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. The Telegraph source clearly establishes notability. SilkTork *YES! 14:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
first link: this is a marketing website, not an appropriate source. second link: this is not a recognized honor entering the enduring historical record, nor does it have much validity as shown in the Talk page. further, if you look for the people ranked higher on wikipedia you will find that hardly anyone has an article. third link: this discusses the event, about which an article has already been created. cf. WP:BLP1E suggests merging this information into the event article would be appropriate. Similarly for ORG, of which the subject is no longer a director or staff member -- WP:NTEMP applies.
do you read the things you cite? WP:BLP1E talks of a one-off event; ALD + ORG are two separate notable contributions; [WP:NTEMP]] says "Notability is not temporary: a topic needs to have had sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline, but it does not need to have ongoing coverage". 157.22.22.57 (talk) 18:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Easily notable. Nominating user doesn't seem to be familiar with our notability guidelines. Jeni(talk) 10:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary -- I have proposed the deletion only after careful study of the word and spirit of WP:BIO. This person has not received a "well-known and significant award or honor". The validity of a bottom end ranking in the above referenced Telegraph list has been thoroughly debunked in Talk:Suw_Charman-Anderson) and her contributions have yet to gain widely recognized recognition. Whether Ada Lovelace Day will become "part of the enduring historical record in [..] her specific field" is yet to be seen, it appears not to be the case now and neutral persons will not know or care that the subject of the article was involved in its genesis. I would like to specifically point to WP:NTEMP. As the edit history shows this article is largely the creation of personal friends of the subject, as further evidenced by the (new removed) inclusion of resume trivia that were unreferenced and unlikely to be known by an outsider. I welcome your comments on whether my interpretation of notability guidelines is appropriate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwrandom (talk • contribs)
CommentInformation World Review, the source of the biography cited above, is a British trade journal, not a marketing website. Quoting from WP:BASIC, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." It has never been my contention the the Telegraph list of influential Britons is a major award. My judgment of Suw's notability may indeed be skewed by my many acquaintances in the blogging community where she is very respected and well-known, as well as by the fact that I attended several meetings of ORG led by Suw and enjoyed getting to spend time with her on several occasions. You can also see in my Contributions list that I have often defended BLP articles of people I do not know (e.g. Jason Fortuny and Tucker Bounds) from anonymous attack. betsythedevine (talk) 15:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(1) "Presumed" implies this criterion is suggestive but not absolute, which is why I am challenging notability here. I suggest you read the footnotes accompanying your linked guideline. More importantly though, the specific rules in WP:CREATIVE trump the more general rule you mentioned. It appears that for creatives whose primary job it is to publish and get noted the bar set for notability is deliberately set higher than what you suggest per the general rule. (2) Secondly, what makes you characterize a typical RFD as an "attack"? I am sure Mrs Charman-Anderson is a fine person and I assure you that I have nothing against her -- she is simply not a notable person. I simply ask that you be intellectually honest about evaluating notability per community guidelines and reconsider your vote in this matter. User:Jwrandom—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.0.26 (talk) 00:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Wikipedia policy is perfectly clear on the WP:BASIC criteria for notability; this subject meets those criteria. The additional criteria listed below are not a set of extra-high hurdles stacked on top of the basic guideline; they are alternate routes to notability for individuals whose specialties make it harder for them to meet the basic criteria. "Failure to meet these /[additional/] criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability." Furthermore, among the criteria for Creative Professionals I believe that Suw Charman most certainly meets the first, being "widely cited" by her peers and a frequently-invited speaker at conferences. (2) Please stick to the point here of discussing the notability of Suw Charman. It is appropriate to criticize edits made by other editors; it is a violation of WP:FAITH and WP:CIVIL to attribute their edits to prejudice and intellectual dishonesty. Your arguments for your own point of view should stand on their own merits and be closely based on Wikipedia policies. betsythedevine (talk) 18:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep That anonymous users and obvious sockpuppets like User:Jwrandom can attempt to remove notable women from wikipedia is an abuse of process and clear misogyny. Can we summarily dismiss this and get back to writing enyclopedic articles please? Kevin Marks (talk) 09:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: notable for her founding role in the Open Rights Group, among other things. As discussed on the talk page, people who work in the media are often more notable, that's life. Using this as a reason to delete articles is a flawed argument. JRawle (Talk) 23:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
agree about the latter, it is only presented as one argument among several, however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.0.26 (talk) 01:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Request to admin for "Speedy Keep" on this article and a block against its nominator. This article has been under attack since March by an anonymous IP and the single-purpose account he created in order to file an AfD against it. He has used Wikipedia process as an excuse for filling the talk page with repeated insulting claims about Suw Charman -- that the article is "vanity" and "self-promotion," that her profession is promoting herself, that her presence on a Telegraph list of Britain's most influential people in technology is suspect because the author of the piece may be her friend (while the anonymous sour-grapes sniping of commenters on the article is of course pure gospel truth), that the article exists only because of inappropriate actions by her friends and "victim defense reflexes from those with an agenda to further the careers of women in technology." I would further like to request that this WP:SPA and the IP address behind it be blocked from defacing Wikipedia in the future and that all their comments be removed from the article talk page.betsythedevine (talk) 03:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, a clean slate will enable a proper RfD debate in the future without ad-hominem arguments levied against the proponent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.0.26 (talk) 09:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the grounds of meeting the basic criteria, but I think both sides here are perhaps a little too overinvolved in their comments. DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 14 June 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) 00:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An independent music retailer, closed in 2007. Does not assert notability. Orphaned article. Provides little context, and consists mainly of advertising/ self promotion. Gwinva (talk) 23:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Defunct, independent record store that existed for less than 4 years total, 2003-2007. No indication of any enduring notability or historic importance, just a short-lived record store and minor concert venue. --MelanieN (talk) 01:40, 14 June 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) 00:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any specific meaningful coverage Vartanza (talk) 17:44, 12 June 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) 00:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GScholar does show one very well-cited paper, but postdocs are generally not academically notable under WP:PROF, barring something exceptional (which does not appear to be the case here). Perhaps will be academically notable in a few years, but not yet. Nsk92 (talk) 03:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even the "references" give this one away – for example the one for the LTP discovery points to his presumable advisor. This person has not yet earned any distinction separate from his grad-school/postdoc advisors. Agricola44 (talk) 15:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. One well-cited paper, even as first author, does not present clear enough evidence of independent notability. There's plenty of time to add a better article later if he follows up on this promising start with more high-quality research. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:29, 13 June 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) 00:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A documentary film claiming that the Qur'an endorses modern science. Spammy tone and no evidence that it exists let alone that it is notable. — RHaworth(talk·contribs) 21:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All that I can find is a movie trailer on Youtube. Joe Chill (talk) 22:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Farouq Abdul-Aziz where the film is already mentioned. To remain, the article requires sourcing and major cleanup. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 04:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article is now gone. Can't redirect to what isn't there. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 23:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NF. There is no evidence of a theatrical release, that it was televised, screened at a film festival, or critically reviewed. Movementarian (Talk) 08:02, 15 June 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) 00:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only are there no sources to establish notability, but most of the online recipes for "dragonfly cocktail" are for a very different drink than the one described here; they mostly involve gin and ginger ale. --MelanieN (talk) 01:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sounds good, wish I had some rum to mix up a tasty refreshing non-notable beverage. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:09, 15 June 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.
Article does not assert notability of school or provide subjects. Light on content. Previous PROD was removed with no reasons by anonymous editor. ErrantTmorton166(Talk) 21:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - contains a high school. I'll fix up the page soon. TerriersFan (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Online search confirms that it exists, and it is a high school, so if TerriersFan can add a little more detail (how many students? when founded?) I'd say it's a keeper. --MelanieN (talk) 02:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Give it a day or two The page says that this article is going through a major revamp. Let's see what they can do with it, then see if it still needs to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.106.47.61 (talk) 02:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to have petered out. Honestly I can't see the need to keep the article, but I see the notability guidelines (for some reason) suggest it is ok... I never understand the randomness of these things :P --ErrantTmorton166(Talk) 12:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my mind I'm changing my !vote from Weak Keep to Weak Delete. Normally this type of school should be notable, so I thought I would add some more detail to the article - but I literally can't find ANYTHING online except the school's own website - which provides almost no information. I would have no problem with this article being recreated after deletion, if it gets fleshed out a little. --MelanieN (talk) 00:19, 16 June 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 under G7. — ξxplicit 19:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unremarkable product. “It was developed […] in April-May of 2010 and is currently under public "beta"”, therefore it is non-notable. — Zhernovoi (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: according to the rare sources not notable at all. Dewritech (talk) 22:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've read the significant coverage article, and I agree it should be deleted.Artur adib (talk) 18:54, 10 June 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) 00:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-existant organization as far as a Google search can inform. There appears to have existed an organization by this name in the past, but the article claims that the organization was started in 2007. meco (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've done a fairly comprehensive search (including in other languages) and there doesn't appear to be anything at all. There does appear to have been an organisation of this name that existed decades ago, but nothing anywhere near 2007. So we seem to have a total failure of verifiability here. Of course, if someone can do a better search than me, I'd be happy to reconsider. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. The strength of my vote rests on not one, not two, but THREE reasons that have already been discussed: WP:V, WP:N, and WP:BALL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T3h 1337 b0y (talk • contribs) 23:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all above comments. Unsourced article by serial vandal about apparently non-existent organisation! Absolutely no reason to keep it. RolandR (talk) 08:12, 10 June 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) 00:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:ACADEMIC, and the subject requests deletion via OTRS (email 2010060910037031 for those interested) Ironholds (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on weak notability and personal request for deletion. --Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 15:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This doesn't look like one of those cases where the encyclopedia will be harmed by honoring the subject's deletion request. The article is oddly vague at some points (He went to "various universities"? He invented "various medical devices"? He is commercializing "some instruments"?) and lacking in reliable sources, so if it were kept it would require major cleanup, and it doesn't present strong evidence that the subject passes WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:27, 13 June 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, nomination withdrawn. Nominator now wants this kept and nobody has argued the article should be deleted. Hut 8.5 20:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Creating this for User:92.1.90.14, nomination as follows: Article was PRODded with the summary "non-notable; unreferenced & notability-tagged since January 2010". Six days later it was blanked and made into a redirect to Ferris wheel by a second editor, however this edit was reverted by a third editor with the summary "undoing redirect—target article contains no mention of this". The second editor then removed the restored PROD tag with the edit summary "remove prod, do not restore prod". I personally have no opinion. Hut 8.5 20:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note Intend to rescue this article later today, no time now. Largest Second largest transportable ferris wheel in the world, entry in the Guinness Book of Records. --Pgallert (talk) 07:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, should now be properly referenced. --Pgallert (talk) 10:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I nominated this. Notability now established by new content and references added by Pgallert. 92.0.63.81 (talk) 19:33, 10 June 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. The consensus appears to be clear that this particular album should be deleted. However, there is no clear consensus to delete the others in their entirety: My suggestion would be to nominate these separately (although perhaps grouped as appropriate) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article concerns a bootleg Frank Sinatra concert/non notable album with minimal independent coverage. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related pages because they are not notable Sinatra albums and there is minimal independent coverage of them. Though some have links to allmusic, there are thousands of Sinatra compilation albums on there. I believe the only Sinatra albums we should have coverage of are his official studio and live albums, and a few compilation albums as listed on here [1], a rough list similar to many listed in other publications. User:OlBlueEyesIsBack has also repeatedly refused to engage with me on this issue.:[reply]
Delete: All appear to be non-notable bootlegs, articles are unreferenced and contain point of view statements. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 05:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the compilation items, although that would call for relisting. Ultimately, I think that this nomination is going to fail for several reasons. First, the first one is being nominated on grounds that it is a "bootleg album", and then the others are being thrown in even though none of those are they are a "bootleg album". Second, although it is implied that the others are, though not bootlegs, are compilation albums. However, recordings of live concerts can hardly be called "compilation albums". While the nomination is certainly made in good faith, the mass nomination has not been thought out. There is no common thread, save for Ol' Blue Eyes, who certainly is notable. Start over. Mandsford 12:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Very good points from Mandsford above. One blanket deletion rationale is not going to work for all of the articles in the extensive list. It would be useful for Gareth E Kegg to withdraw this blanket AfD and create newer combined nominations (or even a whole bunch of individual AfDs, time permitting) with more detailed arguments based on the nature of each item. Also, another way to look at each of these suspicious albums is to think about whether ol' Frank had any input at all in their production and release, or whether they are useless quickie items cranked out by record companies or fans to make a shifty buck. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks guys. I'll do the combined afd idea. What makes a notable post-career compilation album though? Gareth E Kegg (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that very few would qualify. In the Frank Sinatra discography, there's a section called "Post-career albums with new material", which would be significant; other than that anything called "greatest" or "best" is, by definition, nothing new. Mandsford 01:35, 11 June 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.
