostic Atheist, Apathetic Ietsist, etc.... from the virtually endless series of philosophical positions that one take, Agnostic Neutralism is simply yet another position within the entire spectrum of belief. I apologize for any formatting errors. Please forgive me as I'm a relatively new "wikipedian". UnReAL13D (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of those sources uses the phrase "agnostic neutralism" - the first one describes vanilla agnosticism using the term neutralism. The second, third and fourth are not even about agnosticism. None of them describe a position called agnostic neutralism. No wiki is ever ever ever a reliable source. Period. Unless you are writing an article on that wiki and are citing policies, or whatever. But saying "X wiki has an article that kind of relates to this one" is totally not the case. To conjoin these terms is WP:OR unless you can find reliable sources that have already done so. Eldamorie (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Agnostics themselves, the neutralists looked askance at the born-again, indelicately reminding

America of its long history as a ..."

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=tEy9EeDHcOcC&oi=fnd&pg=PP11&dq=agnostic+neutralism&ots=rWLDrLRknu&sig=1HxVycMAjiZWShBhYp7GEIkemso

"Rather, liberalism denotes an officially agnostic or "neutral ..."

https://doi.org/10.1007%2FBF02693332

"... a level playing field where the structures of the system are somehow neutral or agnostic, allowing

all ..."

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=GlJEzBwM6e4C&oi=fnd&pg=PA7&dq=agnostic+neutralism&ots=dhhQKFzgJK&sig=XxNk3p1GJ41HDLH_4736TsVDpQA

"Only the agnostic is truly neutral"

http://philmat.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/nkq005v1

"... Neither benevolent neutralists nor secular neutralists rely on preference-free legal argu- ments

to arrive at their respective definitions, but rather ."

http://jcs.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/45/3/499.pdf

Once again I've illustrated why several scholars find the concepts of "neutralism" and "agnosticism" to be synonymous and interchangeable. The last source even uses the phrase secular neutralist for which the only logical synonymous phrase would be agnostic neutralist, as "agnostics" are considered to be "secular". UnReAL13D (talk) 22:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citing sources that argue that neutralist and agnostic are interchangeable serves to emphasize the point that any value from this article should be included in Agnosticism. And why can't secular neutralist just mean secular neutralist? If anything, the most logical synonymous phrase would be "agnostic" Eldamorie (talk) 14:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The term "secular" implies someone who is without religion. The phrase "atheistic neutralist" is a contradiction of terminology, as you can't be "neutral" to the theism/atheism dichotomy and still remain "atheistic". To say just "agnostic" is synonymous to "secular neutralist" would be dropping the entire emphasis of "neutralism" in regards to atheism and theism. By default, an agnostic SHOULD remain neutral to the argument, but this isn't necessarily implied by simply saying "agnostic". There are still the Atheist/Theist and Weak/Strong divisions to consider, and "neutralism" addresses these arguments as the proper descriptor for one who wishes to maintain a "neutral" stance towards these divisions. "Neutralism" properly characterizes the neutral stance that someone could feasibly have towards the entire scope of belief. UnReAL13D (talk) 17:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a quick aside to the previous point, I'd like to note that "secular" could also imply a Deist or even Ietsist. It's certainly possible to be a Deistic Neutralist (someone who believes in the equal chances of a "deity" not revealed by religion) or an Ietsistic Neutralist (someone who believes in the equal chances of "something" that exists beyond this world, not necessarily a "deity"). There could also be the Ignostic Neutralist (someone who doesn't understand the concept of a "deity" but thinks there's equal chances that a deity may exist) or even an Apathetic Neutralist (someone who thinks that a deity's existence has little to no impact on our world, has never been proven/dis-proven, but still thinks the chances that one may exist is equal in likelihood). The Apathetic Neutralist differs from the typical Apatheist or Pragmatic Atheist in that they believe in the equal chances of a deities' existence, but still wouldn't care enough about the argument to assert a stance either way. UnReAL13D (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW,GManNickG (talk) is right about not assigning a probability such as "equal chances" to theism/atheism, because believing something is 50% possible is not a "neutral" position. For instance, a judge would be prejudice to think that a defendant has a probability of 50% of being guilty, especially if the prosecutor had lost 99% of his prior cases. A complete suspension of judgment means that one should not prejudice the outcome with any assigned probability, until a judgment of any facts is made. --Modocc (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probability of guilt is a completely different measurement than the chances of a deity's existence. There are many existing factors to consider in a court trial. There are no apparent factors when "judging" the existence of a deity. This lends equal credence to both sides. There is a 50 % chance of a deity's existence, and a 50 % chance of a deity's non-existence. Thus rendering an equal amount of likelihood that a deity exists or doesn't. If you believe the numbers for this percentage are any other sum of 100 % aside from "0 + 100", then you would be either Agnostic Theist or Agnostic Atheist. UnReAL13D (talk) 16:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I finally found a source for the phrase agnostic neutralism

"However, I do think that there is a certain superficial show of humility in the agnostic neutralism, which makes it taking to some, and helps multiply disciples for it"

http://books.google.com/books?id=DstfA4Pq2e8C&pg=PA499&dq=agnostic+neutralism&hl=en&ei=7owOTbuPK4OglAeC49S6BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAA

"If now neutralist agnosticism is supposed to be a justification for limiting liberty and denying me the ..."

http://books.google.com/books?id=M8cmyFUuSrsC&pg=PA52&dq=agnostic+neutralism&hl=en&ei=7owOTbuPK4OglAeC49S6BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CD0Q6AEwBQ

"1960-now) serves mainly to develop critical reflexive methodologies for a secular and agnostic study of the religions ... social history only on the basis of an approach termed 'methodological agnosticism' or 'metaphysical neutralism'."

http://books.google.com/books?id=gmcjPkrGTQ8C&pg=PA246&dq=agnostic+neutralism&hl=en&ei=7owOTbuPK4OglAeC49S6BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CE0Q6AEwCA

I hope this now clearly illustrates why agnostic neutralism is indeed an existing philosophy. UnReAL13D (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, none of these works are describing anything that is not plain ol' vanilla agnosticism. The Yale lecture is from 1888, is a polemic against agnosticism, and is not using agnostic neutralism to describe a separate philosophy, but just as method of emphasizing the "neutral" part of agnosticism. Please read the whole essay. The Civil Society book is once again a political science text, not a philosophical one, and uses the term agnostic to describe laws that refuse to make value judgments. Once again, the Platvoet work uses the term neutralism as a descriptor for vanilla agnosticism. None of these demonstrate a philosophy in anyway distinct from vanilla agnosticism.Eldamorie (talk) 14:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, am I missing something here? What exactly is "vanilla agnosticism" supposed to be? This is Greek to me. I have NEVER heard that phrase used by a philosopher of any kind. UnReAL13D (talk) 15:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for not being more clear. By vanilla agnosticism I mean agnosticism unqualified by atheism or theism. Just plain ol' reg'lar agnosticism, the kind described in the Agnosticism article.Eldamorie (talk) 15:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're saying is that Agnostic Neutralism differs in no way from "Vanilla Agnosticism". It's my understanding that the term "Agnosticism" in general encapsulates the entire spectrum including Agnostic Theism, Agnostic Atheism, Strong Agnosticism, Weak Agnosticism, Apathetic Agnosticism and Ignosticism. The emphasis of "Agnostic Neutralism" is to take a "neutral" stance to the "Theism/Atheism" argument as well as the "Weak/Strong" argument. There are many Agnostics who feel entirely "neutral" to the scope of Agnosticism when asked "What type of Agnostic are you?" They would rather not take these particular positions as they feel it's impossible to even ascertain that much. The "Neutralism" aspect of "Agnostic Neutralism" emphasizes the neutrality to all arguments contained within the divisions of Agnosticism.

With that being said, I still think that there should at least be a portion on the main Agnosticism page addressing the "neutrality" or "neutralism" to such matters. It's becoming quite obvious to me that the phrase "Agnostic Neutralism" isn't exactly in heavy rotation, but I wouldn't say it was "non-existent" before the publication of this article. Apparently the pastor at Yale was using the phrase in some sort of theological sense, so that suggests to me that the phrase at least existed at the time. UnReAL13D (talk) 15:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"What your entire argument is hinging on is that there is no middle ground, no position of neutrality, in theological discussions. " Once again, you dismiss my desire to care about anything else you've written because you clearly haven't read anything I have. GManNickG (talk) 05:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. This is the same type of argument I have with atheists constantly, which leads me to believe that you actually are an atheist. This is not a black-&-white issue. There are many sides to the argument. Please at least refer to the sources I've provided stating agnostic neutralism as a valid position to take. UnReAL13D (talk) 07:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is with your obsession with determining what my beliefs are? Do you need to discern them so you know which prejudices and presumptions to apply to me? They're not relevant, pay to attention to what I say, not who I am.

"This is not a black-&-white issue." I challenge you to find a purpose in stating this sentence. I mean it surely isn't to object to something I said, because I never said it was a black and white issue.

Black and white as in the duality of atheism and theism which you are suggesting. When in reality you must accept the plurality of atheism, neutralism and theism. UnReAL13D (talk) 08:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Identifying a dichotomy doesn't mean I think it's a black and white issue. Is saying you're either a stamp collector or not a stamp collector participating in black and white thinking? See, here's the problem: you've got some definition of atheism we disagree on, so I try to demonstrate why it's wrong via argument, but every time I do that, you ignore it. That's fine, though rude, except that you then go on to recite your definition; ignoring my rebuttal on it's own is one thing, but ignoring it as an objection to the views you espouse is another. Be intellectually honest, and instead of constantly re-stating "it's theism, atheism, and 'neutralism'" over and over, critique my argument; help me hold a reasonable discussion and help me figure out where it is we actually disagree, I've made it extremely simple to do so. I'm not replying to anything but a reply to my argument from this point, you've had plenty of time to do so. Thanks. GManNickG (talk) 08:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First off, you seem to be identifying me with SDMade, and you continue to assert that the points you made to him are being ignored by me. Stop projecting. Second, you're using the most inclusive definition of atheism "the lack of belief", when atheism in a broader sense is the "rejection or disbelief of all spiritual claims". Nobody can "lack a belief" but still "hold the belief that a claim is false". If everyone simply accepted the definition "lack of belief" then there would be no agnostics to speak of. I'm pretty sure I already went over this anyway, but I'll make sure to "elaborate" well enough for you this time.

As far as your stamp collector argument goes, yes there can be someone who is neither a stamp collector nor a non-stamp collector. It would be someone who simply owns a single stamp. This wouldn't be a collection of stamps, nor would it be the acquisition of no stamps at all. If we're to assume that a "non-stamp collector" doesn't possess stamps whatsoever. But I'm sure you'd try to use the term more "inclusively" as you are with atheism, so your interpretation of "non-stamp collector" would probably include people who own stamps but don't "gather" the stamps into an assortment or collection of some kind. This is simply a cop-out to justify labeling everyone who isn't classified as "theist" under the label of "atheist".