Merge to San Francisco Peaks. It's a new contributor who hasn't yet learned the do's and don'ts on Wikipedia, so I'm not going to be too harsh in my comments. One of the precepts is that the references should, where possible, be placed at the end of sentences or clauses that refer to a particular fact that they support. Second, the essay style would need to be written to look like an encyclopedia article, eliminating personal observations. Third, I'm concerned that this has the appearance of something that has been published elsewhere. Ultimately, though, the information about the individual peaks should be added to the existing article on the San Francisco Peaks. I can't see the title of this article as a search term. I think we should a title like Arizona mountains that redirects to "San Francisco Peaks". I was unaware that that was what the mountain range there was called, and would have stumbled across it only on San Francisco (disambiguation). Mandsford 13:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I have heard rumors that there's a place in California with that name. They might not know about it over at the San Francisco Peaks though. Mandsford 16:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic. No indication why this article is necessary or notable. It starts "Arizona is a fairly mountainous and rugged state..." which sets the tone for the unencyclopedianess of the article in general. Weakopedia (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Geography of Arizona. Not all of these 10 peaks are in the San Francisco range; some are in the White Mountains. --MelanieN (talk) 02:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mandsford and MelanieN. TGR✫ 06:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. From a technical standpoint there is nothing wrong with the article. The topic is notable and the article provides sources. Although in-line sources are preferred, an article is still valid without them. The sources provide may not actually support the article content and it may be a personal essay, but to the same extent, it may a copyvio straight from the sources provided. Until we know otherwise, we should assume good faith.--PinkBull 21:35, 17 June 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 First, what is a hate group? Second, who defines it? Third, where are the sources? Without strong referencing, this list could have potentially been deleted as a BLP violation. AS is this is unsourced OR.---BalloonmanNO! I'm Spartacus! 06:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
POV list of hate groups with no well-defined criteria; currently has no references, but likely references would be from organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center which are not themselves reliable sources. AV3000 (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - "Hate group" is edging on POV, but we could have a perfectly non-POV list which organises hate groups in terms of which organisations have listed them as such. Southern Poverty Law Center's dispatches can meet WP:RS in most circumstances. However, I see the inclusion problems. Claritas§ 18:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Although I have edited the page, I didn't create it and think it is very easy to POV-push with it, as I probably have.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 20:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note - This has nothing to do with my point of view. The list was created per this discussionCrimsonBlue (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While I think it's a page that will have to be watched closely, I do think it's a legitimate addition to Wikipedia as a whole and therefore should be kept. --Deathawk (talk) 01:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: This page will be no end of trouble. It is totally not needed. Why? Any page that discusses hate groups will likely have links to lists of hate groups from various organizations or governmental entities. I already see hate groups here that are solely listed by the SPLC in its POV effort to get others to agree with its labeling. We don't want Wikipedia seeming to be declaring what are the existing hate groups or seeming to be endorsing views of others as to what are the hate groups. It is far better to link to such existing lists as I mentioned about. And if we do that, there is absolutely no need for having a separate "lists" page. It will be duplicative of the linked lists on the hate groups page anyway. Also, if the group really is an established hate group and recognized as such by law or by the government, then we can use an appropriate category that will by default create its own list without people having to maintain this one. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is an example of why this page should be removed. It should not be here to publicize the views of third parties. A simple link as I described above would suffice. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Hate groups are referenced daily in the media and the SPLC is one of several watchdog groups that are recognized as reliable sources both by the media and academics. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 10:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even if true, that is irrelevant to whether Wikipedia should have a separate list of hate groups. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 12:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone wants to try to turn this lazy little list into a real article. We seem to have several people who would like to see someone come to its rescue, although my experience is that it's usually that they would like someone else to do the rescuing. If rescued, one would have to have reliable sources that show that a particular organization as a hate group by others, such as a federal or state court returning an indictment against members for a hate crime. One just can't throw names on to a list, and if one does, then put some type of information with it. It ain't 2005 anymore, and lists of "look-it-up" blue links don't cut it now. Mandsford 13:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, other sites list these! so do we need it? No its all POV, SPLC Hates "Hate Groups" thus this mean of course one can spin it into a dozen bad directions. Its one thing to SPLC say group "A" is a Hate group, its another to list with without balance Weaponbb7 (talk) 14:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete according to our own article on hate groups: "The classification of a group as a hate group is controversial, and little or no consensus has developed." So why is there any need to apply this poorly-defined and extremely dubious label to groups and list them by that criteria. No, thank you, controversisal lists and articles are one thing, controversial articles and lists which serve little or no purpose are another. Someoneanother 07:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR unless someone comes up with references that shows that reliable sources somewhere classify each as a hate group. GregJackP (talk) 23:48, 14 June 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. –MuZemike 20:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G12 per identical AfD on similar articles by the same author. The author, TheodoreNg, has admitted the following about these articles: "I am new to wikipedia and am unsure of what is wrong with these articles. These articles were given to me by my supervisor and they are our property. The articles were written by the students of my supervisors and is entirely our work." The author clearly doesn't understand the copyright policies of WP. SnottyWongtalk 18:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but he wasn't talking about this article. Obviously I think you are right that this is a copyright violation, but I can't be sure as in G12 sure. ErikHaugen (talk) 20:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. These articles, as revealed in the other AfD discussion, are copyright violations; the text is apparently owned by an unidentified business who gave it to be posted on Wikipedia while still claiming it's their "property". In the absence of a clearer intent to license this text under a compatible license, it's gotta go. Which is a shame, because this and the other article did in fact contain interesting general information about industrial processes that wants mostly an encyclopedic lede and title. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate. If this is indeed a class project and we can get confirmation that both the professor and all her students who contributed actually intended to edit Wikipedia and licence these texts freely, there ought to be something that can be done to preserve them. The problem is that as an overview, after the first paragraph or two, this is rather scattershot as an article; but individual sections may well be valuable contributions to articles such as emulsion. We should keep the text somewhere and look for articles that this information can be added to. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, subject to copyright resolution Really it's up to the author and owner of the related IP. They're clearly not familiar with WP, and the implications of the GFDL under which text is required to be contributed. If they become familiar with these and then decide to gift this text under the GFDL, there's no problem. That decision is a matter for them, not for us. If they decide not to, or there isn't a timely response and decision, then obviously it has to go. As the original uploader was the current copyright holder's agent anyway, I see no need for any hasty or speedy action here. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is author really an agent authorized to change the organization's copyright licenses? I don't think we know that. ErikHaugen (talk) 20:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "author" here? Original author, or WP editor? For most UK universities, copyright would most likely reside with the university by now, not with the original authors. If the WP editor is acting with authority as the university's agent, they could certainly choose to submit this under the GFDL, as needed. Possibly moral rights (i.e. individual traceability of authorship, even without copyright) could be an issue if they were a French university, but I don't think that applies here. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the WP editor. But yeah, that's my point - I don't think we know or even have any reason to think that the WP editor is acting with authority as the university's agent. See the thing Tim Song linked to below - I sure hope this can get cleared up so we can keep all this stuff. ErikHaugen (talk) 23:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would seem like the sort of issue that OTRS is set up to deal with. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, this seems to be a Canadian university. Tim Song (talk) 04:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. But the article needs to be at least moved to a better title and this one deleted. ErikHaugen (talk) 20:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bwilkins. —fetch·comms 20:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright situation here is a bit complicated. Please see this. Tim Song (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining to them what's going on and how it could be fixed. Someoneanother 07:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTMANUAL. It looks to me more like a sincere yet misguided attempt by a university group at contributing to Wikipedia. I suspect that the copyright issues could be sorted out, but the underlying material is still not really right for Wikipedia. Wikisource or wikihow might be more suitable. Tim Pierce (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The copyright business is over my head, but the subject itself seems very relevant, just specialist. :| I'm strongly in favour of keeping the content, but support whatever action is necessary to avoid problems with copyright. Not much help I know. Someoneanother 07:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It is completely unclear that this material is properly licensed, and it is not at all clear that the contributing editor has the authority to place this material under an acceptable license. -- Whpq (talk) 16:19, 16 June 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) 00:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even if it really is a legitimate sport, there's no evidence that this passes our notability standards. Subjects can be notable without any online references, but it's not likely that a recently-created subject will have sufficient print coverage without any online coverage. Nyttend (talk) 22:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Brolf has a source that may or may not appear during searches. Please follow this link to view this source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdtqWc25slo . The documentation of Brolf starts at 4:45 of the video. This video premiered June 20, 2009 at the Huron Park S.S. year end assembly. This source will be posted on the Brolf wiki page shortly. I understand that youtube is not a very reliable source but this is proof that Brolf has in fact been documented. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drandygreen (talk • contribs) 22:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, YouTube isn't a particularly reliable source, given that anyone could post a video of anything on there. I could post a video of, for example, a snowboarding trick that hadn't recieved any media attention. Therefore, this trick, no matter how many viewes it had recieved on YouTube would not justify a Wikipedia article. You also say that it's notable because a video about it has been shown at a school assmbly. Firstly, this doesn't make it notable, and secondly, there's no proof that it WAS shown at a school assembly. And since Wikipedia is about anything that is backed up by a reliable source, and YouTube is not one, and there is no proof this is either a popular sport, or something that has recieved media attention. WackyWacetalk to me, people 11:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It may be a legitimate sport but there is no evidence that this meets notability guidelines. One day if it gains popularity and reliable sources notice it and discuss the sport then recreate the article. ~~ GB fan ~~talk 22:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails all relevant policies. Talk page is quite humorous though (especially the claim that association football was dreamt up in a pub) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deleted per CSD G11, was blatant advertising. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lewis and J. Gordon Melton, both don't list this person, thats usually a good threshhold Weaponbb7 (talk) 14:52, 10 June 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) 00:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD, no clear reason given. Adjei currenty fails WP:ATHLETE having never played at a fully-professional level of football, only in reserve/youth fixtures for Newcastle. Also fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant media coverage, beyond the odd WP:NTEMP stuff. --Jimbo[online] 16:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Page seems empty with no content, cleared up some junk about him playing for Bolton Wanderers on loan, if it was true I would of said keep but it isn't so delete. Quiggers1P (talk) 18:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 23:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteJönköpings Södra IF is not in a fully professional league. Newcastle is, but he is yet to play for them. Player yet to make an appearance in competitive professional fixture fails ATHLETE, only general sports journalism failing NTEMP, fails GNG. Premature. Recreate if and when --ClubOranjeT 07:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. Mo ainm~Talk 13:04, 10 June 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. Following following MelanieN's rewrite, the consensus is to keep -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An element of controversy hinted at, but no independent referencing. Otherwise, it's just an as yet unbuilt business park or some such. Peridon (talk) 21:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Keep following MelanieN's rewrite. Peridon (talk) 09:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but without prejudice to possible merger or redirect at Antelope Valley Project#Nebraska Innovation Campus/UNL Research Park, which already has a discussion of the project, or at University of Nebraska–Lincoln. There is extensive news coverage in the Nebraska press of the Innovation Campus, which is being presented as a major new undertaking by the university. This is shown in the Google News searches[2][3] and this index at the Lincoln Journal Star[4]; a few examples are [5][6][7][8][9]. The project does appear to still be in the planning stages, but I don't think WP:CRYSTAL applies because given the amount of coverage, the project would probably be notable even if it isn't built, and the recent news coverage suggests that things are moving along quite firmly now.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Arxiloxos says, the project has been getting quite a bit of press. I rewrote the article (which was very poorly done) and added several references; I think it qualifies as notable. --MelanieN (talk) 03:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After more research, there are now ten WP:RS references to news stories about this project. IMO it can clearly stand on its own. --MelanieN (talk) 00:05, 15 June 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.
No evidence of notability. Also Wikipedia is not a how-to manual. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources are listed, and the page is a blatant example of what Wikipedia is not, especially with its overall tone. --SoCalSuperEagle(talk) 19:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteAlmost a speedy; certain a good example of what wikipedia is not. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 19:28, 9 June 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. T. Canens (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, as part of a stunt ensemble, the fellow was nominated for a Screen Actors Guild Award, so as to meet WP:ANYBIO. I'll see what I can do to improve it and report back. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 01:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While failing WP:GNG, and while he has had small roles in his early career as has any actor, it is my determination that in his total career[10] he meets WP:ENT. His SAG Awards nomination is a nice extra.[11]Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 04:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many roles in notable shows, and won a notable award. DreamFocus 05:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — clearly notable from the links provided, although the references need to be sorted out and converted from bare links. This is not a reason for deletion however. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 12:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are no sources about him. And if it is thought that being nominated for an award to a collective of people this large is notable then that is laughable. And please note that this is a nomination, not even a win, so does not meet WP:ANYBIO, not matter how liberally interpreted. WP:ENT calls for significant roles, which he does not appear to have had. Find some sources actually about the person, and I will reconsider. Quantpole (talk) 16:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Quantpole. All the references I've seen so far are passing mention or press releases. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to keep it from being linkspammed over every damn article as it is being now. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 03:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Without articles with significant coverage about him, fails WP:BIO/WP:GNG generally. Lack of major roles means he fails WP:ENT. And he was only nominated for a SAG award; it appears he did not win. Novaseminary (talk) 14:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Mentioned as an actor in this article. But I can find no significant coverage about him in reliable sources. His body of work to date appear to be small roles. The large ensemble nomination for a SAG award isn't sufficient by itself to establish notability. It does appear he is starting to get jucier roles so perhaps an article may be appropriate in the future, but for now, it does not meet notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:27, 16 June 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) 00:20, 16 June 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 Murder of Meredith Kercher. After looking at the arguments brought forward, it is evident to me that the reasons for redirection are more policy-based (i.e. applications of WP:BLP1E, POV forking, which came first, etc.) and seem more substantive than the reasons for retention (a couple which were completely invalid reasons to keep, such as reasons based off WP:ITSNOTABLE and based on attacking the opposition). –MuZemike 20:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
A combination of POVFORK and BLP1E violation. This individual is only notable for alleged participation in a murder, and the issues progressing from that. Hipocrite (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note I do not oppose a protected redirect. I would have merely created the redirect myself if not for the comment by the unprotecting admin that AFD was the appropriate course of action. Hipocrite (talk) 20:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have not canvassed anyone. I have notified people who wanted to contribute to the article that it had been approved for expansion. Others had been notified at Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher, during the same hour. -Wikid77 (talk) 9 June 2010 (revised 10:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Additional note: Wikid77's actions have been raised at WP:ANI and have resulted in a topic ban on all articles pertaining to Kercher, Knox, and similar crime cases for three months. SuperMarioMan 21:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Individual notability comes from multiple separate events covered by major sources (WP:BLP1E). If the Kercher murder had occurred in Aruba, and then years later, Knox had been last seen with a female prisoner found strangled in Peru, that would clearly be beyond 1 event: 2 felony crimes (a murder, then a 2nd murder). Instead, Knox is arrested for the first murder on 6 November 2007, then years later accuses the Perugia police of abuse (12 June 2009): treated as 2 felony crimes (a murder, then defamation of police). Involvement in 2 widely reported felony crimes, years apart, is a case when WP:BLP1E no longer applies. The chain of connection is broken when the 2nd event is not a likely outcome of the first (instead, a choice was made). When the Perugia court declared a 2nd trial for defamation, they too were acknowledging there was a 2nd event, separate from the first trial (major source on 2nd event: "Knox appears in Italian court to face slander charges", CNN Wire Staff, 1 June 2010, web: CNN-T3). Ignoring either felony charge is not acceptable, just as ignoring either death, in Aruba or in Peru, cannot be used to claim, somehow, if the first event had not occurred, a person would be just another student connected with only 1 event. Knox has notability from coverage of separate events, years apart. Also, WP cannot delete the article of "Charles Darwin" by claiming a need to combine all POV discussions of Evolution, nor can WP delete "Earth" as a POV fork of "Flat Earth". For those reasons, a separate bio article is based on notability, not on content debates. Per WP:NPOV, the proper action is to edit an article to have better NPOV-neutral wording, adding alternative major viewpoints, not instantly delete the article. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. All Knox's alleged notability stems from the original event that she was found guilty of. If that event had not occurred, she would not be notable. Textbook BLP1E. Black Kite (t)(c) 17:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, BLP1E states: If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. I think Ms. Knox no longer qualifies as a low-profile individual and has become substantially notable on her own. You are correct in your assertion that she would not be notable if it were not for the murder of Meredith Kercher but the reality is that a lot of the coverage in reliable sources is about Ms. Knox, not about the murder ([12], [13],[14],[15] amongst others). BLP1E adds, The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources and it looks to me that the coverage of Ms. Knox in reliable sources is fairly persistent. Classic BLP1E this is not. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Amanda Knox is notable today beyond the murder she is convicted for,,, because of television and major news coverage on her as a person and beyond. She is notable beyond a one time event. and should thereby be kept as an article subject on Wikipedia.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Amanda Knox is today more notable than the actual murder case itself so dont really see your point?--ÅlandÖland (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Amanda Knox is now arguably a better known name than the lady who was killed. I'm not going to get into ONEEVENT type arguments here, but it is fairly obvious (to me anyway!) that Ms. Knox's story has taken on a life of its own. We should have an article on her. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to main article. Obvious WP:POVFORK by a user intent on "cleansing" Ms.Knox's image. Knox is a classic WP:BLP1E. If this article is kept it will merely double the amount of edit-warring and disruption which at present is being contained in the main article. The image in the article should probably tell you how much of a joke this is. Black Kite (t)(c) 17:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Amanda Knoxs article shoulndt be redirected just because potential fears of edit vandalisms and sutch. Amanda Knoxs article will grow over time and she will be more in medias lights over the years to come. while the actual murder case wil fade away. today amanda knox is actually notable and the murder case is perhaps not.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep.WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E do give some wiggle room in that Knox is no longer a "low-profile individual" and her role in the event was significant. Location (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Murder of Meredith Kercher. There is mild justification for a fork, but Wragge makes a good point in that Wikipedia would not be better served by it. Location (talk) 20:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Black Kite comments.Malke2010 18:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Amanda Knox is today more notable as a person than the mruder case itself. If anything the murder case info should be reverted into the Amanda Knox article. but I worry that from the root an article will grow again Yes i see your "worry" as the person the article is about is very notable and the article will very likel grow alot over the next coming years.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't really a reason to delete a completely valid redirect page. Averell (talk) 18:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that was a response to the original comment, not yours. I meant that "it could grow again" is not a reason to delete the redirect page. Averell (talk) 15:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect A reader might type in the name Amanda Knox and the redirect will be useful.Malke2010 18:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Murder of Meredith Kercher seems as obvious as redirecting Meredith Kercher herself had been. Both are logical search terms, and I think that a red link would be more of a "root" than anything. Mandsford 18:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect (see also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Trial_of_Knox_and_Sollecito) Seems an obvious POV FORK. If it weren't a POV fork, I don't really see anything that isn't covered in the main article (apart from some trivia) - meaning that this article has no content to stand on it's own. Also, the 2nd "crime" is not really notable in itself, nor do I think the murder case is important enough to justify articles on the persons involved (as per BLP1E). I propose to revert this to a redirect, unless until a need for such a splitout develops in the main article. Averell (talk) 18:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another Afd doesnt imply any consensus on who this afd will end. Amanda Knox is notable in her own right.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is an obvious keeper, Notable beyoned a one time event. International coverage, media hype around Knox as a person even more than the actual murder case itself.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mandsford, in this case. BLP1E isn't my favourite rule because so many genuinely notable people originally came to public attention because of one event. Besides, people can be notable in their own right purely because they were accused of murder (e.g. Lee Harvey Oswald). But in this case we're dealing with a current event and the content needs to be watched closely, not forked. Consider protecting the redirect.—S MarshallT/C 18:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article should remain as it is. Knox is notable beyond a one time event. etc etc etc..--ÅlandÖland (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect; merge nothing. Amanda Knox's public life is covered at Murder of Meredith Kercher; all proceeds from the murder, subsequent trial and conviction. pablohablo. 18:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More information about Amanda could easily be found, also she will obviously continue to be in the press for years to come. And i mean Amanda Knox herself...not the actual murder case. She is notable beyond a one time event and should be kept.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
She is notable for the one event - the murder which she has been tried for - and other events which proceed from that such as her appeal against her conviction and the legal cases against her as a result of statements she has made to, and accusations she has (or her family have) levied against the police. pablohablo. 20:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I have said this for a long time,. Amanda Knox is a notable person, she is the one in this case that has recieved about 99% of the coverage. She is even more in focus than the actuall murder victim. Amanda Knoxs familyhas appeared on Oprah and abot every major television show in America talking about Amanda Knox and not the case itself in particular. She is and will forever be notable. and should thereby not be redirected.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The merge and delete sayers refuses to acknowledge the fact that Amanda Knox is the only party in this case that has recieved world wide coverage. She as a person has recieved more coverage than the murder itself. Amanda is famous beyond the murder and conviction today. And it saddens me that people are saying merge or delete without even taking into consideration these facts, just pointing towards the usual "no brainer" BlP this and One event rule this. Not really making statements to why they dont think she is notable. She is notalbe and that is fact.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 19:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would even go so far to say that Amanda Knox is more notable than the murder case itself. Really the murder case should be mentioned in the Amanda Knox article and not the opposit.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 19:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're not helping your case by inserting a comment after every post with which you disagree. In fact, it probably weakens it in that it appears as though you have some sort of irrational bias. Location (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no WP policy to prevent a user from responding, briefly, to every point made in a discussion. As for the term "irrational bias" please read WP:NPA and WP:Civility. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I never claimed that it was a violation of policy, nor should anyone infer any malevolent intent. I did attempt to point out that it is not helpful to the discussion to reiterate the save POV over and over. Location (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're really not helping yourself here, you know. Black Kite (t)(c) 20:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how you can say "I have said this for a long time" when your first comment on this was a week ago (as far as I can tell). Quantpole (talk) 21:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have stated that almost since the creation of the original article. So chill.
I am quite chilled out enough thank you. If you wouldn't mind pointing to these previous comments you refer to that would be just grand, as I couldn't find them. I only ask as you refer to them in your !vote so they may perhaps be useful to this discussion. Quantpole (talk) 19:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT: article restored after blanking. At 20:03 on 9 June 2010, I restored the contents of the article, which had been 65% blanked (removed) for almost 3 hours. Per WP:AfD, an article, during an Article-for-Deletion discussion, cannot be blanked, in order for other users to assess all the article's contents for WP:BLP or other concerns. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't blanked; all the material that duplicates the main article, or is dubious, was removed. As I have again. Your version of the article was a clear WP:COATRACK, because it was about the trial, not Knox. We already have an article about the trial. Black Kite (t)(c) 20:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Knox is clearly known only in relation to one thing. However, I do acknowledge that BLP1E does give grounds for an article on an individual if there role within an event is substantial. At this point Knox may justify having a separate article, as she has received a lot of coverage. But, all of that coverage is in relation to the event, and it is an event that is still ongoing. In 10 years time we may be able to write a good article on her as an individual, but at the moment it is all intimately tied to the event. Introducing excessive biographical details, or focusing on the other minor prosecutions, would fail WP:UNDUE. There shouldn't be anything in this article that couldn't be in the Murder of Meredith Kercher article. In addition the first reincarnation of this page was a clear POV fork, and it will require constant watching over and is likely to be subject to numerous edit wars and disputes (as evidenced by the history today already). As such redirect and protect is the best thing to do. Quantpole (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I entirely agree with Black Kite; this is just another WP:POVFORK article to soapbox for Knox's innocence; Knox is a clear case of WP:BLP1E. Salvio (Let's talk 'bout it!) 22:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article "Amanda Knox" had summarized all the events that make Amanda Knox notable, not just the first trial, but the 2nd trial for defamation, and the 3rd trial of the appeal about the 1st trial. Some might have been reading a version of the article which has been hacked to contain less information about all 3 trials. Amanda Knox does not gain individual notability from 1 trial, but rather from the combination of the 1st trial and the 2nd trial, as covered by major sources, over a period of years (see WP:BLP1E). The 3rd trial has been scheduled (as a trial de novo), so that adds to the notability, as a 3rd major event. If those trials are removed from her article, then notability would be justifiably questioned. Please read WP:NOTABLE. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT: article sections blanked again. Per policy WP:AfD, the contents of an article should not be blanked during the Article-for-Deletion discussion. A hollowed article can give the appearance that there is insufficient content to justify a separate article. Any users who have blanked the article contents, should restore that text to avoid violation of WP:AfD. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst those sections of the article contravene POVFORK and COATRACK, are duplications of other articles, contain text that isn't supported by citations, are weasel worded and synthesis, then of course they will be removed. They don't help the article; indeed they may sway people that the article isn't encyclopedic. Black Kite (t)(c) 23:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Much of what has been removed since the rebirth of the article did not appear to be conducive to an adherence to policy. Examples supporting removal: the section detailing the appeals process was inordinately long and slanted against arguments in favour of conviction, the presence of Friedrich Schwinge's "Blumenpflückerin" as a means of illustrating the subject of the article was misrepresentative if not absurd and, finally, sources such as this (styling itself "A site detailing the wrongful conviction of Amanda Knox & Raffaele Sollecito") generally do not leave a reader with the impression that the article has been written for reasons which are in accordance with Wikipedia's policies on NPOV. SuperMarioMan 01:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all notability here stems from the Murder of Meredith Kercher. Otherwise she's an unremarkable college student. AniMate 23:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability comes with the 2nd trial, so if acquitted from the first trial, then she must await the 2nd. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Full deletion, clearly, is out of the question, since "Amanda Knox" is a popular search term. However, with all dubious and questionable material removed, all the article is left with is a brief biography of Knox and her involvement in the Kercher case. That the amount of good encyclopaedic material remaining points mainly to the pertinent article (indeed, we have a "main article" link in the "Conviction for the murder of Meredith Kercher" section), with little detail of additional significance, hints that the reasonable conclusion here is a redirect straight back to the source article. As it stands, the content of this page is more or less a mirror of what is already present on the "Murder of Meredith Kercher" article, so there are no grounds for a merge. SuperMarioMan 00:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded text about the 2nd trial in this article. Notability comes with the 2nd trial, so if acquitted from the first trial, then she must await the 2nd. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The number of trials that a suspect is made to sit through hardly matters much when it is the same subject that is being deliberated. Time and time again, discussion of Knox loops back to Kercher (the murder victim), hence an assertion of notability on the part of Knox is inextricable from the parent article. Furthermore, the purpose of this edit appeared not so much to be to "expand text about the 2nd trial" as to add thinly-disguised (and irrelevant) slurs (in the lead section of all places) on the character of the prosecutor. To insert brief sentences on the subject of this trial and then allege that the person discussed is therefore magically extracted from the murky waters of non-notability does not conceal the all too apparent signs that this page was resurrected for improper reasons, as far as Wikipedia policies and guidelines stand. SuperMarioMan 21:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them.
As Amanda Konx is only notable for this event, she does not qualify to have her own article. —MC10(T•C•GB•L) 01:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but the question is "is she a low-profile individual"? Seems to me that 'Amanda Knox' is, for better or for worse, better known than 'Meredith Kercher' and has a very different notability profile than the other individuals charged with and/or convicted for the murder. Now that I've read the talk page on the murder article, I can see that there are other dynamics at work here (legitimate ones, I should hasten to add) but ....! --RegentsPark (talk) 01:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
She may be more well known than Meredith Kercher, but that does not make her notable, in and of itself. She is only well-known for the crime, not for anything else. The article is short enough to be merged back into the original aricle. —MC10(T•C•GB•L) 02:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I actually do think she is a low-profile individual. Unless some future event in her life makes her notable, she does not deserve her own article. —MC10(T•C•GB•L) 02:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Her individual notability comes with the 2nd trial, so if acquitted from the first trial, then she must await the 2nd. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Knox is notable only for the events surrounding the murder of Meredith Kercher. Knox had done nothing notable before the murder (1 November 2007) and was in custody 5 days later, where she has remained ever since. During that time she has done nothing notable apart from appearing in court at various times.
Although some have argued that the murder, investigation and trials are more than one event, the spirit of WP:BLP1E still applies. This works well in some other articles: Myra Hindley, for example, only exists as a redirect to the Moors murders, although she was involved in 5 murders.
If we remove from the Amanda Knox article all the events which are covered in the Murder of Meredith Kercher article, there's nothing notable left.
The media have certainly tried to manufacture a notability for Knox, beyond the events of the murder case. However, much of this has focused on things like Knox's sex-life, her cartwheeling at police stations, etc. We would either have to include thus stuff, and end up with a "tabloid" article, or choose only to include the positive writings about Knox, and end up with a POV one.
The Murder of Meredith Kercher article has been controversial, with several ANI cases, a mediation case and the need for serious administrator intervention at various times. A second article with overlapping subject matter will simply provide another opportunity for those who wish to push their own POVs, to switch their actions between the two articles.
The circumstances of this article's creation hardly bode well for managing consensus! There was a discussion ongoing about the desirability of creating a separate Amanda Knox article here. Wikid77 made a couple of contributions to it, but consensus had nowhere near been reached. Then Wikid77 unilaterally created the Amanda Knox article, without even mentioning his/her actions in that discussion. He/she has rather belatedly informed some individuals that "the article has been approved for expansion".[16] Apart from anything else, I am puzzled about who has "approved" the article, despite the lack of consensus.
You stated that Wikid77 has "belatedly informed" some, but during the same hour I was notifying people who had wanted to edit the article, a general announcement had been posted in the discussion to create the article, so there was no need for me to contact those other users: several were discussing and editing the article at that time, during that same hour. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The notability of Knox comes with the 2nd (defamation) trial, so if acquitted from the first trial, then she must await the 2nd, regardless of how Kercher died. The other article (Murder of Meredith Kercher) was becoming overshadowed by Knox's legal cases, including civil suits to prevent other books from being published: it was becoming difficult to describe the main topic, the murder, because all of Knox's other court cases were cluttering the focus of that other article. There was even an attempt to rewrite the entire text, to become smaller, due to all the issues involving Amanda Knox, rather than the murder itself. This 2nd article, "Amanda Knox" provides ample space for WP:NPOV neutral coverage of all the major Knox legal cases, reported in WP:RS reliable sources, and allows the other article to describe the forensic evidence of the murder, rather than all the court motions. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion, but I don't feel that this 2nd trial is in any way notable by itself. I'm pretty sure that there are dozens of similar cases each year. But, see below. Averell (talk) 11:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not require prior WP:CONSENSUS before creating an article: articles are based on individual notability, rather than popularity with readers. If a wiki-trend developed to discuss George Washington's first nephew, a group cannot decide to create a separate article based on consensus: articles are based on notability, which is explored during an AfD. I submitted a formal request to begin an article, advising that a WP:AfD would need to discuss notability, and that's how the article became "approved". As for being "belatedly informed", I was never even notified, via a talk-page entry, that this new article, which I started in entirety, had been tagged for AfD. So, I think that is unfair, not being notified, as the author, that the article has been tagged AfD. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I live in Italy and Knox, being constantly the focus of intense media attention here, is clearly notable enough to warrant a stand-alone article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree fully with your points.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I live in Italy too and, don't get me wrong, but, quite frankly, I don't see that much media attention, lately here. And, anyway, it was (and will be, probably, as soon as her appeal starts) all due to her trial, so IMHO it stands to reason that this article be made into a redirect. Salvio (Let's talk 'bout it!) 20:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: From the comments above it appears that both camps seem to believe this hinges only the interpretation of BLP1E. In my eyes, it does not. Even if the article does not fall under that rule (and there are valid arguments that it doesn't), that just means that the article could exist. Not that it must exist. What I am still missing here is the content that would make the article truly useful in addition to the main article. Until I see this content this article remains a merge/redirect candidate to me, as it would just contain duplicated information. The strongest case Wikid could have made for this article would have been a balanced article that showed what could go here beyond the main article. Instead, what came out was simply a different POV on the murder case and related events (the blanked sections make that even worse, IMHO). And we don't need a separate article for that. Averell (talk) 11:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect, keep nothing: Amanda Knoxs relevance and known bio has been stated on the Murder of Meredith Kercher article already. Wikipedia is not a news agency nor is it a celebrity fan page. Knox ist still just notable for the alleged murder of Meredith Kercher, and all her fame stems from this. That some known people in the US have commented on her case, does not make her more notable, as for example Oprah talks about a lot of people every day, and that still doesn't justify a sole article for these people. Further, there is absolutely no more or extra information about the person Knox in this article, than there is in the article of the Murder of Meredith Kercher. So whats the point? Akuram (talk) 11:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The keep-camp do not want a general study of AK's life, a biography. Even in the first article general reporting of her behaviour and previous life was edited as being an invasion of privacy and some editors objected that the information was not relevant. No extra information will be allowed in the 2nd article. Kwenchin (talk) 11:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect the article per WP:BLP1E and WP:COATRACK. I don't see why a stand alone article is required for Knox when the pertinent information is already included in the Murder of Meredith Kercher article, it just serves to further disparage the subject. If, as Averell23 states above "The other article (Murder of Meredith Kercher) was becoming overshadowed by Knox's legal cases", then it appears that WP:NOTNEWS applies. The article does not need to include every motion and minor civil case surrounding Knox, just a NPOV sourced paragraph clearly outlining the pertinent details of the trial(s) and the outcome(s) once known. Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 14:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Fairness required. This is a good example to open a RFC or some other method to get an agreement on BLP1E and murderers. There are more obscure murders that survive AFD. There are BLP1E people that survive AFDs. There should be consistency in Wikipedia. Since people's feelings are involved, this also becomes a question of fairness. People point to "other crap exists" but many of those articles have been subject to AFD. So if AFD produces different and inconsistent results, this makes AFDs look like a bad process. Since the single murderer question comes up often, it behooves Wikipedia to come up with a more precise definition. Also see WP:SimilarTreatmentIsOK. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 14:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While you have every right to do so, I find it a bit cheeky that you point to an essay that you've entirely drafted up yourself. And yes, it does contradict WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and also Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFF#What_about_article_x.3F, both of which appear to have broader support. In general, discussions should be decided by arguments on the case itself, not by meta-arguments from other cases. Averell (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Drafted a long time ago. There is another one that I cannot find. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On another note, this discussion is not about if we cover the murder or not. We do, extensively, in Murder of Meredith Kercher. This discussion is about whether we need an additional page on one person involved in that case, who is already covered in that other article. I don't know what you mean by "single murderer" event, but Wikipedia usually covers the event instead of the people involved in it. Averell (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And? That page stands on its own, it does cover the event and it is not an additional page on a topic already covered elsewhere. Averell (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