What you are ignoring about the pluralist aspect of categorization is the "shades of gray" in between the black and white. You simply label everything in dualist terms, this or that: theist, non-theist; car, non-car; human, non-human; etc. When there can be ambiguity among certain categories. What you're willfully ignoring is the aspect of "this, that or the other". Such as -- religion: theist, non-theist, neutralist; object: car, non-car, flying car; species: human, non-human, hybrid. There can certainly be "neutral" categories where the aspects of the opposing sides overlap each other.

I'm not sure if I'm replying to the specific "argument" that you wanted me to reply to, but that's my take on the aspect of "neutrality" in general. It's a form of pluralism, which tends to be a little more accurate when assigning categories and labels to such broad terms and idea's. I hope this will help you understand my viewpoint. You keep insinuating "rudeness" from my end, well I'm sorry pal, but sometimes I have better things to do in life than sit here and argue semantics with a 21 year old self-professed "know-it-all". There's a lot of chatter going back and forth here to analyze, so sometimes I overlook a few things every once in a while. MY BAD. UnReAL13D (talk) 14:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're both arguing the same thing, and you freely reference his arguments, so yes, please see my responses to him. I'm not going to waste my time repeating everything I've said, for each person.

Yes, I am using the most inclusive definition, and yes I'm completely warranted in doing so. "If everyone simply accepted the definition "lack of belief" then there would be no agnostics to speak of." That's why everyone is saying agnosticism isn't a position of belief! Your argument basically amounts to asserting your position and claiming the opponent wrong, for each response. "That can't be right because I'd be wrong!" Try replying to the argument itself. Try explaining why the broadest definition is invalid.

"stamp collector" and "stamp collection" are two different things, you're equivocating. In other words, being a stamp collector is independent from "someone who simply owns a single stamp.", so your retort doesn't apply. And it's not a cop out, it's just deduction. You either believe in god, which just means "god exists" features among the list of things you hold true, or you don't believe in god. It's logically impossible to be in any other category.

"Such as -- religion: theist, non-theist, neutralist;" And this is exactly what I mean when I say your argument amounts to nothing more than begging the question. "Neutralism is a position", "No it's not, here's why.", "Your reasoning cannot be valid, because neutralism is a position." That's just begging the question, pure and simple.

And what's with the attack on me? Please, for the last time, will someone find the quote of me saying I'm a know-it all? And what does my age have to do with anything? Is a 2 year old that says "2 + 2 is 4" wrong because it's two? Are you incapable of supporting your position without insulting those who question it? Is your support for it that flimsy and weak? Cut it out. If you want, we can degrade to me saying "You're an idiot, you're stupid, you obviously never listen to real religious debates by philosophers and intellectuals, you're stupid because you're not me, my position is right because you're stupid and younger than me.", or we could not. I'll freely ignore you as soon as it goes in that direction. GManNickG (talk) 22:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The condescending and somewhat arrogant nature of your responses makes it clear to me that you don't respect my opinion whatsoever. You also infer far too much from some mild internet sarcasm. I won't even bother replying to your exaggerated perspective of my comment. On top of all that, you're apparently ignoring the sources I've provided citing "agnosticism" as essentially a "neutral" position in the scope of belief. And didn't you say that Agnostic Neutralism differs in no way from Vanilla Agnosticism? So you've contradicted your entire argument to begin with. Finally, the definition "the lack of belief in a deity" is somewhat removed from the original meaning of "atheism". The etymological definition of "atheos" from Greek was interpreted as "to deny the gods". Someone who's simply "lacking a belief" isn't actually denying the claim. An obvious contradiction. This why the more common and practical definition, "the rejection of all spiritual claims", is more widely accepted.UnReAL13D (talk) 07:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, did you delete this response earlier? That suggests to me that I've made a valid point which you're attempting to remove.UnReAL13D (talk) 07:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are better ways of dealing with the issue than stooping low enough to attack the person you're talking to. How about "Even if you don't intend it, you're responding seem condescending to me. Can you be careful?" Look how much nicer that is, and how it actually motivates me to care at all. Now, even though I really didn't intend to sound condescending, you're attacks on me removed any incentive I have to care about how the tone of my arguments appears to you.

I'm not ignoring your sources, I just feel others are doing a fine enough job talking about them with you. More important to me is finding the underlying cause of our disagreement, which isn't going to be done with you constantly reasserting your position, or me re-presenting the same informal arguments. That's why I suggested you just take a look at the spread-out argument above and you can pick exactly which premise you disagree with.

And no, I haven't contradicted myself. Having a strong conviction of your view and then asserting that when I disagree with it I'm actually contradicting myself isn't the same as actually looking at my argument and pointing out where I'm contradicting myself. The latter is much more useful and straightforward, and again is now a simple option above.

Unfortunately for you, the understanding and use of terms changes and becomes more coherent over time. Again, if you disagree with the term or reasoning, dissect the argument above. I don't want to have an informal debate and semi-formal debate at the same time about the same thing, sorry.

And no, I didn't delete anything of yours. If I did, it was an accident. If anyone makes a sound point, I'll be the first to accept it. But thanks for being presumptuous and calling me dishonest, it really inspires me to care about what you have to say. GManNickG (talk) 13:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying "stop ignoring my examples" and "I won't care unless you respond to my argument". Well I can apply what you said in response to my sources, "I just feel others are doing a fine enough job talking about them with you". And actually someone told me I had some nice sources and wants to include the link between Agnosticism and "neutrality" on the main page.

The only reason I suspected it was you who deleted my post is because it was a direct response to your argument. And I took a slight jab at you, I confess. But I still feel that you're disregarding some key points, and that your tone is slightly conceited. I don't see the loose definition of "atheism" being accepted so widely as you claim, in fact it appears to be the definition that comes under the most scrutiny.

You clearly contradicted yourself by continuing to assert that there is no "middle ground" after initially stating that Agnostic Neutralism doesn't vary from typical Agnosticism. Thus making "Vanilla Agnosticism" an "Agnostic" position position in between "Agnostic Theism" and "Agnostic Atheism", in which "Neutralism" is the correct modifier for. Plus telling someone that you subscribe to "Vanilla Agnosticism" sounds a lot more ridiculous than saying "Agnostic Neutralism". UnReAL13D (talk) 15:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

' being a stamp collector is independent from "someone who simply owns a single stamp.",' -- Yes and someone who owns a single stamp is also independent from a non-stamp collector. Thanks for proving my point. A "stamp user" wouldn't fall under either either category as they are continuously acquiring stamps and getting rid of them.

I've also copy and pasted this entire discussion up to this point. I dare you to delete any more of my responses.UnReAL13D (talk) 08:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"There are many sides to the argument." Again, is this an objection? To what? In any case, so what? Two sides, ten sides, infinite sides, what difference does it make? What's your point?

"Please at least refer to the sources I've provided stating agnostic neutralism as a valid position to take." I have, and they're all bust. Now you're turn: reply to things I've actually said and I'll pay attention to what you have to say. I refer you to my semi-formal argument above; as someone who disagrees with me, you're obligated to read it and point out where the unsound premise is, or invalid deduction is. Please do so, so we can stop wasting time. GManNickG (talk) 07:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your "semi-formal argument" is full of errors, see above. --SDMade (talk) 09:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that in quotes? And thanks for notifying me to "see above", as if for some reason I had forgotten where I typed it. No need for your comment, just replying on the argument itself is enough for a discussion on the argument itself. Please keep things localized. GManNickG (talk) 22:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're not the only one viewing this discussion, nor are you in charge of it, so I will respond to whatever I desire. --SDMade (talk) 08:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, a question and suggestion isn't an assertion of being in charge. Chill. GManNickG (talk) 13:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Care to explain why none of my sources are valid? Especially the Google books source actually stating the phrase "agnostic neutralism", written by a professor at Yale. Are you saying that Yale isn't credible enough?UnReAL13D (talk) 07:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my response above. Burton was not a professor at Yale, as far as I can tell. He was a pastor who lectured at Yale as part of the Lyman Beecher lecture series. They are lectures on preaching and pastoral theology, not the philosophy of nonbelief. Eldamorie (talk) 14:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think there is some merit to the topic. (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Books Ngram Viewer is showing no hits for "agnostic neutralism." However, the usage paths for agnostic neutralism shows some overlap in the 1960s. Perhaps the agnostic neutralism concept was popular in the 1960s but as since lost popularity. That would be interesting to read about. Some usage of the concept: "The agnostic neutrals among us will just hope he comes back for regular visits to Hampden", "Loudeye's platform neutral, format neutral, DRM neutral agnostic approach is important for many of them", "This is not neutral agnosticism, says Holloway, but committed unknowing. Now even writing stuff like that down is", "an ideally rational theist (analogously, Theist) in the hopes of convincing an audience of ideally rational neutral agnostics to their positions, van Inwagen divides", "I have tried to adopt a completely neutral, agnostic stance when citing religious references", " each side tried to present their argument as fact, so I thought I would present an opinion from a neutral agnostic point of view.", "While many books exist that either promote or bash religion, few book explore religion and spirituality from an neutral, agnostic standpoint" Aside: Interestingly, software techies say things like "a neutral, agnostic programming language", "The original Internet was designed to have an agnostic, neutral "core" whose job was", "radically different approach of using vendor neutral, agnostic platforms and enables integration." -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Performing this search using GBooks discloses a lot of people saying things like "a neutral, agnostic approach", but the context is as a rule not agnosticism as applied to religious belief. Mangoe (talk) 17:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ayana Mack[edit]

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

No significant coverage in independent reliable sources The-Pope (talk) 13:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 14:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 14:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article began as a piece of blatant self-promotion (assumed, since the author has the same name as the subject}. It was almost mimediately tagged for CSD A7, which the creator removed with impunity - it should have been speedily deleted there and then. Over two years further on, no attempts have been made to provide references. Not all radio presenters are notable, and it appears that this one is not sufficiently notable for an article in the Wikipedia.--Kudpung (talk) 14:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if it wasn't blatant self-promotion it was definitely blatant promotion. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 17:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I concur with Kudpung. Since I can't find any reliable sources about this woman and nobody has been able to in the two years that this article has existed, I'm confident that this person isn't notable.--Piast 93 16:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a common fallacy to assume that someone else has done the work of looking, so one doesn't have to. We have no evidence that anyone has looked for sources during those years. Indeed, we have fairly good evidence from the edit history that (aside from the initial cleanup within a week of creation) only one person has given this article any attention at all during those years, despite tagging, and that is the very person who wrote the promotional blurb in the first place. Uncle G (talk) 17:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You've made a good point. Thanks for pointing that out. Despite my flawed rationale above, I still support deleting the article since I couldn't find any evidence of notability.--Piast 93 20:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. This is no longer the same article that was nominated for deletion. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Hanks[edit]