People familiar with the discussions on the Murder of Meredith Kercher talk page will know that the article is in the process of being completely re-written in light of the large-scale POV fact-bloating and -obfuscation that had caused the article to deviate from its prescribed topic - namely, the Murder of Meredith Kercher. Without this murder, Knox would have been no more or less notable than any other American college student in Italy. Assertions of notability currently appear to hinge on the facts that the December 2009 verdict is being appealed and that a retrial has been scheduled, as if there existed no legal precedents for such proceedings when in fact decisions to dispute rulings and initiate retrials are far from uncommon, and do not distinguish Knox as a encyclopaedic subject meriting an article focused on her alone. There is nothing notable about Knox's history prior to the murder, and with her conviction and incarceration her potential to become notable - to make further impact on the outside world - is compromised. And, turning to the future, in the case that the 2009 conviction is left to stand and Knox to serve the set sentence, there will be nothing more to add to the article further to her involvement in the Kercher topic - which is already detailed in the relevant article and does not require duplication here. Even with an acquittal, she could just fade from public view, and would be no more notable as a distinct Wikipedia subject. SuperMarioMan 21:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well you are talking about "if scenario" that isnt happening, The murder did accour and it is a fact that Amanda Knox herself has recieved alot more media coverage than the actual murder victim,the murder itself and all the other suspects combined, its facts that we cant disregard. The usual differetn WP rules on these kind of articles doesnt apply on Knox as she is a special case, just like Kosovo was a special case in international law. Knox has per fact achieved notability beyond the crime committed and there is no WP rule that can be used atleast not in my opinion to justify a deletion or merge of this article today. It also troubles me that the delete and merge sayers hides behind different insufficient WP rules when they have their say on thi particular article.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 12:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am also talking about how the article is - currently - presented, and how there is - currently - practically nothing to make it a true biography rather than just a rehash of selected portions from the Murder of Meredith Kercher article, which due to its duplication of material makes it a prime target for vandalism, trolling and subversive POV insertion. Declaring that "Amanda Knox herself has received a lot more media coverage than the actual murder victim, the murder itself and all the other suspects combined" is meaningless unless it is reflected in the sourcing of the article. Why is it that not one of the sources currently present discusses Knox in a framework that is removed from the murder of Meredith Kercher? And, at the same time, why is it still claimed that Knox is a "special case" with regard to Wikipedia's guidelines on living persons notable for one event, in light of such sources? (I won't go into the problem of the removed sections, their bias and their dependence on unreliable citations.) If there is material out there which sets a foundation for Knox's notability in a context separate from the murder of Kercher, feel free to prove me wrong by adding it to the article. SuperMarioMan 20:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWP:COATRACK lets cover the event not the person Weaponbb7 (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI don't like it is not a valid reason for deletion, nor is the POV of previous editors. If this were a routine, high-profile murder case, then I would agree to merging. However, the ongoing coverage specific to Knox has pushed her well beyond the point of "low profile" individual. We aren't looking at a brief flurry of coverage, we're looking at 3 years of ongoing coverage trials and related controversies. Horrorshowj (talk) 18:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And the coverage she gets is because of what? Yep, exactly. Because of the murder which she is involved with. She is not know or associated with anything else but the Murder of Meredith Kercher. She wouldn't get any attention, if she hadn't been arrested and tried for it. Even the TV shows her family have been at are inviting the family members solely, because of her involvement in the murder case. Since all available personal information of Knox is already stated in the article about the murder, there is no possible reason to justify an article for Knox herself. Akuram (talk) 19:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there's "no possible reason to justify an article for Knox herself," then why have several people presented one? The reason she's getting the coverage is irrelevant. It's ongoing, and the slander trial is separate from the murder trial. If Knox killed an inmate, would you claim that belonged under the original murder article, on the basis that it wouldn't have occurred without the original murder? According to WP:BLP1E, which apparently most of the people citing it haven't actually read, she would qualify as an exception. Horrorshowj (talk) 00:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, because this argument is the exact same one as probably flys would justify their appetite for cowshit to humans. Hundreds of billions of flys cannot be mistaken: "Cowshit tastes great". If you would actually look at these articles you are mentioning, you would find out, that there is no additional information in it. So why have it then? Akuram (talk) 09:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the Keep sayer. I mean Amanda Knox is definitly an exception to all rules thar regulary dismisses these kind of articles. She has reached notaiblity on her own and for her own person. We cant delete or merge this article anytime soon. This article will grow and Amanda Knox not the case itself will be in media for many many years to come.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 11:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ÅlandÖland, can you tell us what else will happen in the future? You seem pretty confident that "Amanda Knox not the case itself will be in media for many many years to come" ... what else do you see in your crystal ball? WP:CRYSTALBALL Only after Knox achieves notoriety for anything beyond this horrible crime, she would be deserving of a separate article. Jonathan 11:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathancjudd (talk • contribs)
Well, those oppose this article certainly uses their WP:CRYSTALBALL when thye say that she only has established fame inside the crime article and never will be notable on her own. How do you know that then?? Its a reverese conversation that can be turned and twisted to all sides of the argument. That doesnt make my argument or yours better or worse. I atleast am sure on my opinion that she has established notaiblity beyond the crime, as she is is the news a majority of the time and that all media is focusing on her more than the crime itself makes me think that the crime article should be redirected into the Amanda Knox article. We cant today redirect or delete this article, because she has reached notability. And that is a fact.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 12:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ÅlandÖland, nobody saying that Knox will never in the future be notable on her own - that's the whole point of WP:CRYSTALBALL - nobody has the slightest idea what might happen! AS of June 2010, Knox is notable for one and only one thing. Besides, she is fast wearing out her welcome and her defence team is crying wolf too many times, right now the only news articles related to Knox are tied to this Mafioso supergrass - Knox isn't doing anything today beyond sitting in a prison cell.Jonathan 13:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
"... the crime article should be redirected into the Amanda Knox article." So, to use parallel logic, should we have the John F. Kennedy assassination page merged into our article on Lee Harvey Oswald, because the murder of a US President ultimately isn't a big deal, and really only accounts for one small episode in Oswald's life? At least in the case of these two articles the notability of the subjects has been unambiguously established, which is a far cry from the situation that we are faced with here: a clone of sections from an article of note, which is claimed to be able to stand as an independent biography despite just reproducing material from that article of note. SuperMarioMan 21:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Redirect to murder article, per 1EVENT. Verbalchat 18:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/request. Although there are some arguments above, from the "keep" exponents, that policy does not preclude creating an "Amanda Knox" article, I have not seen a good argument for why such an article will be of value. Looking at the current version, for example, I don't see that it adds anything notable that's not covered in the Murder of Meredith Kercher article. Could someone who believes that the article should be kept please list a few of the notable facts and events that would go in the article on Amanda Knox but would not also be covered in the article on the murder? Bluewave (talk) 07:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE to closing admin: At this point, some of the issues to consider are: • Knox received so much coverage she is likely notable beyond 1 event. • Knox's worldwide focus was elevated (12 June 2009) when she claimed the Perugia police pressured her, into false confession, and claimed when police repeatedly asked, "Did you hear her scream?" then Knox replied no, no and no, but that became: Knox covered her ears to block Kercher's screams (denied by Knox). • Knox's claims led to 2nd trial (1 June 2010): defamation of police. • Could this separate article be controlled against BLP violations, and would extra discussions be spawned to limit privacy information? • Would having this article, as separate, then reduce POV disputes in "Murder of Meredith Kercher" and make BLP checking easier, since the title of this article indicates the person to guard for BLP slanting? Discussion below might raise more issues. -Wikid77 (talk) 02:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (point of accuracy). Just to clarify a point of accuracy relating to Wikid's 2nd point: Amanda Knox first claimed that police pressured and hit her, in a note that she wrote on 6 November 2007, as was widely reported in the press later that month.[17]. So I think it is a bit misleading to suggest the claim was made on 12 June 2009 (though it was indeed repeated then). My point is that that this is not some separate notable event that happened years after the murder: it all occurred in a period of a few days in November 2007, but the legal proceedings, as always, dragged on. Bluewave (talk) 08:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All this is somewhat besides the point if we still don't know what value this article adds to Wikipedia, given that the topic is already covered. Articles exist to inform the reader, no to address perceived policy problems or whatever. Averell (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Personally, I am astonished people are voting delete on the basis that it's a POV Coatrack. That something or someone is a controversial topic doesn't automatically make it grounds for deletion based on its controversy. I am less astonished about the BLP1E delete and redirect votes, and am somewhat sympathetic insofar as I see the overarching point... but I think that is an incredibly literal read of BLP1E. Amanda Knox is clearly, to my eyes and based on reviewing the sources, very notable independent of the trial -- and yes, that notability came about as a result of the trial, I fully understand that, but she is not inextricably tied to the one event anymore. Regardless, I seem to be in a minority here, and so long as the result isn't deletion (which seems like a pretty dramatic outcome for someone who is, at the very least, plainly notable) I'm not going to cry myself to sleep over this. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 03:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are right in the sense that this article does not need to be a coatrack. However, the original draft was clearly used as such. Its scope was mainly to paint the "Guilt and Innocence of Amanda Knox" in a different light. Which is/was a topic of a heated POV discussion in the original article. As I have said above, it hasn't been shown for what this article would be used were it not a coatrack/pow fork. Amanda Knox is clearly notable, but within the scope of the event. That is why I say that a separate page on her should only be started if her coverage in the main article shows the need. Averell (talk) 07:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Several people have made points to the effect that (as Ginsengbomb puts it) Amanda Knox "is not inextricably tied to the one event anymore". But what are the other events that are being referred to? The only events that people have actually referred to here are the murder, the trials, the imprisonment and the media hype surrounding them...in other words, events that are inextricably tied to one event. The current version of the Amanda Knox article just confirms this: there is nothing in it other than summaries of the contents of the murder article and some banalities. Someone please help me out here and tell me a few of the notable events, which are not tied to the murder, and which will justify Amanda Knox as a worthwhile article in its own right. Bluewave (talk) 09:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ginsengbomb, several of us have also commented that Amanda Knox has probably received enough attention to 'beat' BLP1E. What we are saying though is that despite that, all the coverage she receives is in relation to the event which she is connected to. If we have a separate article on her then it is duplication of material. On a practical level, I wouldn't be as concerned about it if it were not for the delicate position surrounding the article. The main article is enough trouble trying to keep to wikipedia policies, let alone having another one. There have been seemingly endless (often bad faith) discussions about it, and this would add an extra article to be fought over. If you think that a separate article should exist, then I would like to know what information you think should be in the Amanda Knox article, that shouldn't be in Murder of Meredith Kercher. Quantpole (talk) 20:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those are all very good points, and I can see how the separate articles cause problems when editing -- people tend to be pretty fired up about her case, and removing POV material from two separate articles, on two subjects, can be challenging. I suppose I would argue that a Knox article include elements of her background, the media circus surrounding her appearances in court, her character, etc. I should put emphasis on "suppose," because I'll be honest and say I'm writing this having not given it a considerable amount of thought, and it's possible there's some deep flaw to that proposal that I'm not considering. You might then make sure that the "Murder" article focus on the crime itself and very specifically on the trial, without undue emphasis on Knox. That ought to remove much of the POV potential from the "Murder" article (wishful thinking, I imagine).
I say "not inextricably tied" because so much of the coverage of the trial focused specifically on Knox' character -- the coverage of the trial, not the trial. To Bluewave above, you list four separate things that are not necessarily "one event." I think, in particular, the media hype has become such a beast in and of itself that it is precisely what justifies including a separate article. Knox became, very early on, much bigger than the trial -- "Foxy Knoxy," etc.
By the way, I should say that there's an element of "I have no idea how we could justify NOT having an article on Amanda Knox, she's been major headline news years now" to my arguments and opinions here. I am very biased in favor of inclusion, so if it looks like I'm glossing over your arguments against inclusion, please accept my apologies! I usually try and avoid deletion discussions where I have a very strong predisposition for this very reason. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I firmly believe that Amanda Knox is notable. I would pose the question that if Amanda Knox is not concerned notable, then why is the murder she accused of notable? While I always assume good faith, some editors on the "delete brigade" are over zealous and search for articles to delete with an almost religious fervor. I say KEEP! Michaelh2001 (talk) 15:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a question of who was first, the chicken or the egg.
Clearly the murder of Meredith Kercher happened first, and before that, nobody, except her friends, has ever heard of Amanada Knox. Amanda Knox is known to people because of her involvement in a murder case outside the US. She is not known for anything else. If you contradict, feel free to show me what she is known for apart from anything connencted with the initial murder case. The trial(s) got extensive media attention due to the fact, that a foreign country has dared to try an US citizen abroad. Now, this might make the trials noteworthy and there might be a need for a separate article of the trial(s), but not one for Amanda Knox, especially, if there is no additional information about her. In fact, the information which is known and allowed to make public is so little, that the artcile would be covering hardly more than a few sentences. Akuram (talk) 15:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Akuram, you are arguing semantics. You could make the same nonsense argument with most murderers. "Clearly the murders of the young people happened first, and before that, nobody, except his friends, had ever heard of Jeffrey Dahmer, or John Wayne Gacy, or for that matter many other single or serial killer.
Anyway, I maintain my Strong Keep. I believe that she is notable. I am also not so naive as to believe that the powers that be will let this article remain. The power patrol that goes around suggesting that articles should be deleted or moved/merged have already made up their minds and decided whats best for the entire Wikipedia community. They are going to do what they please, and they could give a damn about what I believe, or for that matter what any other user who disagrees with them believes. These little discussions make them feel justified in deleting them and deciding for the rest of us what we get to see. That doesn't change the fact that most of the deletes I've seen are ill advised. A week from now, when this article will surely be gone, the power patrol will feel good about themselves for a while, but they'll never be satisfied and they'll just keep looking for new articles to do away with. And in those cases, like this, they will have already have made up their mind, and they can justify it by saying, "Hey, we discussed it!" (rolls eyes). Michaelh2001 (talk) 18:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"I would pose the question that if Amanda Knox is not concerned notable, then why is the murder she accused of notable?" Notability is established on a topic-by-topic basis, not through a sequence of inheritance and transfer of noteworthiness from one broader-ranging topic to a subset topic. That the Murder of Meredith Kercher is notable is not in question. An article dedicated to Knox in isolation must be a full biography of her life and her effect on the world, demonstrating that she merits inclusion as a separate topic on Wikipedia for reasons besides her involvement in the Kercher case. This line from Akuram cannot be ignored: "... feel free to show me what she is known for apart from anything connencted with the initial murder case." The strongest evidence that I see of this at present is the citation stating that she is viewed as a bigger media personality than Carla Bruni - otherwise, nothing would be lost if all the article text were merged back into the Murder of Meredith Kercher page, or, given that it basically just replicates the relevant text on that main page, the article were redirected. SuperMarioMan 00:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Amanda Knox is now one of the most famous women in the U.S.. She will remain famous for the rest of her life, even if she is cleared of the Kercher murder. Hence, she is notable in the US;-- far, far more so than many US citizens who have articles about them on Wikipedia.
Actor Tom Cruise has purchased the movie rights for book on the Monster of Florence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monster_of_Florence_(book) by Douglas Preston and Mario Spezi. The book also covers Amanda Knox's involvement with the same Italian prosecutor, Judge Giuliano Mignini. Tom Cruise says that he intends to focus on the prosecutor and the unjust aspects of the Italian criminal justice system in his movie. As reflected in this book, Knox is very intertwined with the bizarre story of the prosecution of the Monster of Florence case by Judge Giuliano Mignini, as well as Mignini's prosecution and/or lawsuits against the West Seattle Herald, Joe Cottonwood, Oggi Magazine, Edda Mellas (Amanda's mother), Curt Knox, Carlos Dalla Vedova, Atty. Ghirga, Dr. Sollecito, Reporter Francesca Bene. Knox has been treated in a very controversial manner by Mignini, just as Mignini's bugging of journalists and other abuses of power have been controversial. Judge Mignini has been barred from public office for life, pending appeal.