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

Delete. This was part of a series of vandalism by and editor who entered the subject as "mayor of Burlington, Vermont", which he is not, and "mayor" of Colchester, Vermont which is a town and does not have a mayor. In the best of all possible worlds, this would be a candidate for quick deletion which apparently no longer exists. Student7 (talk) 13:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article may have started as vandalism but it now appears to be a legitimate article about a relative of Abraham Lincoln who played a notable role in his 1860 campaign. Cullen328 (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now. This John Hanks "played a central role in three events in his cousins (Lincoln) life". Clarityfiend (talk) 00:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 02:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vie Marshall[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 14:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. Ghits appear to consist only of the usual social networking sites and Wikipedia mirrors.--Kudpung (talk) 15:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found one article she wrote for the Guardian.Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to verify claims when I looked at this one.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 16:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of secondary, reliable sources via web/books/news searches, my own attempts to source this article got nowhere. --j⚛e decker ^talk 22:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources to sufficiently establish notability. —J04n(talk page) 18:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 02:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Online Water Contamination Analyzing[edit]

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

Implicitly contested prod. Unsalvageable advocacy piece. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research, self-promotion, etc. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just an essay. Mangoe (talk) 13:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Rambling, one-sided essay. Even if wikified and polished would still not be suitable for inclusion. Brammers (talk/c) 11:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The deletion tag has been removed twice without explanation. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional essay. Much of it touches on areas that might be worthy of an article, but you'd have to rewrite every word. bobrayner (talk) 14:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do More[edit]

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

seriously is there anything called Do More Strategy/approach ? . User James Watson suggested that the article should be taken to afd since he declined a speedy delete.don't think this article deserves a place on wikipedia.thank you LinguisticGeek 11:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there is not a thing as a do more approach,how com google is full of it when you search Do More NATO Pakistan or Do More US Pakistan or several key terms in the context of war against terror..
Its one thing to Improve the article but to deny the do more factor altogether is not fair.It is important in the context of war against terror. Half the anti US protests in Pakistan are linked to the "Do More" approach(with demands of "No More"). It is important to understand it to understand the complexities of war against terror. Its one of the major factors in the 2000s between US Pakistan Afghanistan Relationship.Lm 997 (talk) 11:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This looks more like an attempt at political commentary or a pure WP:SYNTHESIS than an actual encyclopedia topic. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should we have an article for “very encouraged” as well? (no we shouldn't). --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but give the information in articles on the events mentioned. Borock (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is "very encouraged" an important negative term in US-Pakistan relationship? Shouldn't people learn and important negative term(and why)on a war from an from encyclopedia? On the least I suggest it should be merged with Pakistan-US relations.Lm 997 (talk) 18:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suneil Mishra[edit]

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

The subject appears to be a non-notable computer specialist. There are a few net references to him: his thesis from GWU, and acknowledgements in some books and articles, but nothing about him. Chonak (talk) 10:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All hits seem to be directory entries. The few passing mentions do not warrant an article. Could have been BLPPORDed. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have, but the article was created prior to 18 March 2010. Thanks. --Chonak (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah! Well, in principle anyway. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Great Waldingfield. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Washmere Green[edit]

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

It is not clear from looking at maps whether this place is a hamlet consisting of a couple of farms, or just one farm (the ordnance survey maps label them slightly differently at different scales). The article is currently sourced to maps which do not constitute significant coverage. My own searching could not find any coverage in reliable sources. Quantpole (talk) 09:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - although the guidelines at WP:UKCITIES are fairly liberal as to what constitutes a settlement, it does not mean a group of farm buildings or a patch of common land with a horse trough, even if they are mentioned on an OS map. This may not be a paper encyclopedia but there is a limit to what it should contain and what people are likely to look up. --Kudpung (talk) 10:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a settlement of only a few houses. Note that it's not even mentioned on roadsigns at turnoffs to go to the place - [18]; [19] Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 16:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, type it into Ordnance Survey, you are taken straight onto it, which therefore means it's a settlement. Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 15:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please stop using maps as a reference, you've been told enough times that they are not suitable as it constitutes original research. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 16:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Little Waldingfield. Mjroots (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Great Waldingfield would be a better target for a redirect, as Washmere Green is in that parish. Peter E. James (talk) 12:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Great Waldingfield as per Peter E. James. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Has been speedily deleted (A3). Favonian (talk) 09:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Ardin[edit]

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

See deletion logs. The template I added is relevant. I created a solidly sourced redirect. This is not a speedy candidate. Aside from the wikileaks connection, the novelty of the charges alone have (and on their own would have) resulted in tons of mdia coverage in reliable sources establishing notability a la Tawana Brawley. --Elvey (talk) 09:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This is the ~~block~~ deletion log:

05:07, 13 December 2010 Favonian (talk | contribs) deleted "Anna Ardin" ‎ (BLP issue; name not mentioned in article)
01:58, 11 December 2010 Jehochman (talk | contribs) deleted "Anna Ardin" ‎ (G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP: No source connecting this person to the target content)
17:39, 9 December 2010 Tikiwont (talk | contribs) deleted "Anna Ardin" ‎ (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content): Source in history inapproriate for WP:BLP expansion, also not mentioned at original redirect target)
11:52, 4 December 2010 Evil saltine (talk | contribs) deleted "Anna Ardin" ‎ (G3: Blatant hoax)

Delete speedily - as per nom and above. --Kudpung (talk) 09:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miloslav Mečíř Jr.[edit]

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

Delete. Tennis player. Does not meet criteria for notability found at WP:NTENNIS. Is not a member of the ITF Hall of Fame; has not competed in the Fed Cup, Davis Cup, Hopman Cup or similar international competition; has not competed in the main draw in one of the major professional tournaments; has not won at least one title in any of the ATP Men's Challenger tournaments; and does not hold a record recognised by the International Tennis Federation, ATP. Notability is additionally not supported by significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Cind.amuse 09:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The player meets the following criteria at the WP:NTENNIS. This guideline applies equally to singles and doubles players.

4. The player has won at least one title in any of the ATP Men's Challenger tournament: 2010 Košice Open – Doubles. Player meets notability. (Gabinho^>:) 16:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - His ATP Challenger Doubles career record shows he won in Kosice with Marek Semjan defeating Brazilians Ricardo Hocevar and Caio Zampieri with a score of 3-6, 6-1, 13-11 thus meeting WP:NTENNIS having won an ATP Challenger event. -- Whpq (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1848–1849 massacres in Transylvania[edit]

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

Delete. Too short, there is no need to create a separate article for an eventual content that could be included in other already existing ones (e.g. Hungarian Revolution of 1848‎). The only reference is a Hungarian book and the article creator does not seem to be intereseted in the article any more(Iaaasi (talk) 09:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Keep I can appreciate the nominator's frustration on this type of article, and I agree that the article creator does not seem to have taken much of an interest in it. On the other hand, the killings in "Magyar Transylvania", a section of Romania with a predominantly Hungarian population, are a matter of record. [20], [21], [22]; and I would not have been aware of that chapter of history, but for the stub article and the nomination. Though I dislike stub articles, which could be informative with a few additional minutes of work, this would be WP:EVENT notable and a stub is acceptable for now. Mandsford 15:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note "a section of Romania with a predominantly Hungarian population" - that is false, Romanians were the majority in Transylvania (60% Romanians, 25% Hungarians in 1850) and it was a part of the Habsburg Empire in 1848, not of Romania. I don't see how you link are relevant here:

- link 1 is about the massacre of jews

- link 2 is about the Hungarian revolution of 1848 in general, and the word masacre is not related to the event in the book

- you did not show me a record of ethnic cleansing by Rom. against Hun.

Mandsford , your search is made with the words being indepedent. If you try 1848 "massacres in Transylvania" there are 0 results](Iaaasi (talk) 15:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Try this one instead [23], referring to an extermination of the Magyar population in Transylvania, particularly in towns such as Nagyenyed (Aiud), Zalathna, Abrudbanya (Abrud), Korosbany (Baia de Criş, and Brad. The first link didn't come out as intended. And please don't start tossing words like "false" around either-- nobody is saying that Transylvania itself had a Hungarian majority. As to what was colloquially described as "Magyar Transylvania" (as opposed to "all of Transylvania"), Magyar is the Hungarian language term for Hungarian people. Mandsford 18:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Keep (ec) The most important event of the 1848–1849 conflict was massacre at Aiud/Nagyenyed (8-9 January 1849), see Modern Hungarian society in the making: the unfinished experience, p. 102, The cultural aspirations of Hungary from 1896 to 1935, p. 180. A History of the Roumanians, p. 284. See also History derailed: Central and Eastern Europe in the long nineteenth century, p. 112 (massacre of Zlatna/Zalatna(i) - I assume that The British quarterly review, Volume 13, p. 30-31 refers to the same event). All the books/studies documenting the events are available at G-Books and it is just a part of what I found. The article needs responsible and neutral editing (the description of the situation, explanation of the historical background of the conflict based on reliable sources, etc.). --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 19:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the book you are talking about is it written about a single massacre not about massacres, so the title would be anyway incorrect. All the sources are talking about a single event, the Nagyened massacre, and the only thing that can be said about it is that 600 Hungarians were killed. Is it really neccessary to create a separate article for this sentence? (Iaaasi (talk) 06:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

In my previous comment I refered to the events/massacres in Nagyened and Zalatna and I presented more evidence to support my claims, not a single book. Please, read my comment again and check the literature on G-Books. Memoirs of the war of independence in Hungary, Volume 1, p. 53 covers massacre in Abrudbanya, and History of the War in Hungary in 1848 and 1849 (Otto von Wenkstern, p. 156-159) contains broader information on the conflict (events in Korosbany, Brad and the previously mentioned towns of Nagyened, Zalatna and Abrudbanya). The book is linked above by Mandsford. [4]. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per editor(Iaaasi). Just to add, Mandsford, please check you data, there are endless data which point to the population of Transylvania where the Romanians always represented the majority. You probably mixed the ruling people with the population. If Transylvania was ruled by Hungarians for a long time this doesn`t mean that there also live a dominant Hungarian population. About this massacre, since there is so little information in this article this could be easily added to the Hungarian Revolution of 1848‎ article. Adrian (talk) 07:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian , we call the articles containing "so little information" stubs and they're perfectly legitimate, as far as I know. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, but should we have a stub like this? I mean, if we follow this instructions blindly (for stubs) we could have more stubs than normal articles. With that logic, I could tare a part an article and to create 100 stubs, just because I could do that doesn`t mean I should. What I am suggesting is to delete this article and to add this info to the already existing article (Hungarian Revolution of 1848) - since there is already a normal article where this info is suitable. Adrian (talk) 11:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question is: Is there enough material in the reliable sources to compile a stand alone article? I think there is sufficient information in the sources presented. Merging to Hungarian Revolution of 1848 could be an option, and Hungarians_in_Transylvania#Historical_background is another suitable place for the information, however, the stand alone article could provide a more detailed information about the context of the complicated situation in the region. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Somewhere in all the condescending lectures about the demographics of Transylvania and what percentage was Hungarian and what percentage was Romanian, the point is that civilians were being massacred in the course of a revolution. I'm not sure what's not notable about 600 people being murdered. Mandsford 00:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there is data for this article, (not like this - an article which consists of one sentence), of course it would be nice to be a separate article, but in this form , I think it should be added to some other , suitable article. Adrian (talk) 06:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even if the shortness of the article was a valid reason for deletion (which, of course, it is not), the expansion based on reliable sources has fixed that problem. I think it needs to be made clear that the nominator has just returned from an indefinite block for pushing pro-Romanian and anti-Hungarian points of view, and the other editor supporting deletion has similar "previous", so any of their comments here need close scrutiny for accuracy. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that Vejvancicky 's additions to the article are great. As noted, if the subject is notable, then minimal content is not at all a reason to delete. It's preferable, of course, if the person creating an article takes the time to make it informative, rather than leaving that for other persons. Mandsford 00:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Retention of stubs is important, serving to stimulate contributions when someone interested finds the start of coverage. "Begun is half done" is not a meaningless proverb. The history of ethnic, religious and other massacres in 19th century Europe is important to an understanding of the background to the rise of nationalism and in particular the brutal events of the 20th century such as the Nazi Holocaust and the genocidal Bosnian war. Vejvancicky has expanded this article in a way that confirms why it should not have been considered for deletion. AfDs should be screened by people who know what they're doing. Opbeith (talk) 20:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some additional information given at a YouTube channel http://www.youtube.com/user/HorthyVere - YouTube user provides summaries of 1848-1849 massacres and also provides reference sources. And yes, YouTube arguments, blah-blah, but information is to be judged by its substance and verifiability as well as by its location. Opbeith (talk) 20:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - on the one hand, the massacres are probably deserving of mention. On the other hand, this article completely puts the cart before the horse: we have no article on the Transylvanian Revolution of 1848, so the content here is completely devoid of context. Create that article, at a minimum using Keith Hitchins' 1994 book and Katherine Verdery's 1983 one, and fit the massacres into their proper place. Otherwise, it makes little sense. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If such a tragedy would occur today, there would be an article about it in minutes without any AfD consideration. I agree with Biruitorul that historical context should be added, or when other related articles are created, the content could be merged at that time. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Philipp Oswald[edit]

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

Delete. Tennis player. Currently ranked #206 singles; #81 doubles. Does not meet criteria for notability found at WP:NTENNIS. Is not a member of the ITF Hall of Fame; has not competed in the Fed Cup, Davis Cup, Hopman Cup or similar international competition; has not competed in the main draw in one of the major professional tournaments; has not won at least one title in any of the ATP Men's Challenger tournaments; and does not hold a record recognised by the International Tennis Federation, ATP. Notability is additionally not supported by significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Cind.amuse 08:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was the original prodder of the article. However, the original creator pointed out, in this link [24], that he has inded won, multiple, ATP Challenge Tours. This record still needs to be added to the article though. Ravendrop (talk) 10:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The reference used does not support these claims. In reality, the source states that he has neither played in the finals nor won the tournament. Cind.amuse 10:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just to clarify. From the source I quoted above, under the round column an 'F' signifies he played in the final, and a 'W' signifies he won the tournament. Ravendrop (talk) 03:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The player meets the following criteria at the WP:NTENNIS. This guideline applies equally to singles and doubles players.

3. The player has competed in the main draw in one of the major professional tournaments: For example: 2008 Hypo Group Tennis International – Doubles, 2008 Allianz Suisse Open Gstaad – Doubles, 2008 Austrian Open – Singles, 2008 Austrian Open – Doubles, 2007 BA-CA-TennisTrophy – Doubles, 2008 Bank Austria-TennisTrophy – Doubles, 2009 Interwetten Austrian Open Kitzbühel – Doubles, 2009 Bank Austria-TennisTrophy – Doubles - just to name a few!

4. The player has won at least one title in any of the ATP Men's Challenger tournament: 2010 Shimadzu All Japan Indoor Tennis Championships – Doubles, 2010 Seguros Bolívar Open Pereira – Doubles, 2010 Prosperita Open – Doubles, 2010 Camparini Gioielli Cup – Doubles, 2010 Sicilia Classic – Doubles. 5 Challenger titles makes this player notable. (Gabinho^>:) 14:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - His ATP Challenger Doubles record shows multiple wins in Challenger events thus more than meets the requirement of one Challenger event win stated in WP:NTENNIS. -- Whpq (talk) 17:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bashan 125R[edit]

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

As I said when I proposed deletion: Non-notable product. No independent sourcing to back up any of the claims in the article. Neither the manufacturer nor the importer are notable. Finally, the creator has an apparent conflict of interest. The prod tag was removed without addressing any of the concerns, so I'm bringing it for discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 07:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. It doesn't look like there's an article on the bike's manufacturer that we could redirect it to. Them From Space 13:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 19:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. It seems to me that this needs some work and that this should be tried first and that unless this is intended as a precedent for deleting all kinds of articles like this some form of meta discussion about their scope and desirability would be preferential to just heading straight to the delete button. Obviously if improvments proves difficult another listing would likely have a different outcome. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Global storm activity of late 2010[edit]

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

The article attempts to be reaching too broadly. I attempted a discussion on the purpose of the article, but I didn't get any answers. To quote myself, "what is the scope of this article? ... just a long, sprawling list like this does no one any good." I'd like to point out that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor is it a directory. The article is a jumbled mess trying to contain every storm in late 2010, which it doesn't even appropriately define; "late 2010" could just as easily refer to September - December as it would for just November and December. There are categories to link articles together, not 186 kb of poorly-organized prose.

I'll give an example about how the article fails by examining the "October 1 and October 2" section. The first paragraph, grammar and tense issues aside, doesn't give any indication on the location other than "the United States of America" until the reader hopefully recognizes New York City. It is rife with MOS violations, such as starting sentences with numbers, and referring to days of the week without indicating the date. The second paragraph (which starts in lower-case) refers to flooding in Pakistan; it is totally missing any context, as the 2010 Pakistan floods had been ongoing for months and were the worst in the country's history. The third paragraph (one of many without sources) details a tropical storm, and is one of three separate paragraphs in the overall section on that storm. Without feeling the need to go on, the article is first of all poorly-written, and secondly it is impossible to complete. Right now it already stands at 186 kb of information, and yet it wanders between focusing on tropical cyclones and (in the very first paragraph) on: "couple of thunderstorms have developed and are heading to impact the region beginning on Thursday morning". I honestly feel that there is no other course of action but deletion.

There are two previous articles in this series. They were all originally the same article, but they were all split. This deletion nomination also covers Global storm activity of mid 2010 and Global storm activity of early 2010. Hurricanehink (talk) 06:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is all messed up and is nothing short of trash. It went through revamping and reconstruction quite a short time ago, it is still useless. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 11:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Reads like one of those reports you get back from an NGO who has been sent into the field somewhere to write a report to justify his having been sent into the field somewhere to write a report. TLDR. Kudpung (talk) 15:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is too long that you didn't read it, how do you know what it reads like? Uncle G (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless it can be shown that global storm activity was unusually notable during any of these periods. --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting to observe that this is part of a series of articles chronicling winter weather events going back for five years (2009, 2008, 2007, 2006), yet only 2010 gets short shrift, and that in part because it hasn't been cleaned up and copyedited. Uncle G (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, some editors have tried cleaning up and copyediting the 2010 articles, but they've failed. I suppose this deletion nomination could cover 06 through 09, but I just wanted to start with the 2010 ones. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Whilst i feel that some parts of the article could be saved, combined with other articles, and rewritten, it would be better to delete the whole thing.Jason Rees (talk) 17:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Is it becoming a racist game to cut out some nations. When ever the UK, Ireland, India or Africa occer every one winges, cuts them out and AfD-afys the pages!--81.100.118.67 (talk) 17:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rehaul. The original article was Winter storms of 2009–2010. That article, in turn had been edited well over a thousand times even before the page was split into two, then three separate articles and now we have this directory-like poorly-written mess. The purpose of these storm articles, which were originally winter storm activity articles that were transformed into a collection and listing of all-season storm events. Although the articles now are barely legible, they remain a necessary collection of storms that impact people worldwide. This includes the 2010 floods, 2009 floods, 2008 floods, etc. We have complete articles on every tropical cyclone season in every basin we can cover, so articles on global non-tropical winter/summer storms should prove equally encyclopedic. The problem here is that mostly inexperienced editors are adding innapropriate refs, leaving superfluous and red links, adding bare urls and refs without titles, creating unencyclopedic tone, adding tables that should not be there, creating unreadable text, inconsistencies in style, major spelling errors, grammar confusion, and other errors. This can still be fixed, however, and does not require the deletion of all such articles.

The originally winter-only articles were reasonably written and had a long history on Wikipedia before they were converted to all-season articles. If fully kept, they need to exclude storms such as tropical cyclones and heat/cold waves. Unfortunately, the wholesale deletion of all global storm activity articles would constitute the removal of some ten thousand (or so) edits. These articles are now lists, and that alone is not a problem, but the "list" items all need to have references and proper grammar. There are a few articles elsewhere that contain this information, for example the ones on specific winter storms (Carmen, Xynthia, Emma, etc.). The only problem in recent worldwide storm articles is that they get too long, and too poorly organized without maintenance. Thus, the still-inexperienced editors who spend the most overall time on these articles split them into seperate pages that still get cluttered. To avoid creating an indiscriminate directory, I suggest trimming all non-notable occurrences (minor snowfalls, street-level flooding, uneventful thunderstorms, etc.) and irrelevant information and superfluous listings. Refrain from adding a casualty table until the article is fully referenced and of good quality, and wait until after the coverage period has ended. Please pay special attention to the congruency between present and past tense and maintain this consistency after the coverage period ends. Many of these tables included "the sad death count finally stood at-"—this is not encyclopedic wording.

The articles are currently as much of a disaster as the storms that they cover. I still suggest cleaning up the pages section-by-section, instead of the deletion of all these articles because they look too trashy for experienced editors to even touch. As for all the regional season articles, they should be kept balanced and concise. There is another problem that involves the copypasting of all the see also links from these global articles and incorporating many irrelevant links into articles on other seasons or individual flooding events. Obviously, as the scope of the global storm articles is narrowed down, the articles would be possible to maintain in an organized manner and the reader accessibility would improve. Only then could the articles serve as a non-directory list-like collection of non-tropical storms at standards comparable to that of the tropical cyclone articles. Yes, the systemic bias toward recent events could be problematic, but those are the years for which we have the best referenceable source coverage. Wikipedia is not Wikinews and the storm-related articles should not be written as such, but they can still include near-current information. All that's needed is a major revamp of all recent yearly global storm activity articles. ~A H1^(TCU) 03:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Break down into articles dealing with non-tropical storms (blizzards, windstorms, etc), severe weather (Tornadoes of 2010, Significant hailstorms of 2010, etc), and tropical cyclones to fall under WP:NTROP, WP:SEVERE, and WP:TROP respectively. As it is, the articles are a conglomerate of too much information about too many things, and could do with separating into different articles. The articles nominated for deletion here could then be combined into one disambiguation page, Global storm activity of 2010. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 04:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Break down along the lines put forward by Ks0stm. The Info is good, but the style is crappy, dislocated and bitty. Themed subpages like (Tornadoes of 2010, would be a better chose than a total 'delete'.