Just as Amanda faced bizarre claims of satanic ritual leveled by Mignini, 20 other people faced claims by Mignini based on the death of Dr. Narducci and supposed satanic ritual involvement. According to reliable sources, Mignini was influenced in his prosecution theories by a physic named Gabriella Carlizzi who claimed that Knox was involved with the Order of the Red Rose at the University of Washington, and that the Order of the Red Rose was involved in satanic rituals connected with the murder of Dr. Narducci. Knox is the one person who allows all these fascinating threads and elements to be woven into one story/article. There is an enormous and fascinating story here that cannot be adequately covered in the Kercher murder article. So this short, stub article on Amanda Knox should be allowed to go forward and developed into the fascinating story that it could be. Zlykinskyja (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Zlykinskyja, What are the names of these "20 other people"? And calling Knox "one of the most famous women in the U.S." is a major stretch .. I live in the USA and don't believe that at all. One of the more infamous people convicted of murder, perhaps. You need to stop representing your opinion as the US position. Jonathan 19:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathancjudd (talk • contribs)
Jonathan, As for whether Amanda is "infamous" or "famous", it matters little. She is notable, as evidenced by the 360,000 hits I just got when I searched her name using AOL/Google. Also, please stop with these repeated false claims that I am trying to speak on behalf of ALL Americans. That is so silly. I did not say above, nor have I ever said, that when I express my OWN personal opinion that that somehow constitutes an expresion of opinion on behalf of all 300 million plus Americans. As for the names of the other 20 individuals falsely accused by Mignini, you can easily find those by Googling the Italian language stories on Mignini's recent sensational big loss in the Dr. Narducci case. Zlykinskyja (talk) 20:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Zlykinyskyja, keep in mind that Google hits in and of itself is most definitely NOT sufficient for inclusion a a Wikipedia article.
[[18]] Jonathan (talk) 21:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I say that number of Google hits was sufficent? I had just set forth my reasoning in detail above. There is more than sufficient basis for writing the WHOLE Amanda Knox story, which definitely encompasses far more than the one murder incident. There is a massive story here, when her links to the other Italian cases are included. It seems to me a little silly for anyone to claim that there is nothing more to the Knox story then what is included in the Kercher murder article. The REST of the story is so big, it will soon be coming to a theatre near you! Zlykinskyja (talk) 21:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You just lobbied for keeping the Knox article based in part on the number of Google hits in your response above! And it is quite dubious to claim Knox is "very intertwined with the bizarre story of the prosecution of the Monster of Florence". Knox herself has no direct connection to the MoF case. Jonathan (talk) 22:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NO. I made a mention of it to you. That was not my main argument. I might add that I just AOL/Googled the name Meredith Kercher, and came up with only 60,600 hits to Knox's 360,000 hits. This alone does not establish the greater notability of Knox, but it is some evidence of it, at least in the U.S.. As for Knox's connection to the Monster case, she is now indeed being directly connected to the saga via the NY Times Best Seller, Monster of Florence, due to Mignini's bizarre conduct in both cases. Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Zlykinskyja, my definition of "directly connected" must differ from yours. I see Knox at best indirectly connected via a prosecutor who had played a small role in the MoF case, but then again, so are dozens, if not hundres of others. Six Degrees of Separation. Jonathan (talk) 00:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From Zlykinskyja's comments, I'm finding it difficult to determine whether it is not so much Knox that is being claimed to be notable, or the prosecutor, as (unsourced and non-neutral, and not to mention hardly relevant) edits such as this appear to demonstrate. SuperMarioMan 01:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wragge, I was simply pointing out that Google hits should not come into the discussion when determining Wikipedia notability. The Amanda Knox article had been deleted in the past in part because it had become nothing more than a soapbox and / or advocation for Knox's innocence. Knox is indeed notable, but outside of the trial, there is little of substance that could be added. Jonathan (talk) 00:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Hi Jonathon; Knox seems to have a life beyond this one event, even though all her notability flows out of it. As I understand it, she's now involved in two inherent notable court-cases that are only tangentially linked to the murder, international celebrity, and production of a feature film. You could legitimately hold out for a while, but she's certain to need her own page eventually, and in the meantime the Murder of Meredith Kercher page looks terribly unwieldy. --Wragge (talk) 04:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. Its a keeper.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 19:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect -Apologies, I have to update my POV on this. This deletion was being abstractly discussed in terms of the WP:ONEVENT concencus, but that rule makes clear it has exceptions, and I thought that Knox (unlike Myra Hindley) was one of those exceptions (even though the exception-criteria aren't spelled out1). Looking things over, it seems you could make a case either way, so the important issue is practical rather than theoretical: will it improve Wikipedia to redirect? It appears nobody wants to add interesting details to Knox's bio other than those related to the case, but too many people want to edit-war. Because of that reality, one article will better serve the reader. In a perfectly neutral world, my earlier idea might hold water: maybe in that world, splitting would make sense (the one article does have a lot to cover)... But, in this world, it looks as though we'll end up with an uniformative coat rack.
Perhaps subsequent developments would be easier to track through the pages of less emotive characters (if that's needed at all). Someone mentions Keeping this for consistency with Jeffrey Dahmer... I don't see a separate article on his killings, but it gives a good example of what I mean: there is a separate page about a police officer only notable for meeting Dahmer; perhaps a Patrick Lumumba article would be the best response if his courtcase diverges into its own story? (Or, is there edit-warring over him too?)
1BLP1E defines the exception (to having a single article) as being for "significant events", and "The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources", but "reliable sources" are only negatively defined. Tabloid coverage is commonly seen as less 'reliable' than broadsheet, but in this case, even the credibility of the NYT has been seriously questioned -what is a reliable source, and how much coverage in it qualifies a subject for exception to BLP1E? Since those questions aren't even addressed there (except through a hard-to-interpret example) whether or not the exception could apply to Amanda Knox is undecideable and probably isn't a productive focus for this discussion. (The reference of the rule back to the example makes "how persistent the coverage is" look like a step in a fallacy of definition.) On the other hand, I'm learning this area - maybe conventions have been established -have they? (Although if they have, they aren't mentioned in this thread that I can see.)
Consider keep and delete, also consider what is done with Abby Sunderland. Abby Sunderland is a young sailor who is known only for one event, trying to sail around the world. From a strict rules standpoint, a BLP1E violation. However, logic dictates that "famous" people, people who other people look up in Wikipedia, should have a Wikipedia article. In that context, both Abby and Amanda should have an article. WP:SimilarTreatmentIsOK supports this. Abby has not been nominated for AFD. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah both girls has notaiblity beyond the actual activity that has made them famous in the beginning.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 19:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then per that pointy essay, which you made up the other day, perhaps you should nominate it? What information exactly would go into an article on Amanda Knox? If the only thing that would not be duplicated at the Meredith Kercher article is the assertion that she liked to take woodland walks, skip and jump and press wild flowers, then there is no need at the moment for a separate article. pablohablo. 21:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The SimilarTreatmentIsOK article was created long before the current Amanda Knox article and follows a similar essay written last year. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suomi Finland 2009, you're presenting a false choice here; there was no pre-existing Wiki article called The Disappearance of Abby Sunderland that had documented the lost-at-sea saga, and then an additional article on the actual person Abby Sunderland created - leaving aside whether or not Sunderland herself will be notable 10 years from now. All of Knox's actions relating to the murder are already documented in the main article. The question is this: What can be added to a separate Knox article so as to not become a WP:COATRACK? Jonathan (talk) 11:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck, that question's been asked half a dozen times of various people already. No answer so far ... pablohablo. 12:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No way this should be deleted. Somebody just mentioned this case on a forum I go on, and I never heard nothing about it before so I did a search on her name so i can read up on it. If the page was deleted then I would have nothing to research into for it. I do not see how this is even a discussion for deletion, does not seem to fit the criteria at all. Anyway whoever nominated this is a d-bag. gfy and gtfo 24.38.156.102 (talk) 21:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. What forum? Hipocrite (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For you and all other people coming from whatever forum: This discussion is about if we should have an additional Article called "Amanda Knox" that is separate from the main one, Murder of Meredith Kercher. That article is not up for deletion. And no matter how this is decided, you will always find the information you are looking for when you enter "Amanda Knox" into Wikipedia. Averell (talk) 10:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is No reason for deletion or merging of this article. Amanda Knox has reached notaiblity beyond a one time event.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 19:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you keep saying. Now, however, let's take a look at the current version of the Amanda Knox article. It runs to a grand total of four paragraphs, 18 sentences or 384 words (barely enough to fill one page of a Microsoft Word document at average font size). If indeed "there is no reason for deletion and merging of this article" (into Murder of Meredith Kercher) and "Amanda Knox has reached notability beyond a one-time event" (the murder of Meredith Kercher), why are there mentions of the name "Kercher" in each of the paragraphs? Since, in spite of the number of assertions of independent notability from "Keep"-voters, the article has not been expanded to reflect this supposed independent notability, what is there to lose from merging an 18-sentence article into its parent? At any rate, the current Murder of Meredith Kercher article includes more or less precisely the same information - only, since it is all presented on the same page as the murder details, it makes that article much more coherent for the reader in his/her understanding of the topic. What do you, and others voting "Keep", as editors of Wikipedia, intend to add to this article to justify its separate existence as a biography, not a duplicate of sections from another article? The burden is on you. SuperMarioMan 00:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And also nothing in the Knox article can be sourced from blogs, fan sites, advocacy, self-published or other such non-verifiable places that are not allowed as a reliable source. Almost the entirety of the Knox blogosphere falls outside of what is considered a reliable source for an encyclopedia. Jonathan (talk) 13:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I recognize the POVFORK and BLP1E arguments have their merits, but the bottom line is that Knox is just too notable at this point not tto have her own article. I think that Konx has become a cause celebre in certain circles and that the details of her life are of enough interest to ttranscend WP:COATRACK; either the murder article will drown with too much detail, or info that is worth keeping will be lost. I could be convinced ootherwise, but the weight of the arguments above (at least the better ones) hasn't convinced me yet Vartanza (talk) 13:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
agreeing with you fully. This is a definite keep article.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 19:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed! STRONG KEEP! The murder of a young woman does not by itself warrant an article. Sadly, murders in Italy are probably fairly common. The Kircher story is notable because a young American girl was charged and convicted of her murder. If the young woman from Seattle were not involved in this case, nobody would have ever heard of Meredith Kircher. KEEP! Michaelh2001 (talk) 20:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, what is the info that would be lost? What is the content that should go into the Knox article? Nobody here disagrees that she's notable as a result of the murder case. Yet neither in this whole discussion nor in the article have I seen the content that would make it keep-worthy. My question: If this article became a redirect again what would we loose? Averell (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"If the young woman from Seattle were not involved in this case, nobody would have ever heard of Meredith Kircher."(Michaelh2001) That statement is ill-thought-out, untrue and offensive. pablohablo. 13:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To adapt Michaelh2001's logic to a higher-profile situation, I wonder if this statement would be considered accurate: "The assassination of a US President does not by itself warrant an article. Sadly, John F. Kennedy is not the only President in history to have been assassinated. The assassination of John F. Kennedy is notable because a man who had briefly defected to the Soviet Union is suspected of being the killer. If the former Soviet defector were not involved in this case, nobody would have ever heard of the assassination of John F. Kennedy." Of course, it would not, because to make assertions of notability based on nationality is viewing the case from completely the wrong end of the telescope. SuperMarioMan 05:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible keep. Yes this person is notable for a crime, but this person is notable for a crime with worldwide coverage. This article is similar to Jack the Ripper or even Jeffrey DahmerHell In A Bucket (talk) 13:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They were serial killers.Malke2010 18:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So what's your point? There is still significant world wide coverage. People should really read the one event notability guidelines. Somtimes your case is big enough to warrant a stand alone article. use common sense here. Would Marcus Junius Brutus be remembered if he hadn't committed one crime? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be little evidence of "significant worldwide coverage" given that, as the article stands, only 14 sources are referenced, and that the majority of those sources are from US media outlets (some of which are questionable in their reliability, to say the least). As time draws on, I suspect that this AfD will be closed with a "No consensus" verdict, but unless the article is going to be expanded to reflect the claims of distinct notability from "Keep"-voters, the question of deletion, redirection or merging is more or less destined to crop up again in the not-too-distant future. As it is, there is nothing in the Amanda Knox article which could not be explained just as accurately, yet much more conveniently, as part of the Murder of Meredith Kercher article. SuperMarioMan 05:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a interesting point. I take this as a example of notability [[19]] ironically the first result is a uk news article. However I think that this point might make me change my opinion. I am going to think about it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. There's nothing that could go in this article that wouldn't already be included in the Murder of... article. This article is different to Jack the Ripper or Jeffrey Dahmer because neither of the those people is notable as a result of a single event (they are each notable for a series of events). --FormerIP (talk) 09:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Nothing here that isn't or can't be included in Murder of Meredith Kercher. I imagine any forthcoming fully independent information will just seem trivial so that a stand-alone article won't be justified for the time being. – sgeurekat•c 11:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Amanda Knox might - just might - be an exception to WP:BLP1E... but only if the article includes some verifiable, non-POV information not already in Murder of Meredith Kercher. It doesn't and seemingly never has, so it can't justify a stand-alone article. I would have no objection to recreation should she become notable for a second event. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The relevant portion of the WP:BLP1E guidelines which I think makes a separate article on Knox more than appropriate is: "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." Hell in a Bucket's above GNews link [[20]] strongly suggests, to me, that Amanda Knox has indeed been the subject of persistent, ongoing coverage. If you review the sources in that link -- all of which are extremely reliable -- their subject is not the murder and/or trial but is instead Amanda Knox. The Hinckley example listed in the BLP1E guidelines is a somewhat interesting corollary but I think it is best-suited to merely illustrate the point -- there are a multitude of individuals notable for, loosely construed, "one event" that are still very clearly notable enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia. I argue that the persistent nature of the coverage focused on Amanda Knox passes this hurdle (and, in my opinion, does so by quite a wide margin, but that is more subjective). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on my comment: I suppose the rebuttal to this concerns the relative significance of the event (is the attempted assassination of an important U.S. President more significant than the murder of Meredith Kercher? I think the answer to that is "yes" :), which is indeed a valid rebuttal. I think my overall point here is that this is a much more subjective call than one might think if one is just going blindly by the BLP1E guidelines -- the guidelines do not, to my eyes, provide a black-or-white picture of what to do with this article. The guidelines do not provide for semi-automatic deletion of all individuals notable for only one event. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ginsengbomb, I think you're misunderstanding something here. The portion of WP:BLP1E you cite permits separate articles under certain conditions. But I don't think it should be taken to mean that an article positively needs to be created once a person achieves a certain level of fame. Myra Hindley, for example, doesn't seem to have been considered notable enough outside of the topic of the Moors Murders to warrant her own article. I think the relevant question is not "is she famous enough?", but "is there any point to creating a separate article?". An article on Amanda Knox would be a place to put information about Amanda Knox which is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia but which, for whatever reason, it is not appropriate to include in Murder of Meredith Kercher. Since no such information appears to exist, an Amanda Knox article is surplus to requirements.
My impression is that a number of users feel that Amanda Knox has actually become more notable than Meredith Kercher's murder, and that it makes sense for her to have her own article for this reason. It's a bit subjective, but I find it hard to see how a person notable for one event can become more notable than the event itself. I don't think it makes mathematical sense. --FormerIP (talk) 10:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly agree that the portion I'm citing does not necessitate the creation of anything at all. I was arguing that it doesn't exclude the creation of anything, such as an article on Amanda Knox. I disagree that the relevant question is not "is she famous enough" -- that is the essence of the matter in most any AfD (insofar as famous = notable), this one included. That is the "point" which you reference in your second question. There is a point to including an article on any notable topic. The BLP1E guidelines are an attempt to get at the problems surrounding notability for persons associated with one event, but they in no way say "persons notable for one event are not notable," or similar.
As for the rest, completely agree that it's all very subjective. This is the essential problem we are grappling with in this AfD -- it's a relatively subjective call, and the guidelines don't offer any easy resolution.
As for whether a person can become more notable than the event they are notable for...I would posit that that's actually pretty commonplace. I think Amanda Knox is, by name, clearly more notable than the event which spawned her notability (notoriety? :). Either way, it's also immaterial. Mark David Chapman is hardly, by name, more famous than the event for which he is notable, but he's clearly a valid article in an encyclopedia.