--Wipsenade (talk) 11:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note It started off as wintery storms in the Americas and Europe in 2006, then became wintery storms in the Western World, then storms in the Northern Hemisphere, then storms in general and finally compete anarchy by August 2010.--Wipsenade (talk) 11:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice A case with a death in it is not of the 'hyperbolie' and superfluous types of pages. --82.27.25.62 (talk) 16:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Revert to Separate Articles - Don't fix it if it's not broken...the standard is to have separate articles on winter weather, tornadoes, tropical cyclones etc. for the given year. This is a gigantic mess of information and pretty much ruined the standard and efficient articles we do every year on winter storms; now that I look at it somebody has been changing all the winter weather articles into these "Global Storm" articles, which only clutters the encyclopedia. Remember what this encyclopedia is not and all will be well. -Marcusmax(speak) 23:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, somehow, but overhaul it. Needs some decent work. I note, too, that this page doesn't cover anything since last week (December 18, 2010), in which heavy rains inundated the state of California - can somebody fix that? =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm working on updating all these articles in the coming days. I suggest splitting them into "winter storms", "summer storms" and "tornadoes". ~A H1^(TCU) 16:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But what are "summer" and "winter" storms? That is the problem in the first place, there being a lack of a defined title. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summer storms

- - Flash flooding events
  - Slow floods
  - Unusual monsoons
  - Hailstorms
  - Derechos
  - Microbursts
  - Squall lines
  - Tropical storm remnants

Winter storms

- - Nor'easters
  - Snowsqualls and blizzards
  - Ice storms
  - Ice jam floods
  - European windstorms
  - Cold waves carrying precipitation
  - Winter flooding patterns

Also, it would be a good idea to include an overview in these articles to enhance reader navigation. ~A H1^(TCU) 17:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, do you realize that when one hemisphere has summer conditions, the other has winter? That alone means it wouldn't work. Also, you can't quantify something like "unusual monsoons", since "unusual" is subjective. "Tropical storm remnants" shouldn't be in there, since it's similarly hard to quantify since there are already hurricane season articles. Derechos and hailstorms can occur any time of year, and likewise flooding can. The only one of those that I think should be its own article is the "European windstorms". Any others are too trivial/hard to qualify to put into a lump article. That is why such grand articles like these, with little to no definition, should be deleted. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-

Split Winter storms of 2010 should list storms that are snow-related. Floods could split into Floods of 2010. Serve weather could split into Severe Weather of 2010. Y E ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, winter occurs twice a year on planet Earth, what floods are notable enough to be put into a generic "floods of 2010" article, and what defines "severe" enough for there to be any rhyme or reason what goes in there? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to point out, once again, that Wikipedia is not "lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". I certainly think this article, and even the proposals for splitting the article, fall under that category. Just because two floods occurred in the same year doesn't mean an article should contain both of them, if they weren't related at all. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Aside from one lone merge, there is a unanimous consensus to keep - the only user advocating for deletion was the AFD nominator. Editors responding to this AFD called its subject: "famous and notable more than 180 years after its publication", "a landmark paper of mathematics/physics", "Classic encyclopedic material", "a notable essay", "classic essay", and "extraordinarily important and foundational paper". A WP:KEEP per WP:SNOW applies here as well, indeed, individuals have commented with both Speedy keep and with Snowball/Strong Keep. With regard to the lone comment suggesting "merge", this could be discussed further at the article's talk page, but it does not seem to have consensus at this point in time. -- Cirt (talk) 17:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC) -- Cirt (talk) 17:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An Essay on the Application of Mathematical Analysis to the Theories of Electricity and Magnetism[edit]

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

I thought this fitted A1 for a sec there but I noticed that the subject is based on an essay. I can't see any evidence of notability here, and I can't find any news sources either. Minima c (talk) 06:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.0088 Green's famous essay (Nottingham, 1828), with which he introduced the potential function. --J. D. Redding 06:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC) [ps., This is a landmark essay.][reply]
Comment: "In 1828 Green had published privately An essay on the application of mathematical analysis to the theories of electricity and magnetism, a work that would be of great importance to William Thomson". Energy and empire: a biographical study of Lord Kelvin, Page 165 --J. D. Redding 06:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Goodness. Even the most cursory of research, such as clicking on the first link in the article, would have indicated the importance of this essay. As it stands, however, this article is a good candidate for merge to George_Green. brenneman 06:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does need expansion. I will be doing that. Hopefully others will too. --J. D. Redding 07:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep it is well worth its own page Francis Bond (talk) 07:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here we have an article about an essay that was indisputably a major breakthough in advancing the understanding of the mathematics of electricity. This is a scientific paper which remains famous and notable more than 180 years after its publication. Of course this article should be kept, and then improved by editors who have more expertise than I in the history of science. Cullen328 (talk) 07:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep How someone can maintain that the essay that introducedGreen's theorem is not notable is simply beyond me. Keep, per being a landmark paper of mathematics/physics. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Another one nominated for WP:IDONTUNDERSTANDIT Andy Dingley (talk) 12:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In its day, this treatise was the reference in the field. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep per AD William M. Connolley (talk) 15:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Classic encyclopedic material. Just needs copyediting for more formal style.Kudpung (talk) 15:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Green's Theorem. Per the article it was neglected for 18 years and only had a private printing of 51 copies. Thus it was not "the reference in the field, though many years later scientists credited Green for his neglected early insights. We do not need separate articles on every paper he wrote, in addition to articles on what it said or how it advanced science, or on the writer. Merger to the article on the article on Green would also be fine. Edison (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree your point about it not being a reference. I'd always understood it to be a work of mathematical brilliance, but before its time in terms of electrostatics and thus ignored for some years.

I wouldn't merge it to Green's Theorem though. Although this is mathematically appropriate, there's a significance for physics that's beyond this, and beyond what that article describes. The notion that a mathematical integration could be applied to a potential field in physics is revolutionary and changed (eventually) the whole way of thinking about fields. That, IMHO, is the real significance of this paper, even beyond the mathematical technique. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it appears to be a notable essay. Nergaal (talk) 19:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this classic essay. The nominator would do well to restrict himself to fields that he understands, like those on his talk page. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep without doubt. EEng (talk) 23:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball/Strong Keep An extraordinarily important and foundational paper. Ray^Talk 18:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is the same Green that Green's theorem is named after — the same Green's theorem you learned when you were a second-year university student sucking at your mother's breast — and his interest in this topic may explain his interest in vector calculus. BTW, could you translate "A1" into English, or at least link to it? It is just not the case that all of us have so little to do in our lives that we know what that is. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll thank you to leave my mother's breasts out of this, sir. EEng (talk) 09:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CSD#A1 Andy Dingley (talk) 10:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:CSD#A1 obviously no longer applies, and the only other stated reason for deletion is clearly false. This essay would be mentioned in essentially any textbook covering the history of calculus, or indeed any calculus textbook that includes historical notes. The essay itself is notable, so I don't think a merge is appropriate. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A1 never applied here. This article never failed to give sufficient context. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with you, but it doesn't seem to be worth arguing. Clearly someone thought it did, or nearly did, apply. My point is that it should be obvious now that it does not. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Hackett[edit]

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

Minor league hockey player who has not yet established himself to meet notability requirements per WP:NHOCKEY. Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ATH. Ravendrop (talk) 07:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As the editor who originally prodded this article, I support its deletion for my original reasons as repeated by the nom. Dolovis (talk) 19:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -DJSasso (talk) 20:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jimfbleak (talk · contribs) carried out the decision but seems to have forgotten to close the AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 10:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feelsoof-e-Islam Allama Adeel Akhtar Zaidi[edit]

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

No sources cited, and no evidence of existence found on searching. Either a hoax or totally unnotable person written up by proud family member. Orange Mike | Talk 05:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Verifiability. My searches for sources about this individual have not been fruitful. Cunard (talk) 11:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I really can't see at all what assertion of notability was being made in this article (a bland "He was a prominent researcher of his time" should not count, IMO), the speedy should have been allowed to stand. There's nothing here, just a bio of a random guy. Tarc (talk) 14:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence he satisfies WP:BIO. Why is the article tagged as an "autobiography" when it says he was born in 1315? Would he be notable for extreme longevity is he is still editing Wikipedia at the age of 695? Edison (talk) 17:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article says he died in 1951, but the 1315 (Hijri) is on the Islamic calender, which would be 1901 CE.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Fails WP:V, no evidence of existence. Nsk92 (talk) 02:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lino Zanussi[edit]

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

COI bio of minor businessman. Orange Mike | Talk 05:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC )

Keep and improve. Nominator, please define the conflict of interest of a biography (not a BLP) of an Italian businessman who died in 1968? As for him being a "minor" businessman, his companies had 13,000 employees. Is that really minor? The article was clearly written by someone whose English skills are not excellent. It seems to me that the normal editing pricess is called for here, not deletion. Cullen328 (talk) 06:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- response - the COI comes from the fact that the article was created by User:Andreazanussi. The firm may be notable, but there's no evidence offered that the founder was notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment TIME magazine profiled him on June 28, 1968 following his death in a plane crash in Spain. A reference in Italian is furnished 9 lines into the article. An experienced Italian speaking editor could almost certainly provide other references. The man was notable, in my opinion, and the article should be improved rather than deleted. Cullen328 (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Other references Montreal Gazette, June 20, 1968, also Transnational Management by Bartlett and Ghoshal. Cullen328 (talk) 16:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Zanussi now a brand of Electrolux was one of the largest company of appliances in Italy. User:Lucifero4

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

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

The result was speedy delete as a copyvio of http://www.philharmonia.co.uk/orchestra/artists/estheryoo/ --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Esther Yoo[edit]