Regardless, let me caveat this entire reply by saying it's almost entirely subjective in nature -- I don't think anything I'm saying is unadulterated truth to your unadulterated falsehood, or vice versa. If that makes sense. Sorry for the lengthy reply. I babble :). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 14:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stubify to the trials. The trials make her notable. RussianReversal (talk) 01:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
reiterate - Strong keepKnox has made the murder and the trial notable. Italy has murder trials all the time, do they all have a Wikipedia page? No. This trial is notable because a young woman from Seattle is the accused killer. If anything, the murder page should be merged into the Amanda Knox page. STRONG keep!!Michaelh2001 (talk) 20:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Michaelh2001, you seem to have forgotten a) to log in, and b) that you have already !voted above. Twice. pablohablo. 19:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a page name "Amanda Knox" is a very interesting suggestion. It's actually consistent with the brief paragraph that is O._J._Simpson_murder_case#The_murders, but it's going to be hard to get a similar consensus for naming a murder article after the (more famous) person accused of perpetrating it. --Wragge (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible that, as Knox exhausts the appeals process, a standalone article will become desirable. At the moment, I can't see that it is. pablohablo. 20:46, 16 June 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) 00:20, 16 June 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) 00:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparent copypaste promotional biography of herbalist. No real claim to notability: "instrumental in founding" a college is too vague, almost no 3rd party refs to be found except [21] DGG ( talk ) 15:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I concur; delete. DS (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of evidence for passing WP:GNG. Although I found this AfD through the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions it appears that he doesn't even come close to passing WP:PROF, as someone who assisted (rather than taking the lead) in founding two WP:FRINGE institutions. And the article reads like an autobiography in that it includes far more personal detail than the (nonexistent) sources can support. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:21, 13 June 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 List of Big Brother (UK) shows. Feel free to retarget to a more suitable target, or to merge any usable material from the page history. T. Canens (talk) 03:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a long established standard that any television programme that airs on a national network like Channel 4 is de-facto notable. MickMacNee (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as you've Afd'd it a day after it aired, all I can offer you right now as evidence of its independent notability is that it was considered notable enough in of itself to be recommended viewing by The Times and The Guardian, and that on the overnights it was watched by 1.342 million people. I presume you aren't expecting a full page special in Newsweek, but I really don't know what you would consider GNG type coverage for a television special. MickMacNee (talk) 17:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In which case, the article should be deleted. KingOfTheMedia (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rubbish. At worst, your argument is a case for merging. Deleting, i.e. effectively pretending that the programme never even existed, is just nonsense. MickMacNee (talk) 19:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly. What little it does contain is misleading tosh frankly. Pretending the show had never happened would actualy be preferrable than directing people to that dubious list article. MickMacNee (talk) 19:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This documentary isn't worth its own page, it is just very mundane TV. Anything worth keeping can be taken to the relevant BB page. Szzuk (talk) 19:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to say keep, till I realized it was the UK version. Here in the US, we can usually rustle up two sources for a TV episode, but after a (very) small amount of checking, I couldn't find two for this show. So, redirect. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:18, 10 June 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) 00:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely non-notable software product; article by single-purpose account. No indication of notability, nor have I found any coverage at all. Haakon (talk) 12:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete zero coverage online (not even a project website), article doesn't assert notability, editor's username indicates WP:COI. Possible WP:HOAX. Empty Buffer (talk) 12:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found zero sources. Joe Chill (talk) 15:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hard to determine for sure whether this even exists, and it certainly isn't notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:45, 9 June 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) 00:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Where is my crystal ball...oh I found it...lets have a look...oh the film got canned. Szzuk (talk) 19:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per waaaaaay TOOSOON. Early production began only last month. This project might become notable enough to meet WP:NF in the future, but it hasn't yet. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 00:59, 10 June 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 merge to Bustan (organization) as there looks to be some agreement by all parties with a merge. –MuZemike 21:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The cited sources either do not talk about Brous or only mention her in passing. Brous fails WP:N and thus this article should be deleted. Basket of Puppies 12:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Nom had PRODded this article. I de-PRODded it, mostly because it has quite a lot of sources, which are not as irrelevant as the nom implies above, and at least merits a discussion. HeartofaDog (talk) 16:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think this article falls on the right side of the line (admittedly perhaps not by a great deal). The sourcing is actually pretty good for someone in the charity / NGO sector - humanitarian work doesn't get the same media space as sport and light entertainment, sadly. HeartofaDog (talk) 16:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've pruned the external links a bit, as there was some duplication (and I can't get the links to the various back numbers of the online Jerusalem Post to work), but frankly I think the nom is mistaken.HeartofaDog (talk) 17:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Based upon the above, it is clear that the references either are dead links, Brous is mentioned in passing, an unreliable blog or not mentioned at all. Thus, Brous does not pass the notability test. Basket of Puppies 19:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dead links: It seems not to be possible to link to old editions of the Jerusalem Post online, as I noted above, or to those of Haaretz, but as both are hard copy newspapers, dated refs to the articles are still valid.
Mentioned in passing: refs back up specific pieces of information in the article, which is what this one does: not evey ref has to be an extended biography of the subject.
For the rest, it seems to me that unreflectingly waving WP:RS like a magic wand at anything you don't like is not v productive. DB was founder and director of BUSTAN: there's no reason not to refer to the BUSTAN website for confirmation of that and of her activities with them, and so on. (Personally I have no problem with the blog either, which is a long-established and apparently well-regarded one, especially as this part of it is reproducing a letter by DB). HeartofaDog (talk) 23:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Bustan (organization)—notable in the context of Bustan, but probably has no individual notability to justify an individual article, per Basker of Puppies. —Ynhockey(Talk) 21:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I cd probably go with that if necessary.HeartofaDog (talk) 23:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with merge, but only if the article for the organization can be salvaged from the huge copyright violations is suffers from. Large chunks of the article are direct copy/paste from the Bustan organization, of which I could not find a compatible license. Basket of Puppies 05:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above, pending copyvio clarification.--PinkBull 18:30, 16 June 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) 00:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article makes no real claims of notability and has no independent sources, nor could I find any sources indicating notability. He appears to be just a local/minor-league wrestler. Papaursa (talk) 05:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails the General Notability Guideline and is very close to a speedy being a blatant case of not even trying to claim notability aside from naming names as influences and even that is questionable. RICKME DOODLEYOU DOODLE 09:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Article doesn't even make a claim. Fails WP:GNG. Astudent0 (talk) 16:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't even make a serious claim of notability. Horrorshowj (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy DeleteCSD A7 per the three comments above this one. AinslieL (talk) 08:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable as has already been said. Podgy Stuffn (talk) 03:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, & article does not show notability. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 17:36, 15 June 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) 00:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can find no third party sources that show he passes WP:MANOTE. Astudent0 (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Can find no independent sources that show he passes WP:MANOTE. My search found his name connected to eastern U.S. tai chi activities, but none of the sources were both independent and showed notability. Papaursa (talk) 02:51, 12 June 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) 00:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a footballer who fails both WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE. This is because he has made no professional appearances, and has no other claim to notability. Pretty Green (talk) 10:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Player recently promoted (reportedly) to first team squad but yet to make an appearance in competitive fixture. Fails ATHLETE, only general sports journalism failing NTEMP, fails GNG. Premature. Recreate if and when. --ClubOranjeT 11:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original PRODer, fails both WP:ATH (has not played at a fully-pro level yet) and WP:GNG due to lack of significat media coverage. --Jimbo[online] 16:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 23:23, 9 June 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) 00:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a footballer who fails both WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE. This is because he has made no professional appearances, and his only other claim to notability is playing at international under-17 level and being the brother of another footballer, neither of which are adequate for an article. Pretty Green (talk) 10:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:FOOTYN. Playing for the U-17 national team does not make one notable for inclusion. Movementarian (Talk) 10:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as the original PRODer, Alnwick fails both WP:ATH and WP:GNG. Youth caps do not confer notability. --Jimbo[online] 16:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 23:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Player yet to make an appearance in competitive fixture. Fails ATHLETE, only general sports journalism failing NTEMP, fails GNG. Nothing changed really since last time it was deleted. Recreate if and when. --ClubOranjeT 06:52, 10 June 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) 00:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a footballer who fails both WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE. This is because he has made no professional appearances, and has no other claim to notability. Pretty Green (talk) 10:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NSPORTS as there is no evidence of a first team appearances. Movementarian (Talk) 10:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Player recently promoted to first team squad but yet to make an appearance in competitive fixture. Fails ATHLETE, only general sports journalism failing NTEMP, fails GNG. Premature. Recreate if and when. --ClubOranjeT 11:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 23:20, 9 June 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) 00:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a footballer who fails both WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE. This is because he has made no professional appearances, and has no other claim to notability. Pretty Green (talk) 10:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 23:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. fails ATHLETE as he hasn't yet played for 1st team in professional competitive match. Nothing but general sports coverage.--ClubOranjeT 09:04, 14 June 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) 00:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have not found sources that support notability. Janggeom (talk) 15:27, 11 June 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. Jayjg (talk) 03:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Game mod which cannot be verified through reliable independent sources, and by extension does not pass our notability guidelines for inclusion. (WP:V, WP:N)Marasmusine (talk) 09:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the best I could find were three very trivial mentions using the Google Scholar search. No reliable sources to speak of on the web, and any moderately reliable ones I found were trivial mentions of DarkPlaces as the Nexuiz engine. Not enough to satisfy WP:N unfortunately. --Teancum (talk) 14:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mods are almost never notable enough for articles, and nothing about this one indicates it's any sort of exception. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep highly-important mods upon which several other mods, total conversions, and full games have been based on. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to any published material to back this up? Marasmusine (talk) 08:33, 10 June 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 all. Jayjg (talk) 03:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such notion or concept among Jews or in Judaism as to who the top 10 or top 50 or top 100 Jews are at any given time, so this is a very shallow newspaper gimmick, almost a total joke, what Wikipedia would classify as Wikipedia:Listcruft. These list/s are derived from a small minor newspaper (it used to publish in Yiddish but went defunct, was bought out, now publishes in English) that pushes its own POV view creating many new "red links" in these lists for people who would not qualify for their own WP:BIO as matters stand. Violation/s of WP:NOTDIRECTORY as well as WP:NOTADVERTISING. The creator of these articles/lists is using them as a springboard for setting artificial POV "criteria" for who are the world's "most influential Jews" (see the discussions at Talk:Most influential Jews), when it's just the work of one small near-defunct paper that is on life-support from philanthropic support. These articles/lists could just as easily have been set up as External links in the main The Forward article that would be more than sufficient. Otherwise it would be ridiculous for Wikipedia to have articles on "The top anything" derived from relatively minor POV news sources, especially in a Judaic context where they make no sense, indeed many are highly disputable, and are highly POV. Whatever little general information other than names, is salvageable, should be incorporated in the main The Forward article. IZAK (talk) 08:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following directly related articles/lists are also nominated for deletion for the above reasons IZAK (talk) 09:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC):[reply]
Delete all but with the caveat that I wish the nominator had avoided the gratuitous insults to The Forward in the nomination ("small minor newspaper", "small near-defunct newspaper that is on life support"). The Forward has been around over 100 years and was the home publication for a winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature. Admittedly, that doesn't mean we should reprint their "Forward 50" here, given the apparent of independent sources showing external attention to the list. If Entertainment Weekly or VH1 published a list of the top 50 of anything, and the list itself was non-notable, would that be a reason to insult that magazine or that network? No, it would just be a reason not to reprint the list here in Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90(talk) 15:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Metropolitan90: The Forward of yesteryear, was published in Yiddish and that was a base not just for Isaac Bashevis Singer but for many other well-known Yiddish writers and luminaries is long gone, just as the demands for that kind of secular Yiddish culture has all but disappeared except in a few rare academic circles and among a few very old secular Jews. The Yiddish Forvaarts (Yiddish name for The Forward) was actually shut down and became defunct but was bought out by investor and philanthropist Michael Steinhardt and was re-launched as a relatively small English paper with no real resemblance to its Yiddish namesake that was the mouthpiece of the working class Jewish Yiddish secular socialist, Bundist and communist followers. While the new The Forward is an avaunt guard paper supported by a capitalist financial wizard hedge fund manager, and were it not for his support The Foward would not exist. This was all reported in the media, see "PROFITS & PASSIONS:...Steinhardt had invested in the English Forward..."; "The Forward Is Backward: New York's Unclassifiable Jewish Weekly...It's a story we would expect to come out of Moscow: A Jewish journal, founded in 1897, which had busts of Marx and Engels on its building facade, gets taken over by an eccentric millionaire fond of his pet emu, and now it's in favor of Israel and the CIA. But the ex-socialist paper is New York's Yiddish-language Forverts, and Michael Steinhardt, half-owner of the English-language Forward, is a stockbroker, worth $300 million." (Read the rest, it's fascinating and informative.); Steinhardt also uses and manipulates it to promote himself, and presumably those whom he wishes to co-promote via his paper via these kinds of Forward "top 50" lists, see "Assessing the Forward 50...The List: Who Made It and Who Did Not ...Six philanthropists made the cut...Lynn Schusterman...Michael Steinhardt..."; and this report: "IN THE NEWS: Steinhardt...The Forward, a feisty, New York-based weekly Jewish newspaper, has announced tentative plans to make its English-language edition a daily paper by 1997 - the 100th anniversary of its founding as a Yiddish publication by Jewish labor movement activists.Fueling the plan is a multimillion-dollar investment in the paper by Michael H. Steinhardt, a highly successful Wall Street money manager and financier.Steinhardt is putting $4 million into the venture, according to The New York Times." It's almost as if The Forward has become Steinhardt's mouthpiece and newsletter (not a feisty pro-socialist independent paper that it once was in its original Yiddish incarnation) to the affluent secular Jewish world that he wishes to communicate with and who probably pay no heed to it in any case since they would prefer to read the NYT or Google news. If you have other information it would be great to deepen this AfD. IZAK (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can't find any evidence that The Forward's Yiddish edition ever was shut down and became defunct. They apparently dropped from daily to weekly publication in Yiddish in the 1980s, but that's not the same thing. I admit that this is a tangential issue to this AfD, and the real question is whether other publications take note of the publication of the annual Forward 50, which would be a sign of notability for the list. --Metropolitan90(talk) 20:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The paper was as dead as its parent corporation when they sold off its assets, and had not Steinhardt arrived as the white knight to buy the newspaper's name in the 1990s the paper would have been dead and buried because the parent corporation sold off all its assets like its once popular WEVD multicultural radio station ("the station that speaks your language") and its Forwards building in Manhattan (now converted into condos). It was up for grabs with a teeny circulation down to about 5,000 from hovering at the 100,000-200,000 mark at its peek. So yeah, you could say it came back from the dead, but only just and barely recognizable as its old self (because it wasn't!) At any rate, this gimmick of "top 50 Jews" was just one ruse to try resuscitate a paper whose time had come and gone. IZAK (talk) 07:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Izak, this is a self-published list meant for advertising. Yossiea (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This list is just a newspaper gimmick, as IZAK says. It's not different than any other arbitrary celebrity list. Dfass (talk) 20:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)—[reply]
Strong deleteVancarlimospacecraft, WP:WING, opinion, OR, not notable, etc. etc. etc. What next, top 25 labradoodles according to the national enquirer? Avi (talk) 16:28, 11 June 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. Apparently, I'm not very good with Google. — ξxplicit 18:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable musical group. Fails WP:NM as the subject lacks significant coverage from secondary reliable sources to assert notability. Prod was contested. — ξxplicit 08:27, 9 June 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, Blatant HoaxLenticel(talk) 23:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. No sources are cited, and I can find nothing about it elsewhere, having made a number of searches for different combinations of words from the article. It may well be a hoax, and if it isn't then it is completely non-notable. (Prod was removed without any explanation.) JamesBWatson (talk) 08:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly speedy delete under WP:CSD#G3. This is either a hoax or someone's home/amateur film. IMDb and GNews list nothing by this title. A Google search also provides nothing relevant, the closest thing to a related search result is thisYahoo! Answers thread started yesterday (this article was also created yesterday) stating only "What is Pusang Sawi the movie? Anyone?" IMDb has no entry for the director or any of the actors. A Google search "BSD Productions" provides no promising hits in terms of film production companies. The film's "poster" doesn't seem to actually exist; Darkfufupao (talk·contribs), who created the article and the image file, claims to have created the image himself. Bottom line is that there is no proof that the film exists or that anything listed in the article is true. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:54, 9 June 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 I've been reviewing the entire discussion and previous discussions for a while. I know that any close on this article is going to be contentious, so let me try to explain my rationale and read of the debate. First, the raw count of keeps vs deletes is (approximately) 44 to 39 (I may have miscounted) but for all practical purposes, it was a split decision. Second, the trend at the end was to keep (roughly 17 of the last 20 !votes were to keep.) Thus, I could have easily have closed this as "No Consensus" and been safe in doing so, but that is the easy way out and these discussions are not based upon raw counts. It is the strength of arguement. So I read this thing very thoroughly. Plus, if I closed this as "No consensus", then round 6 would be right around the corner. So I read this dilligently and it took me almost 2 hours as I looked up every link (many of which I saw repeatedly.)