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

Yet another obscure child prodigy article Orange Mike | Talk 05:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To the best of my knowledge, there is no Wikipedia policy that prohibits articles about child prodigies. There is also no policy prohibiting an article that one editor asserts is "obscure". If we are to delete this article, which asserts notability, that decision must be based on solid policy, and this nomination fails that standard.Cullen328 (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- response - actually, if we are to keep this article, somebody must establish notability, not just assert it. Is every soloist notable? Of course not! Where is the evidence of notability, not just evidence that she's played one venue or another? --Orange Mike | Talk 16:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep / on the fence. I'm a deletionist by nature, but there do seem to be reliable sources here. ~~Any soloist who has performed with that list of orchestras is likely to be notable, and the sources show seemingly significant coverage.~~ — Timneu22 · talk 16:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just Google "esther yoo violinist" and independent sources from orchestras and newspapers all over the world will tumble out~ Cullen328 (talk)
- The fourth ref, http://www.philharmonia.co.uk/orchestra/artists/estheryoo/, lists that she played with all those orchestras. Her notability is a bit questionable as the other references are generally nonsense (or that she won a single contest; BLP1E). So, I'll wait around on this one for more comments, but I'm leaning, very slightly, to keep. — Timneu22 · talk 16:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak deleteThough Google News archive [25] shows a few results over the years. Does not quite seem to satisfy WP:BIO at this stage of her career. The ref from site of the orchestra where she is to perform does not seem like an "independent" site by Wikipedia standards. (Build up the soloist to promote ticket sales). The article is supposed to be a biography rather than a promotional press release, so it should include family information from [26] and other sources. We should look for multiple independent and reliable sources with significant coverage, and not just a listing of someone's claimed performances or prizes.An article with just a directory listing or passing reference that she won second prize in some contest is not enough. Where are reviews from major papers of all those performances with major orchestras? The Jean Sibelius Violin Competition,itself is very thinly covered by sources found at Google News Archive, with a reprint of their press release containing a brief directory listings of winners each time. Edison (talk) 17:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Missionary Flights International[edit]

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

Non-notable charity Orange Mike | Talk 05:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see extensive Google News coverage going back nearly 20 years, though unfortunately most of it is hidden behind pay walls. I see many references in Google Books. Just why, exactly, does the nominator consider this organization to be non-notable? Cullen328 (talk) 05:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google News Archive shows 269 results. They appear to be notable in having multiple independent and reliable sources with significant coverage of their flying goods and emergency workers to disaster zones as well as regular relief flights to areas in great need like Haiti. I added an article from MSNBC from 2010. There has been significant coverage whenever they flew relief supplies after earthquakes in Haiti, or after Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast of the US. The articles being pay per view just means that someone needs to work through a college or large public library to get access and extend and improve the article. There has been coverage by National Public Radio [27] and other national media for many years. Some "free" articles: [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]. Edison (talk) 18:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- a small airline, but operating since 1964, quiter enough to keep. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Mandsford 00:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William T. Powers[edit]

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

Spam for unaffiliated supposed scientist who has his own psychological theory nobody ever heard of. Orange Mike | Talk 04:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have been unable to find any independent reliable sources that discuss this person in depth. Readily available sources appear to be controlled by the subject. I wouldn't say "nobody" has heard of him, just nobody who chose to write about him in depth in independent reliable sources. Therefore not notable. Cullen328 (talk) 06:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 18:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His book and theories were reviewed in Nature [34], and Gscholar cites are: 1376,182,146,54,44,32,26,25,18.... While not precisely a RS, the book flap from his 1973 book [35] has a heckuva lot of favorable reviews from some fairly eminent professors. I think this passes for WP:PROF criterion 1. Ray^Talk 18:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He's an engineer dabbling in psychology; what could possibly go wrong? Seriously, his book flap blurbs, even more than his own advertising copy, are pretty much the quintessence of non-reliable sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's the originator of a notable theory of the structure and function of living things, first published in 1960 (Powers. W.T., Clark, R.K., and McFarland, R.L. (1960). A general feedback theory of human behavior. Perceptual and Motor Skills 11, 71-88 (Part 1) & 309-323 (Part 2)) and developed in many publications up to the present, by him and by researchers in diverse fields. Glasser credits Powers for the origin of his Choice_theory ("Development of the Ideas" (PDF). Retrieved December 19 2010. ((cite web)): Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)), and Carver & Scheier (e.g. Carver, C.S. (July 1982). "Control theory: a useful conceptual framework for personality-social, clinical, and health psychology". Psychol Bull. 92 (1): 111–35. ((cite journal)): Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)) credit him, although in both cases the core of the theory, negative feedback control, has been discarded. Runkel (Runkel, P. J. (1990/2007). Casting Nets and Testing Specimens: Two Grand Methods of Psychology. New York: Praeger. ((cite book)): Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) reissued 2007 Hayward, CA: Living Control Systems Publishing) contrasts statistical methodologies with the methodology of PCT, for which he credits Powers. McPhail (McPhail, Clark (1991). The Myth of the Madding Crowd. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.) credits Powers' computer simulations of crowd behavior for his insights, as does McClelland (references in the article on PCT). Mansell, Carey, Goldstein, and others have written about PCT and psychotherapy (e.g. Mansell, W. (2009). "A century of psychology and psychotherapy: is an understanding of 'control' the missing link between theory, research and practice?". Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, and Practice. 82: 337–353. ((cite journal)): Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Mansell, W. (2005). "Control theory and psychopathology: An integrative approach". Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice. 78: 141–178.). Such citations could be multiplied. Bn (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on basis of GS cites. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hal Berger & Fenton Rosewarne[edit]

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

Apparent autobio of minor businessman Hal Berger from Hberger (talk · contribs). (I have no idea who Fenton Rosewarne is, or why he's in the article's title). Berger does indeed have a couple of mentions in the news (e.g., 1, 2), but these are in connection with his son's onetime kidnapping. Berger personally received essentially passing coverage, with a couple of paragraphs of mention in maybe one or two human-interest type pieces. This heavily fails WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:ONEEVENT, and certainly does not establish notability for a standalone article on Berger (and Fenton Rosewarne? Huh?) with detailed resume, work history, client list, and on and on. PROD contested by Hberger. Glenfarclas (talk) 04:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree Berger's involvement with the Power Glove which was the first interactive video controller is very newsworthy.WP:Product . It was the first time that a virtual reality controller was used to teach robots how to simulate human movements and adapted into a consumer product.Wikipedia cites the power glove.[36] The power glove was featured in the film the "Wizard" featured on the cover of the video. [37]article cites Berger's involvement[38]article cited to support

Berger created "Masters of the Maze" TV show already cited by Wikipedia.WP:People http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masters_of_the_Maze Berger's son's kidnapping is also newsworthy to the extent Hollywood is developing a story with an EMMY winning writer Adam Mazer from the Jack Kevorkian story. [39].WP:People Berger's son was abducted twice in less than two years. It is not a one time event. Berger works with the U.S. Department of State to recover missing children around the world an ongoing task/event.[40] end of article discusses Berger's work. I agree Fenton Rosewarne's name should be deleted as there is no reference to him or his background other than it appears that he worked with Berger on Masters of Maze? Baker (talk) 14:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.153.89 (talk) [reply]

There is no User:Baker (talk · contribs), you're just Hal Berger posting from an "anonymous" IP and faking a name using the formatting from my sig. Nice. Glenfarclas (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have edited or created every article on WP related to international child abduction. The information on the topic included here is flat out wrong. eg... "In the first case of its kind in Hague’s history Hal’s case..." is complete nonsense. It's not the "first" such case, it's not the 1000th or even the 10,000th. Admittedly, the sheer hyperbole in this claim jaundices my view of all the other (unreferenced claims.) I'm completely unfamiliar with the "Global Missing Children Fund" and their involvement/advocacy related to ICA, but more to the point this "fund" is not at all notable per WP:Noteworthy on its own merits. Neither the section on it, nor the rest of the article has any references whatsoever and seems like an effort at self promotion.--Cybermud (talk) 22:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn now with extra edit conflict. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matt K. Miller[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No sources found. Several roles but most are trivial. No biographical info found. Article also fails WP:1S and has never been more than one sentence and a list, not even after the last AFD four years ago. Multiple roles don't translate to notability if there are no sources! Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You only see "Several roles"??? I see many dozens over two decades. Failing an essay is not exactly a strong deletion argument, specially when the individual can be seen to meet guideline WP:ENT... while the WP:1S essay is interesting, it encourages a certain laziness by its suggesting deletion instead of supporting active efforts to expand short articles. ANd please, that no one has done it yet is a reason to work on it, not delete it. See my "keep" below. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Let this page stay. He's a good actor and has had some supporting roles in the shows that he has worked on. Rtkat3 (talk) 10:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I see no reliable sources at all, nor anything that isn't a false positive, among all those Find Sources thingies. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because 1) the individual's prolific 20+ year career is easily verifiable in reliable sources and meets WP:ENT, 2) in respecting the "keep" consensus of the last AFD, and 3) because I will myself undertake expansion and aditional sourcing. And TPH... you KNOW my google-foo is sometimes better than yours. SO let's see what I can do and then check back in a few hours. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Checking in... I was having a bit of a quandry, because I found lots of g-hits reviewing the work of a Matthew K Miller who was a very active stage actor and I did not at first think it was the same person. Turns out it is We now have the sources to build a decent BLP, and further support ENT. It will be added to the article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently his being prolific as a voice actor is but icing on the cake of WP:ENT. The fellow has coverage and plenty of hits as a thespian.[41] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wow. It took four years for someone to discover this? And for all four years this article didn't look like it had even one iota of effort put into it. Have we really gotten that friggin' lazy? Sheesh. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, to be fair, he's received a lot of coverage since the article was first written (thankfully)... and much of the "discovered" stuff was simply not available when the article was first written... back in a time when BLPs were not so subject to scrutiny. The positive result is that sometimes an AFD can get the results in improvement that might be hoped. WP:HEY anyone? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, per consensus, and speedy delete g7 per author's comment below. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sabby Dhalu[edit]

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

The subject is only notable for being joint secretary of Unite Against Fascism. There are already BLP issues with one editor trying to insert that the UAF is left-wing. TFD (talk) 04:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TFD, please see previous discussion with ADMIN here, this article has been cleaned up and accepted and is not in line for deletion - User talk:NawlinWiki#Sabby Dhalu WP page deletion (admin discussion page) Johnsy88 (talk) 13:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article was previously proposed for deletion under WP:BLPPROD and was never listed here. The article fails to meet WP:BIO. The only mention of this person in media is quoting her comments as a spokesperson for UAF. Other than mentioning her office of joint secretary of the UAF, there is no biographical information available, e.g., nationality, education, work experience, publications, political affiliations. TFD (talk) 14:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed, not individually notable outside of work on UAF, and no need to break out a separate article. (ESkog)^(Talk) 14:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sabby Dhalu is notable and the sources provided in the article prove this. the notability has been established and article has been cleared. will consult original admin to provide input Johnsy88 (talk) 14:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the previous discussion on issue when original deletion issue arose just in case you haven't looked yet.