First, BLP does not apply as this is not an attack on Gore. As Adb points out, this isn't an attack on Gore, but At the most, this page describes an attack on Al Gore, and it's a notable "attack." American History is littered with terms and ideas that mock famous individuals, particularly politicians. JohnBarber below lists just a few of the concepts/ideas that have been written in the past about famous politicians. This is NOT wp:otherstuffexists, but rather a demonstration that it is part of the American landscape to have these controversial ieas/concepts. Are they complimentary to the person being described? No. But that isn't the question, the question is are they well documented and in widespread use? The concept of The Gore Effect has been shown to be documented by reliable sources and in widescale usage.[22][23][24][25][26][27] And opinion pieces in major magazines/newspapers [28]
Most of the people who are !voting to delete are doing so from the perspective that they don't like it or don't think it is "encyclopedic." That it is a Neologism. But being a Neologism isn't necessarily enough to delete---heck we even have a Category:Political neologisms. The question is, is the term in widespread use? Used by a variety of people? And docuemented? THe answer to those questions is yes. Whether we agree or disagree with the concept, it is a term used by opponents of global warming and as pointed out below by weathermen. What is enclyclopedic? Saying something isn't encyclopedic, is just another way to say, "I don't like it." An encyclopedia can contain anything and everything.
But the argument by user:Technopat was probably the most compelling: Well–sourced article referring to a term in mainstream use, regardless of whether it is pro–or anti–Gore. Wikipedia is where I would turn to if I came across some such a term in the editorial of a mainstream newspaper and I would be dismayed if there were no mention of it here. As with any potentially polemical article here, may require more vigilance by the Community, but that’s pretty much par for the course. I have to agree, this would probably be my first place to come.
I also found user:Metropolitan90 argument to summarize the reasons to keep it, The article has numerous sources indicating that the "Gore Effect" is a notable satirical idea or joke used to portray Gore and other believers in global warming. The article does not portray the Gore Effect as being an actual hypothesis about the relationship between Al Gore speeches and the local weather. Those who think it is a stupid idea or joke should add additional sources, such as this Salon article, which portray the proponents of the Gore Effect negatively, rather than seeking deletion.
Wether we like it or not, this is a term that has entered into the lexicon and people will be interested in it. Deleting it, thus is not the best option, the best option is to ensure that we have moderately well written neutral article about the term and it's usage.---BalloonmanNO! I'm Spartacus! 08:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
This article is fundamentally unencyclopedic: it is a dictionary definition of ideological trivia comparable to "Teleprompter President" and all the Bush/chimp jokes - Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It is simply not a topic substantial enough to warrant coverage in a serious, respectable reference work. The page is ultimately an attack page; although the polemic of the original version has been cleaned up, it's little more than a list of quotes supporting an Urban Dictionary-style definition of a particular line of political invective. The fact that the page has been deleted so many times before should indicate that it does not have a hope of being a suitable subject for Wikipedia. This kind of thing is more suited to Uncyclopedia than Wikipedia. ChrisO (talk) 08:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Nothing has changed since the last deletion debate: it's still simply a poltical cheapshot masquerading as an article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per previous deletions. There is no way this deserves its own article like this per multiple obvious policies, all raised previously. Verbalchat 08:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No substantial coverage, appears to be a political attack. AniMate 08:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete - how many times does this stupid thing have to get deleted before people get the message? As per the above, as per previous debates; please stop wasting our time William M. Connolley (talk) 08:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified Keep - having not seen any of the previous versions, I cannot comment on them. However, thie current version does a good job of citing reliable sources for the use of the term. The term itself well may be an attack term, but the article does not apear to be so; it merely documents the use of the term. However, as this subject has been deleted several times, the article ought to be moved back to usespace, and then go through the proper deletion review process. - BilCat (talk) 08:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the term deserves any coverage at all, it should be in the parent article - and at most a line. Verbalchat 08:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism. Most of the article is taken from a Washington Times editorial, which is not a news article and is therefore not a reliable source for facts. It actually says, "In October 2008 London saw the first snow since 1922...."[29] However an article from the Telegraph says, "During the 1991 event level snow lay 12 inches deep in central London, and on January 12-13, 1987, the deepest snow was in south Essex, Kent, Surrey and south London with 22 inches reported in the Maidstone and Gillingham areas."[30] The editor who inserted this obvious fallacy into the article appears to live in or near London and would be aware of this. TFD (talk) 08:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Finding such an error would be relevant if we were debating whether the term has scientific validity. But that's not the debate. The debate is whether the article deserves to stay, not whether the Gore effect is real, which it most certainly is not.--SPhilbrickT 11:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that a source which reports false information is not reliable. Of course as an editorial it fails reliability for facts anyway. TFD (talk) 17:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I didn't post this earlier. Per the Lovely article currently the # 2 footnote in the article "And less than a week later, on Oct. 28, the British House of Commons held a marathon debate on global warming during London’s first October snowfall since 1922." (emphasis added)--SPhilbrickT 12:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Al Gore and the environment. If this were reduced to a single sentence with a couple of non-blog, non-Op-Ed references, such as the NYDailyNews.com and the Australian Herald Sun, surely no-one would object? The term itself could be redirected to the appropriate section in the destination article, and we'd never need to have this debate again. - Pointillist (talk) 08:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to merge. If you want a one sentence summary then fine, propose it on the talk page - but to suggest that would be a merge doesn't make sense. Verbalchat 09:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, we need a better name for that sort of merging. Anyway, I've done the summary now, see below...
The first source is a column by Andrew Bolt in the Melbourne Herald Sun. The second source is a column by Michael Daly in the NY Daily News. None of these are reliable sources and it would be original research to make any claim about the usage of the term by finding it used by some columnists - you need an article that explains how the term is used and who uses it. TFD (talk) 10:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree you'd need better sources to support an entire article on the subject, but those sources are sufficient for the claim that a coincidental juxtaposition of cold weather and a visit by Al Gore has been dubbed "the Gore Effect." I'm just proposing that a single sentence linked from a redirect is the least worst way to handle this perennial proposal! - Pointillist (talk) 10:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
you should then add the name of the person(s) using the term. TFD (talk) 11:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apologetic Keep. Sorry, I appreciate the serious opinions lined up against me on this. But the article has a certain number of merits and would probably be in the better half of articles on the English WP since we have so so many much trashier ones. We shouldn't take ourselves so seriously, its ok..--BozMotalk 10:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a hoax, so that is "right out." Does not attack Gore in any way, so that is not grounds for deletion. Makes no contentious claims about Gore, so BLP is not grounds for deletion. "Per previous deletions" manages to be a non-reason -- if one opposes an article, one ought to come up with a current rationale. The term has now been found in almost every US newspaper. What we see instead is "IDONTLIKEIT" raised as an argument against a non-polemic piecem which is an exceedingly low-weight argument in any AfD discussion, and should be viewed accordingly. Absent any high-weight grounds for deletion, default to Keep" Collect (talk) 10:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agenda driven article, sourced to partisan opinion pieces OR opinion pieces that have taken note of the obscure neologism only to point out that it's childish and stupid.Bali ultimate (talk) 11:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was all ready to vote delete, but then I looked at WP:WINAD, WP:NOR, and WP:V. The term, like it or not, has been defined in a a Washington Times editorial. While blogs and the like are not considered reliable sources, editorials in mainstream newspapers are considered reliable sources. The threshold that a neoglism must achieve per WP:WINAD is that source is "about the term or concept" and is not merely using the term. The editorial does define the term and combined with the other major press coverage, is a legitimate topic for an article. Movementarian (Talk) 11:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:RS#Statements of opinion: "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers." TFD (talk) 11:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Honestly, I'm not bothered whether the article stays or goes due to an opinion on global warming, which seems to be the case for some (not an attack on anyone in particular, just a personal observation). I just don't think we should be deleting things that meet our standard. That said, I think you might be right on this one. WP:N states that a topic must have "reliable sources that address the subject directly in detail." Going by WP:RS#Statements of opinion, editorials don't count which makes sense because they are basically original research. Barring the presentation of an article (not an opinion piece) in a reliable publiction that reports on the topic, I am changing my opinion. I looked myself, but everything I have found are blogs and opinion pieces. Delete.
Keep. The sources are solid, please feel free to check them out. This is a real topic. In my opinion, the opposition to this article appears to be partisan in nature. Note this and this and this.Cla68 (talk) 11:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As has happened, unfortunately before, editors are removing sourced text from this article during the AfD. Not good. Cla68 (talk) 11:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis do you believe the sources to be solid? Whether the nominator has a bias or other stating thier opinion have bias is irrelevant. The concensus policies stated above, in my mind, clearly exclude this topic because there are not "reliable sources that address the subject directly in detail." Movementarian (Talk) 12:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. Check the sources. They all directly address the topic, so there are no problems with WP:SYN. I know because I checked them all personally before recommending that the article be posted in main space. The partisan nature of this nomination is relevant, because I honestly don't see any other reason why an article as well-sourced as this one would be nominated. Cla68 (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I saw this article because it was briefly linked in Global warming controversy. It does not belong there, as it is anecdotal at best. Unlike some of the flawed theories at that page, the Gore Effect, in the words of Wolfgang Pauli, "is not even wrong!". However, while it fails as science, it doesn't purport to be science, and is correctly described as a humorous term. The term is ubiquitous, occurring in enough reliable sources that it is very plausible an individual might turn to Wikipedia to learn more about it. I feel strongly that there should be an article about the Gore effect—I'm less strongly convinced this is the article. But we don't generally delete articles that simply need some improvement to meet our standards. It would help immensely if, for example, the Columbia Journalism Review article pointing out that it doesn't meet the burden of scientific proof. The article feels unbalanced - quite a number of references talking about the anecdotes, not many challenging it. Surely there are some other than the CJR.--SPhilbrickT 11:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for glossing over the Benin and Siegel references—the balance is better than my first impression, but could still be improved.--SPhilbrickT 12:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Political invective?! At the same time that this is supposed to be a joke?? Oh, please. Al Gore is a WP:WELLKNOWN figure and we don't need to protect him from a common kind of satiric humor -- that meets WP:N -- because we're worried he's going to be the victim of a Wikipedia "attack page". The article meets all Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Whenever I see "unencyclopedic" in an AfD, I wonder whether this is a way of avoiding saying "I don't like it". The commentary on the phrase from Benen and Siegel show that the article goes beyond a mere dictionary definition. This is a notable example of political humor spread for political effect and inherently a proper topic for this vast, non-paper encyclopedia. Let's not censor ourselves in order to favor one side over another in a political controversy. This would make a good addition to Wikipedia:Unusual articles, joining such august company as Miss Me Yet?, Obamaism, Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet (we're going to protect Al Gore but leave some obscure Canadian politician to the wolves?), Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner, Polish Beer-Lovers' Party, a certain horribly named article about
The Bushism sources seem to be sourced mostly op-eds, just like this article. In fact, there are perhaps half a dozen cites to the same Time "best of" feature. I fail to see how similar op-eds in the Wash Times, The Globe and Mail, The Times, Herald-Sun, etc, fail where the similar Bushism sources succeed. And the Great Moments, section (I didn't realize at first it wasn't an article) is not sourced at all and describes the creation of a comedian, not even a journalist. If Gore Effect goes, a lot has to go with it, IMO. ATren (talk) 13:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not an attack page and to say it is is just plain silly, it is a well known phrase and meets all the criteria for inclusion in wikipedia mark nutley (talk) 11:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We have articles like Bushism, so this seems OK as long as it's sourced. ATren (talk) 12:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that it is not properly sourced. Blogs and editorials are not reliable sources. Movementarian (Talk) 12:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Query is this article about an actual hypothesized effect on weather, or about a funny joke? Hipocrite (talk) 13:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response to query - it's an article about a joke (some prior versions pretended to take the idea seriously). A funny joke? Depends on your POV. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why does an article about a joke have a bulleted list of press mentions? Do other articles about jokes have lists of press mentions? Hipocrite (talk) 13:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In a previous AfD I recommended weak keep because, although there were many sources, there was only one written about the term in detail. The sourcing of this article looks a little better than the one I recommended a weak keep on (and I still would have preferred to keep that article). This isn't the biggest article but it's all verifiable and in my opinion, notable because it's discussed in multiple reliable sources. Cazort (talk) 13:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I am mistaken, but none of the sources that have been provided are considered reliable sources. Everything I've seen is from blogs and editorials. Movementarian (Talk) 14:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is completely incorrect. All the sources that were present when the article was posted to main space meet our definition as reliable. I know because I checked them all first before recommending that the article be posted to main space. Cla68 (talk) 22:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is my problem and why I do not believe that the sources are reliable. Everything that has been presented is from a blog or opinion piece, which do not meet the standard for reliable sources. Can you point to a non-opinion source that addresses the subject directly in detail? Something factual that has undergone the editorial process? Just because you say that the sources are reliable does not make it so. Movementarian (Talk) 05:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's not me that is saying that they are reliable sources, it's WP's policy. Anything published by a major newspaper, journal, or magazine is considered reliable, including newspaper editorials and blogs. Also, not all the sources for the article are editorials. The definition itself comes from a book. Cla68 (talk) 06:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to point to the Politico article too. I also want to point out that the context of the editorials is important, in terms of discussing whether or not opinion pieces are acceptable for establishing notability. WP:RS talks about how opinion pieces are generally acceptable for sourcing opinions/perspectives/viewpoints of authors, but generally not for sourcing facts. I think notability is more subtle. An anonymous opinion piece in a local or niche publication, or a piece from a non-notable author, I think would play little to no role in establishing notability. But for example this editorial: [31] is by Terry Wogan, a very solidly notable figure, published in the telegraph, a major news source, and although the whole piece is not written in detail about the Gore Effect, the mention is substantive / non-trivial. I would factor that source in more solidly in establishing notability, even though it's an editorial. Cazort (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obscure meme of the fringe ideologues; sources are incredibly weak. No more encyclopedic than the fact that some haters called the former First Lady "Hitlary" Clinton. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The ideology behind this term is irrelevant, the question at hand is: is there enough coverage in reliable sources to establish notability? Cazort (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "Bushism" returns 99,500 google hits[32]; "Bushisms" returns 152,000 Google hits[33]; "Gore Effect" returns 122,000 google hits[34]; "The Gore Effect" returns 743,000 google hits[35]. 'Nuff said.
Actually, your stats are off. There are 443 GHits for "The Gore Effect", while there are over 800 (google caps at 800) for "Bushism" [36]. Given that the premise you used above actually demonstrates the opposite of what caused your vote, would you like the closer to assume you are voting delete? Please also read Wikipedia:GHITSHipocrite (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is your stats are "off" Hipocrite. Walking through the hits as you have done does not give the actual number of unique hits. "Google's list of unique results is constructed by first selecting the top 1000 results and then eliminating duplicates without replacements. Hence the list of unique results will always contain fewer than 1000 results regardless of how many webpages actually matched the search terms." [37]. --Epipelagic (talk) 12:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was taking another look and found a less-skewed result. "The Gore Effect" encompasses much more than references to the humorous concept which accounts for the overly large return I cited above. These look more representative...
"Humor Bushism" returns 161,000 google hits[38]; "Humor 'Bushisms'" returns 295,000 Google hits[39]; "humor 'Gore Effect'" returns 2,550 google hits [40]; "humor 'The Gore Effect'" returns 132,000 google hits[41].