""Sabby Dhalu WP page deletion

Hi, could you tell me the reason for the proposed deletion of the WP i have created Sabby Dhalu. I was under the understanding only pages of relevance were acceptable on WP and i would consider Sabby Dhalu to be relevant enough to feature on WP due to her involvement in certain anti fascist pressure groups that feature in British news at the moment and anti racism work and also because she writes for the guardian news paper. If you disagree could you please specify why. Thanks very much Johnsy88 (talk) 14:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me that she has any particular notability other than being secretary of this group. Is there any news coverage of her other than the one BBC profile? NawlinWiki (talk) 14:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

From what i can see i found this alternative news article on Sabby Dhalu,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/23/bnp-sabby-dhalu-uaf-fascism Johnsy88 (talk) 14:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC) That's actually a commentary *by* Ms. Dhalu. Any other third-party coverage? NawlinWiki (talk) 14:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

also found these news storys which i will flesh out the article with which cover a number of issues she has covered, commented on and been involved in

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/technology/article789228.ece http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/critics-line-up-to-attack-oxford-union-over-free-speech-debate-760476.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7632624/BBC-faces-protests-over-BNP-election-broadcast.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1400573.stm

Johnsy88 (talk) 15:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

+ Thanks for adding those sources to the article. Looks better now. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC) No problem, thanks for your help and input Johnsy88 (talk) 16:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC) ""

ESkog - if you think she is not individually notable obviously you are not taking into account the above sources. i would advise you to read the sources and then tell me exactly why she is not notable individually. I also have reason to believe that the article is now being turned into the new "battle ground" now that the lock has been applied to the UAF website and if this is the case it is unacceptable Johnsy88 (talk) 14:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of these articles are about her, but quote her as a spokesperson for UAF or its predecessor organization. TFD (talk) 14:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the first article is written by Sabby? how much more could it be about her and her own opinion? her notability is established by her long term consultation with the media in which she give "her" opinion. If you have an issue with the article i would speak to NawlinWiki and convince him why it is not a suitable article Johnsy88 (talk) 14:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one needs to be consulted with in regards to the deletion of an article. Once the deletion process has started then...barring clear evidence of mischief such as a nomination by a banned editor, a nomination that is clearly disruptive or pointy.... it must be allowed to run its course which is usually a period of 7 days. Tarc (talk) 15:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The organization itself may be notable, but a person who is simply quoted by the press in various stories in a "Sabby Dhalu, secretary of Unite Against Fascism, said" is not. There are no reliable sources about the person herself, and if we're goibg to hang on the guardian opinion piece she penned almost 2 years ago, that falls well short of WP:CREATIVE. Tarc (talk) 15:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tarc. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tarc, et al - but I'm happy to keep if we find sources about Sabby Dhalu herself. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverage in secondary sources to establish this person as notable under our guidelines. Being head of a notable organisation is not relevant because notability is not inherited. I have friends who appear to have been quoted in the news more than this person --Errant ^(chat!) 15:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ultraexactzz. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After reading the above evidence and facts provided,i will fully accept Deletion of the article. I now fully understand the requirement for such an article to exist and the article clearly does not reach the requirements needed which on my part was a mistake of misunderstanding in the creation of the article. If more information/sources detailing sabby dhalu exist in the future i will look to restart the article but will fully accept deletion on the above evidence Johnsy88 (talk) 15:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scifidelic[edit]

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

This article contains no citations, and when I attempted to find relevant citations I could find nothing which was not promotional material for the band mentioned in the article. There appear to be no other bands associated with this genre. The producer who coined the term is in this band. Appears to fail WP:MUSIC. Blackmagnetictape (talk) 03:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Speaking as someone who has been a fan of both science fiction and psychedelic music for decades, I would very much like to say "Keep". However, the Google hits are all trivial, and there is nothing whatsoever in Google News or Google Books. It seems to be a neologism coined by and used by just one artist/producer. Sorry, but it isn't notable by Wikipedia standards. Cullen328 (talk) 04:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know what you mean, I love sci-fi and psychedelic music too, and I would love if this was a notable genre term. I'm almost sorry that it's not.Blackmagnetictape (talk) 15:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - made-up neologism. Blacktape, if you like SF and psychedelic music, I suggest you come to some science fiction conventions and join in the filk music sessions. (Just don't, please, call it "sci-fi", a pejorative reserved for the kind of crud on the channel formerly of that name!) --Orange Mike | Talk 16:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The term seems to be emerging as slang in a few geek communities and there is actually a band on MySpace with this name. But if it's a genre it has not been noticed as such by the outside world. This article could also be seen as a violation of the original research rule. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Bridge (football game)[edit]

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

High school football game of unclear notability. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 01:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hey, those are cool logos! Darn, not notable for our purposes here. Try another wiki.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wenatchee-Eastmont Basketball Rivalry. If all articles get deleted (likely so) then the two image files on the pages should also be remoeved.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - High school rivalries are not notable. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – some are, but very, very few of them. I agree that they're not inherently notable. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's possible that a high school football game or rivalry could be notable... but this clearly isn't one of them.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Could you provide me with a link to a notable high school rivalry? Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - As soon as I find one. But hey, it "could" happen!--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Andover-Exeter rivalry, English–Latin rivalry, among others at List of high school football rivalries (100 years+). This isn't those, however, so delete. Grsz 11 23:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 02:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bárður Hansen[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was "Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league." No reason was given for removing PROD. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 18:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 02:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Greenland watershed[edit]

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

Fails WP:V, term apparently made up by article author, it gets zero Google hits other than Wikipedia mirrors. I found a map of Greenland's watersheds (drainage basins) in this journal article, none of them are named "Atlantic". On the map in the article the article author drew in the theoretical watershed, it doesn't match any of the actual watersheds shown in the journal article. Kmusser (talk) 00:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google turns up nothing notable, and it does seem that this does not even exist. The Arbiter ^Talk 01:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Asian American jurists[edit]

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

A long list of names for which there are no Wikipedia articles. If there were such articles, then it might be able to squeak by, but as it is, it seems that a category would probably serve better. Unless somebody wants to write all of the articles and then add them to this list? Otherwise, if this article stays, all of the non-article names must be removed. Corvus cornix_talk 22:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Valid list of legitimate interest. Nor is it necessary that every person included in a list of people have his or her own Wikipedia article, unless perhaps there is some serious implication to being included on the list. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Inclusion of material on a list should be based on what reliable sources say, not on what the editor interprets the source to be saying. In lists that involve living persons, the Biographies of living persons policy applies.. Corvus cornix_talk 22:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Discussions of recent ethnicity/profession intersection lists have turned on whether the intersection is itself notable (see here, here, here and here). Articles such as this and this confirm that Asian-American jurists (and the relative lack of them) are a source of significant discussion and are therefore notable. This is confirmed by the existence of a large number of local, state, and national professional associations for Asian-American lawyers, who routinely comment on Asian-American judicial appointments. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on current content. A large number of the judges on this list are trial-level judges in the state courts (such as all the ones listed for the Superior Court of a county in California). Being a state trial judge is not inherently notable per WP:POLITICIAN -- the Los Angeles County Superior Court has over 400 judges, over 40 of whom are Asian American and listed on this page. The sources cited by DustFormsWords deal with the appointment or non-appointment of Asian American judges to the federal United States District Courts and the state supreme court, positions on which are significantly more notable than being a state trial judge. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Content-level problems are not an issue for AfD as they can be resolved through normal editing. You're perfectly capable of deleting the disputed entries and substituting valid ones without undergoing an AfD process. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DustFormsWords and Newyorkbrad's reasoning. It may, however, be correct that non-notable trial judges could be deleted from the list (I'd presume that all federal judges and all state appellate judges are appropriate for this list). --Arxiloxos (talk) 07:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not without reliable sources. Corvus cornix_talk 22:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 05:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shinese[edit]

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

Reason Mister Gallagher (talk) 20:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable breed cross. Most of the information and all of the sources refer to the parent breeds each of which already has an entry. Suggest this be redirected to List of dog hybrids with other designer crosses, where it already has a listing. Mister Gallagher (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The above comment was erroneously placed on the talk page of this discussion and copied over. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If we take away the discussion about the parent breeds, we still have a sourced stub that attests that this hybrid, rare as it may be, is still acknowledged by major dog breeding associations. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Even taking into account the concerns of the nominator about the majority of sources, it seems that there are enough secondary sources to pass WP:GNG. A merge can be discussed later. --Cyclopia ^talk 20:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haffron[edit]

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

Fancruft bio of a softcore-series character. There isn't really much to say about him not engaging in original research. Damiens.rf 17:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In-universe discussion of fictional character. No evidence of independent notability. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or, if possible, merge to a characters list. Hurricanehink (talk) 07:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Roche (journalist)[edit]

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

We don't seem to have a WP:JOURNALIST, but I see evidence that the subject meets WP:CREATIVE or WP:SIGCOV. NW (Talk) 14:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth: this article was started in '07 as Frank Roche by User:Johnoleary1, who has been dormant since then; at some later point it had information about a second Frank Roche added to it, so when I ran across it I split it into two. The "new" Roche seemed slightly more notable than the original, so I left him at the original name.--NapoliRoma (talk) 22:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 00:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ng Lok-wang[edit]

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

I can't find any coverage. There is an article on zh.wikipedia for 吴诺弘, but it's also unsourced. News search is not turning up anything under any of the permutations of his name, at least not that I could find. Most of the roles seem small. Gigs (talk) 04:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 06:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Our articles on the shows he has "starred" in don't confirm him as a star, and my searches have failed to turn up any significant discussion of this actor. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Harrison (tennis player)[edit]

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

nowheres close to being WP notable as a tennis player, the main claim this article makes for his notability - ATP.com has no record of him whatsoever (the ITF circuit site [42] does record that he played in a handful of ITF satellite tournament matches (half qualifying, half main draw) during the 1990s, with him losing each time); he is certainly non-notable as a coach too (despite there not being at present specific WP notability criteria for sports coaching) Mayumashu (talk) 04:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 06:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am unable to find significant discussion of this individual. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

François Jacques Boeri[edit]

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

Has been tagged for 2 years. A search through Google reveals no more info then is already listed. Obviously is a valid subject with paintings for sale, but no info for WP:BIO Wolfstorm000 (talk) 02:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 06:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I also am having trouble finding valid sources.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 15:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am unable to find significant discussion of this individual. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Massachusetts Development Finance Agency[edit]

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

As far as I know, we don't consider the agencies of US state governments (as opposed to Federal ones) inherently notable, so we have to look for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I believe that standard has not been met here.

Of 24 footnotes, 11 are from the agency's own site or from other Massachusetts government sources, and thus not independent.
Footnotes 3 and 19 are primary sources and don't contribute to demonstrating notability.
Footnotes 5 and 14 are, respectively, a résumé and a Google Maps link, evidently not reliable sources.
Footnote 23 is raw HTML.
We're thus left with footnotes 4, 6, 9, 11, 18, 20, 22 and 24, which are Boston Globe articles. Of these, 4, 6 and 18 are not really about the agency. 11 is a short report about its merger. What we're really left with is 9, 20, 22 and 24, four articles from 1988-89 about a bureaucratic battle the agency was involved with, an agency called "obscure" and "arcane" by the Globe itself. While an interesting piece of local news, this hardly seems to qualify as encyclopedic, and it's telling that in 20 years, the newspaper that most thoroughly covers the workings of the Massachusetts government has only mentioned MDFA a handful of times. Biruitorul ^Talk 16:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Nom Winner 42 Talk to me! 00:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The agency has about 8,700 stories that mention it in Google News Archives. The predecessor agency, the Massachusetts Industrial Finance Agency, is also covered by this article; it has about 6,800 stories that mention it in Google News Archives. State government agencies are important; they often affect citizen's lives in more direct and tangible ways than federal agencies. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I clicked those links and received 0 results for both. Could you please identify one or two sources that might indicate independent coverage of this agency? For that—not perceived importance or effect on citizens' lives—is the standard of notability this encyclopedia uses.
  - I've got 'safe search' off in my Google settings. If you have it on (the default), maybe that derailed these links, which have "&safe=off" in the URL. If you do the same searches by hand, you should get the results I do. For some specific news stories, try this or this or this or this or this or this or this or this. They give an idea of what the agency is about and what kind of projects they fund and so forth. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, a general comment: I'm not saying state government agencies aren't often notable. Clearly, many of them are. But I'm just not convinced this one is. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The notability guideline is primarily about the inability of finding any reliable independent sources of information. The proposer has demonstrated that there are actually a number of such independent source articles to be found online; there are doubtless a number of articles, papers, analysis, and reports to be found on paper, and in libraries and archives, not online. As a recently-created item, this wikipedia article merely awaits the attention of additional individuals to follow-up on the initial article editor. Responding to the lack of enthusiasm of the deletion proposer for the actual activity of the agency, a counter view is that in 2009, the agency was responsible for facilitating the borrowing of hundreds of millions of dollars, and as an agency aiding hundreds of businesses, non-profit entities, housing projects, and governmental divisions of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts--involved moving forward projects in the state of over a billion dollars. Such activity, repeated annually, demonstrates that the agency is financially more influential than a large number of the 351 municipalities of the state.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 01:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Avakian[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Google hits are mainly copies of this article, just 3 hits on Google Books. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am unable to find significant discussion of this individual. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom. Has been reduced to one line (no edit summary), and there seems to be little point in keeping what's left. Kudpung (talk) 16:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to his band Fuel (band) (Small the Joy when he was part of it). No independent notability shown. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SLR105 A1[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable (WP:N) and Airsoft gun variants do not each warrant their own article. The^FSAviator • T 22:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am unable to find significant discussion of this replica gun in reliable sources. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Airsoft gun as a reasonable search term. Hobit (talk) 20:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you've bought an airsoft gun before you'll know that there are hundreds if not thousands of variants made by different companies. Redirecting this would be like searching "Mitsubishi Lancer" and being redirected to "Car" — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFSaviator (talk • contribs) 18:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If someone wanted to know what a "Mitsubishi Lancer" was, that would actually be useful yes? I think better than a punt on our part. Hobit (talk) 20:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood the analogy, but no matter. Nobody is going to search "SLR105 A1", not only because it is an incredibly obscure gun, but simply because there are so many airsoft guns out there that there shouldn't be a redirect for a random rifle. We shouldn't make this a redirect because there are no other redirects when searching for other airsoft guns. The topic is really ridiculously obscure, I can't even believe this hasn't been nominated for deletion before.

Delete: non-notable airsoft replica of a real weapon without references. I wouldn't really be inclined to be satisfied with a redirect to airsoft because it's not a likely search term, but redirects are cheap, and one to Classic Army isn't unreasonable. Still, my preference is outright deletion. bahamut0013^words _deeds 22:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Any discussion about renaming the article can take place at the talkpage. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Religion and politics in the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Religion and politics in the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign (2nd nomination)

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

This page's reason for existence is faulty beyond repair. Contrary to what the existence of this article implies, religion was not a significant factor in the 2008 presidential race. Many other factors were much more important, such as youth vs. age, change vs. establishment, gender, media coverage, and biographical life stories, just to name five, and none of those have dedicated articles like this. The article consists of mostly obscure episodes that had little to do with religion per se, but instead follow the time-honored campaign tactic of attacking someone, loosely associated with a candidate, who has said outrageous things. This article was almost deleted during the campaign itself, and the intervening years have made clear that it should have been: None of the book-length accounts since published about the election (Game Change, Notes from the Cracked Ceiling, The Battle for America, "A Long Time Coming" ...) have talked about religion as a factor. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Religious controversies in the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign since that is what the article is about. On the other hand if deleted not much would be lost. Borock (talk) 05:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.

There are 34 sources in the article, versus one person who says religion wasn't a factor. Thought experiment: if you take 10 random Americans, wouldn't at least one of them say that he voted against Mitt Romney because of negative associations regarding the Mormon religion? And probably three of them would start ranting on about Jeremiah Wright if you got them started. (That is, if they're not still denouncing Obama as a Muslim...)
An article doesn't need a "reason for existence". It just needs to be verifiable, NPOV, etc. No one can tell an editor that he needs to write another "more important" article first before he can write the article he is interested in. If religion were truly less important than youth vs. age, etc., why weren't those articles created?
The initial deletion was part of a political controversy - some people were going on and on about Obama and Wright, so some others started documenting all the loopy religious connections of the Republicans. The right way to deal with such a controversy, what we chose, was to document all points of view in detail. The wrong way is to delete all points of view. Please do not delete an article for solely political reasons. Wnt (talk) 15:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per Wnt and prior discussion. Note the prior was about a different article, one that was largely fixed during the AFD, including neutral titling and balance for all key candidates (though nobody would mind a little Ron Paul content, would they?). Further, the article developed because of general consensus that controversial associations are notable but often deprecated from bio articles, so it would be of course inappropriate, having shunted them here, to delete them in a later AFD. Further, with thanks to Wasted for notifying WP:08, the nom is not a deletion argument. The idea that religion was not a major factor is wholly unrelated to the question of whether significant independent coverage of religion and politics in the campaign exists. We might as well argue that change you can Xerox or lipstick on a pig were not major factors, and cite whole books that omit these incidents, arguing from their silence. Rename is fine. JJB 17:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep per the arguments of Wnt & JJB, and Rename, per Borock. Article is reliably & extensively sourced, and "Religious controversies in the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign" would be a more apt title.--JayJasper (talk) 18:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, looks like a little revisionism on Wasted Time's part. Religion actually was a major theme of the election, if we remember correctly. I also support the rename proposal.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose to renaming. I'll concede the deletion attempt; it's clear others are seeing this differently than I do, and I didn't make my case very well. But renaming it to explicitly be a controversies list would be a mistake. Contrary to what JJB says, during 2008 we did not shunt controversies out of BLPs and into separate articles. In fact we did exactly the reverse: we tore down all the "Controversies of Person X" articles and sections and merged the non-trivial material back into the BLPs and campaign articles in the proper chronological places. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States presidential elections/Archive 1#Status of "controversies" pages to see for yourself. The reason for this is that controversies lists are a bad idea as they are invariably devoid of context, devoid of analysis, and devoid of indications of importance. If this article under consideration is to have any value, it needs to add those things, and thus live up to its current title. In particular, it needs to demonstrate that Romney lost 10% of the vote due to being Mormon, as claimed above. It needs to demonstrate that Obama annoyed 30% of the electorate due to Jeremiah Wright, as claimed above. It needs to state whether the Coe association cost Hillary anything (led to her 11 straight defeats in February 2008, dooming her in the delegate count?), whether the Placa association harmed Giuliani (that wait-till-Florida strategy would have worked out fine if it hadn't been for this?), and whether the McCain associations are why he couldn't catch Obama in the general. It needs to state whether the lack of criticism during the campaign of Huckabee's association with the son of the father who once wrote a book and who knew Gerald Ford and Jack Kemp decades ago (jeez, how many WP:COATRACKs can there be? did any of you actually read the Huckabee entry? all from one, count it one, opinion source in the Huffington Post? you really think this is legitimate?) caused voters to go back in time and not vote for him. Most importantly, it needs to demonstrate that religion was a major theme of the election, as claimed above. Because as the article looks right now, there's no clue as to what effect any of these controversies had. There's no discussion of the positive effects of religion had on the campaigns of Huckabee and Obama, to name two. It's just a list of random controverso-factoids from the campaign, loosely clumped together because they all involve religion or religious figures. It's really poor history. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article shouldn't be renamed, at least not as a consequence of an AfD discussion. A rose by any other name and so on - it's just not the right process for it. I wouldn't see it as a big deal if someone did rename the article, but putting "controversies" in the name would probably be a step backward. I think Wasted Time misreads the section about Francis Schaeffer - the point was that Huckabee himself called his book "one of his favorite books". Probably the "Jack Kemp" clause could be better summarized and transferred to Schaeffer's article, but the point that Schaeffer had long been closely involved with Republican leadership should not be lost. Wnt (talk) 14:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself says that Huckabee's association with Schaeffer was never raised in the campaign. So why is it here? Put it in the Mike Huckabee article if it's so important. Of course the source for this is an opinion piece at an opinion website written by his long-estranged son, hardly objective in any sense. In reality, this material was just added here some editor seeking to bludgeon Huckabee with the guilt-by-association game, just like most of the other entries are guilt-by-association. In reality, it doesn't belong in any article related to Huckabee. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't raised in the primary campaign but was raised as a counter-argument to the Jeremiah Wright complaints in the general election. Wnt (talk) 15:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wasted Time R's reasoning above. Also this is really a bad article which is put together of bits and pieces without an assertion that the central theme is notable. It also has problems with WP:Neutral point of view being written by people who were mainly interested in influencing the election (I say with some danger of getting into trouble with WP:Assume good faith but also with confidence that I am correct.)Steve Dufour (talk) 14:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that there are viewpoints not covered by the article, by all means, please add them. Provided that editors behave in an inclusionist way and add information, a mix of partisan editors can readily produce a neutral article. Note that the problem with your complaint about the editors in general is that it suggests no means of remediation whereby a better article could be made. Wnt (talk) 14:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the way to write an article is to collect different "viewpoints" and put them together. That sounds more like a debate. Maybe: "Which candidate had more unusual religious friends and supporters?" Steve Dufour (talk) 15:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article has a tangled history. It was created looking like this by a later-banned sock, as a blatant attempt to deflect attention from Obama–Wright onto other supposed religious controversies involving the other candidates. Stuff like the Huckabee material I'm complaining about above was in there from the beginning, in even larger amounts. A subsequent editor took it out of the Obama defense context, trimmed it a bit, and made it a Huckabee entry, I guess as part of the "balance for all key candidates" that someone talks about above. The same was done to the other entries; for instance the Romney text written by the sock (which is a rather poor description of Romney's so-called 'Mormon problem') has survived unchanged to this day. But junk is still junk, and a much better course of action would have been to send it all to /dev/null. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If junk is the best Wikipedia has on a topic, we print junk. Every article starts somewhere. But in this case the article is not junk, but incorporates many useful sources about political controversies. It's not up to you to decide that certain political arguments people used during an election were stupid, nor to exclude sources about a political controversy because they are too partisan. This article, such as we have it, is as good a description of the various arguments and counter-arguments about religion as I've seen in one place, and I can't get over the feeling that it's being proposed for deletion not because of its failings but because of its insights. Wnt (talk) 15:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I say, if junk is the best we have to offer on a topic, we print nothing at all. I put this up for AfD because I don't think it offers any insights at all and is poor history. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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