Could you confirm you've read WP:GHITS? You are aware that google "hit" estimates are, in fact, terrible, as demonstrated by the fact that adding "the" in front of "gore effect," which should lower hits, in this case, raises them by a factor of 40. IE - your google stats are meaningless. It appears you are taking random statistics and using them to justify a conclusion you've already drawn. Is that accurate? Hipocrite (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For example, [42] "Humor", "The Gore Effect" has 465 actual hits, while [43], "Humor," "Bushism," again caps out at "more than 1000." Given that your new search terms again demonstrate the opposite of what caused you to vote keep, are you now voting delete? Hipocrite (talk) 14:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The search-engine test may, however, be useful as a negative test of popular culture topics which one would expect to see sourced via the Internet. A search on an alleged "Internet meme" that returns only one or two distinct sources is a reasonable indication that the topic is not as notable as has been claimed.
I believe 132,000 adequately satisfies the popular culture parameter...and "Bushism" has been around considerably longer than "Gore Effect" which probably impacts the return as well.JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article basically consists of a dicdef and a few examples of usage. And a couple sources that call writing about the term "asinine" or the like. Writing an article to demonstrate usage is WP:OR. So - take your pick - delete as a dictionary definition of a non-notable neologism, much of the content of which is original synthesis intended disparage the subject of the article, who happens to be a living person. Guettarda (talk) 13:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WELLKNOWN is as much a part of policy as anything you've cited: In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out. If I'm misreading this, I eagerly await your speedy deletion of Bushisms as an attack page -- because I'd love to see the fireworks. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that WP:WELLKNOWN doesn't apply here as we aren't talking about the person. Movementarian (Talk) 17:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then neither does Guettarda's citing of WP:ATTACK or WP:BLP in general, which was my point. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I see where you are going now. I don't think that WP:ATTACK applies either, but the other argument has merit. Movementarian (Talk) 18:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pointillist. A full article for this isn't warranted. With the addition to the Al Gore article and a redirect, it's covered. Ravensfire (talk) 14:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonnotable neologism, dictionary definition, original research, and an attack page. Edison (talk) 14:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there are reliable sources (i.e. not editorials) that actually discuss the use of the term in depth then fair enough, but we don't seem to have that. Rather, we have a few jokey type columns and examples of usage. None of this amount to something we can write an encyclopaedic article with. Quantpole (talk) 16:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stong Delete per Guettarda, esp. the comment that Mr. Gore is a real living person. I don't see this as notable enough to have a whole article about it. I think the editor Pointillist adding it to the other article covers this. I also agree with the others that this is an attack piece. With all the deletions of this article, common sense says this article shouldn't be. --CrohnieGalTalk 16:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of, if I heard the term I would expect to find it on WP. It is preposterous to view this article as an attack on the subject.Jarhed (talk) 17:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jarhed, an alternative proposal is to link the phrase to a short summary like this one in the Al Gore and the environment article, so the term will still be able to be found on Wikipedia. - Pointillist (talk) 17:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Al Gore and the environment. While I agree that sourcing for this article is more than adequate, the overall effect is that of a "POV fork." It should be merged with the Gore-environment article. A separate article on this subject is overkill. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Al Gore and the environment. Merger would create undue emphasis on this trivial issue, as pointed out below. Agree with subsequent comment by Squiddy that existing reference in that article is sufficient. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a "POV fork" effect here, since (a) there is plenty of sourcing to show negative attitudes toward the joke and (b) the subject isn't primarily about Al Gore or even "Al Gore and the environment" -- It's about how a funny set of coincidences is used by one side in a political debate to make a point about the variability of the weather as a symbol for variability and unpredictability in climate forecasting. As a symbol, it's got some value for rhetorical effect, but no value in terms of evidence for policymaking. Any article in Category:Political neologisms could be accused of being in effect a POV fork of some topic, but we should have separate pages on subjects that stand on their own as satire or neologisms. Sticking this in another article would limit the space for it for WP:UNDUE reasons, and it's worth having enough space for definition, usage history, commentary, etc. By giving this enough space, we actually provide an opportunity for someone interested in the topic to see how it does and does not provide insight into the topic of climate change. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On reliable sourcing Various editors have made the point that the sourcing isn't reliable. But that's just factually wrong. I just noticed something: Although the article cites a Columbia Journalism Review (CJR) article [44] which links to Erika Lovely's piece [45] at the Politico website, the Wikipedia article itself doesn't cite this reliable, secondary source. The Lovely article, "Tracking 'The Gore Effect'", which is not an opinion piece, addresses the subject in detail. Criticism of Lovely's article at the bottom of the CJR piece does not address it's reliability (although the CJR piece does severely criticize a separate article that Lovely wrote). The CJR critic calls the Lovely article vacuous and asinine -- not unreliable, which is our concern here. We have absolutely no reason to doubt that the Lovely article does not reliably give us a multitude of facts about the subject, a number of which are in our article with citations to different sources. Nor is the article simoply an example of usage -- it is in fact an exploration of the topic, citing its history and how it is used in climate debate. I'm adding this source to the article (two-edit diff [46]), and it should make obsolete all comments so far about lack of reliable sourcing. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing isn't the issue. As I said in the nomination at the start of this discussion, the problem is the fact that the material is fundamentally unencyclopedic. It's the kind of thing that might merit an entry in the Urban Dictionary. It's not an appropriate topic for a mainstream encyclopedia. No amount of sourcing will change that. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Other editors have brought up whether the sourcing is adequate for notability, so it is an issue for this AfD. I addressed your arguments in the comment with my !vote above, where I pointed out that widespread Wikipedia practice has been to retain this kind of material as encyclopedic as long as it meets policy requirements. I'll add that the topic has been thought by reliable sources to be notable for their purposes of news reporting (Politico) or commentary (Columbia Journalism Review, Huffington Post, Washington Times -- all reliable at least for us to cite their opinions). -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're conflating two different things. The sourcing is poor. That doesn't mean that the sources are necessarily poor. It just means that the sources don't adequately demonstrate the notability of the term. I pointed out that widespread Wikipedia practice has been to retain this kind of material as encyclopedic as long as it meets policy requirements - the policy that matters most is WP:NOT. Dicdefs of neologisms aren't encyclopaedia unless there are good secondary sources that can be used to add something substantial, beyond a dicdef. There's nothing of the case here, just some examples of use. Which is, of course, OR. Guettarda (talk) 18:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing of the case here, just some examples of use. You're factually wrong. This material from the Lovely source is not "just some examples of use": "there’s no scientific proof that The Gore Effect is anything more than a humorous coincidence" [...] "Tracking The Gore Effect 'doesn’t contribute much to the actual making of policy,' said House Energy and Commerce Committee Republican spokeswoman Lisa Miller. But it 'can be fun.'" [...] The Lovely article also provides a definition of the term and examples of use of the term from a third party. The article is not simply a dictionary definition with examples, which is what the "just some examples of use" objection (based on WP:DICDEF policy) is all about. The commentary from Huffington Post, CJR and other sources are also not "just examples of use" but commentary on the subject of the article. Your objections are without basis in Wikipedia policy. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What the Columbia Journalism Review thought of the journalistic quality of that particular article: [47] "anachronistically bad", "yesterday’s terrible article", "pretty shocking ignorance of good journalistic practice", "vacuous" and "asinine". If thats the best source .... Active Banana (talk) 19:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, the author of that CJR article said most of that about the main article, not the sidebar, which is cited here. The "vacuous" and "asinine" bits were about this sidebar. The CJR article does not say that Lovely's sidebar was unreliable. That's our interest here. The CJR author's blustering about "vacuous" and "asinine" is irrelevant. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems like a term that i have actually heard myself. and per other keep sayers here.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added the German source and as well the hint to the German article. Harald Martenstein in Die Zeit sees the effect as Nature resp God having some humour. Of cause humour does exist only in Germany nowadays. The Metoffice drove it out of great Britain I assume and its not legally advisable to mock Climatism in the UK. In earnest - the effect got enough media cloud internationally to be mentioned in a major german Newspaper and the German WP and I assume the denialists here have finally to acknowledge it here as well. --Polentario (talk) 21:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I argued to Delete a previous version of this article, but I think enough reliable sources have now been found to demonstrate that this is a notable meme, no matter how silly many of us think it is. I don't think it has particular issues with the NPOV or BLP policies, if carefully written. I would be open to a merge with Al Gore and the environment or elsewhere, but I think the basic content here - that about the concept itself, if not the unnecessary list of alleged examples - is worth keeping somewhere. Robofish (talk) 02:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, I am amused to read my comments on the last MFD of this material: "this is never going to make it into article-space. It's been twice rejected at AFD, and I can't imagine any plausible circumstances where it becomes article-worthy." Well, I've got to eat my words. I've changed my mind: this has become worthy of inclusion in article-space, though whether as a separate article or as part of another one is a matter for discussion. Robofish (talk) 02:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — I can see no convincing arguments substantiating a deletion proposal. Apcbg (talk) 09:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep—this is an exceptionally interesting article on a topic I had previously never heard of. The existence of the concept (not its truth, obviously, but the notability of the satire itself) appears to be well-covered by numerous reliable sources including the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Daily News, Politico, The Times and The Washington Examiner to name but a few. Sure, it's sarcastic – but we have an article on pastafarianism. Sure, it's perhaps demaning to Al Gore – but that's no reason to omit it. Well-cited articles on notable topics should not be deleted. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 09:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a term actually used by many people and has been referenced by mainstream media as well as many conservative organs including National Review and, to the other extreme, the raucous Urban Dictionary. WP includes a great deal of arguably unencyclopedic information, which many of us believe it part of its appeal. I find it useful when tracking down some element of the popular culture, such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Why should we avoid the Gore Effect when we include, for example, the FSM, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, and Bushisms? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopienso (talk • contribs) 10:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a well written, well sourced and encyclopedic article about a notable eponym. The fact that previous articles with the same title have been deleted is not a good argument for deletion - we should be considering the contents of this particular article, not any previous incarnations. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A silly article about an unimportant attempt at belittling an important issue. There is a picture of Bush apparently talking into an upside-down telephone handset that is much funnier ("Three Brazilian soldiers are dead?! Just how many are there in a brazillion?"), but only the most unbalanced view of Wikipedia would think that that deserved its own WP article. Neither does this. --Nigelj (talk) 11:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting to think WP:NOTFUNNY should be an argument listed on WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Yes, I agree it's not funny. That has nothing to do with whether it's a notable joke/meme that deserves an article. Robofish (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I covered that in my !vote, saying, "an unimportant attempt at belittling an important issue" - please don't try to alter the sense of what I wrote by focussing attention onto only one part of it. --Nigelj (talk) 13:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
unimportant is your subjective opinion. At the 'pedia we judge these things in terms of WP:Notability and we have standards for that. Standards which this article meets. We also cover "silly" subjects in a serious way. I mention this long, deep, wide, august Wikipedia tradition in my !vote above. Your argument amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. When you can gather up anough reliable sources about your "brazillion" joke, you might have an article there. As of now, your comments are outside Wikipedia policy, and vee haff veys of dealink mitt dat. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How dare you tell me that my contribution here is "outside Wikipedia policy"! Do you want me to go through all the votes that you do like and find all the ones that don't explicitly reference a wikipedia policy document? Picking one at random, "a well written, well sourced and encyclopedic article about a notable eponym" - there are policies like WP:MOS, WP:CITE, WP:V etc that this contributor did not cite in the text of their !vote, but I don't see you up there telling them that their contribution is "outside Wikipedia policy". I think, when you are in a hole, you should consider ditching the spade. When you WP:AGF, you should allow others to contribute without concerted bully-boy tactics to invalidate their contributions or to scare them away from making future contributions. My judgement, under the policy of WP:NOTABILITY, is that this article is about an "an unimportant attempt at belittling an important issue", which I believe makes it "silly": as silly as would be any other whole article about a American political joke that saw a small amount of local and humorous coverage within a small sector of the US press for a short time. Then I get jumped on by the waiting bully-boys to try to invalidate that view and focus attention onto everything I said apart from "unimportant", and then to claim that "unimportant" means nothing here, unless I say "non-notable" and wikilink relevant policies. What is this? A free !vote, a trial, or a rally? --Nigelj (talk) 14:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the concept attempts, in your opinion, to "belittle an important issue" is immaterial. Our page on Bushisms is about the important issue of the US having a semi-literate President. Our page on Yes Minister is about a concept which poked fun at the British government. Being a neutral encyclopedia, we don't exclude material simply because it belittles important issues (and again, that is only your opinion). ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 14:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RE: "we don't exclude material simply because it belittles important issues". If there isnt anything beyond belittling, yes we do: Wikipedia:Attack pageActive Banana (talk) 13:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And that is your opinion. My original !vote was intended to read, to an informed reader who is well aware of WP policies as I am sure the closing admin will be, that this article is about a tiny non-notable corner of both a notable subject (global climate) and a WP:BLP (Al Gore). As such, while it may warrant a well-sourced sentence or two in an article on one of those topics, it does not warrant an article of its own. If judged in the light of any other politically motivated jibe at a US political figure, it is seen to be of such marginal importance (notability) or interest (e.g. humour value) in the light of all the other such material out there, that it should be deleted. One article on all the Bushisms that for many worldwide characterised that presidency, or one on all the series of Yes Minister that were aired, that were widely regarded even by the UK PM at the time, is a completely different level of coverage. This is one article about one repeated attempt at humour at the expense of one US politician, that received little or no coverage outside the US local and occasionally national press. All that, in two lines and with a bit of humour too. Then the attacks began - focussing the reader's attention onto the humour rather than the main point, then that the main point is invalid under guidelines for administrators that recommend ignoring '"bad faith" opinions include those being made by sock puppets', saying, "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any)." Now you compare the article with things that are in no way comparable and reiterate that my "opinion [...] is immaterial". That is not rational discussion, which should be basis of comments in an AfD (per WP:AFD) --Nigelj (talk) 15:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nigelj, why is it that every time you post here your edit removes my reply to Guy, below? Would you please stop doing that? Please restore it. Your statements have all been answered above, and this is getting a little long. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My statements have all been answered?! It's your and others' comments that needed answering. My explanations may not make you happy, but I had every right to make them. Don't challenge my views and then tell me you don't like the fact that I responded in the necessary detail. I've apologised for the edit conflict problems all that created on the talk page here. --Nigelj (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and allow redirect. Obviously this is kookery but the question is whether it's notable kookery. I say not. Guy (Help!) 12:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My first thought, reading this AfD, was to Merge, but looking at the sourced and detailed depth in the article, I realized that what is available in notable and usable sources would unbalance any article on Al Gore, even the more specific Al Gore and the environment. At the very least, this should be merged, with the full article available in history for possible future use, but keeping it and having a section in Al Gore and the environment, in summary style, is superior. All the stuff about "attack page" is nonsense, at least not as it is now, and I'm a supporter of Al Gore. At the most, this page describes an attack on Al Gore, and it's a notable "attack." It does not validate that attack. God does have a sense of humor, and, I believe, so does Al Gore. --Abd (talk) 13:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Silly, smirking, mocking, and fakely-inflated series of "coincidences," unfit for Wikipedia. DanielM (talk) 14:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So basically you don't like it? I'm thinking particularly of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 7th example comments listed in that section. ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 14:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Seem marginally notable idea but not Encyclopedic as is Weaponbb7 (talk) 14:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For reasons that are explained better by others before me I see no reason why this warrants more than a passing remark ibn either the Al Gore or Global Warming article.If I were looking for a collection of jokes WP is not the first that comes to mind.--- Nomen NescioGnothi seautoncontributions 15:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a piddling neologism. As I noted in a recent AfD, "Usage does not equal notability". Usage of the term in a derisive manner is not the same as reliable sources covering the term itself and its meaning. What few sources that do address the subject itself are OpEds, and we do not push opinion as fact around here. Thus, per WP:RS#Statements of opinion, there is no basis at all here for an article. I would not that several of the "keep because it's harmless" !votes should be weighted quite far down the scale when it comes time to close this. I would not strenuously oppose a redirect to Al Gore and the environment, but even that is a little shaky. Tarc (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the secondary source used in the article that refutes your comment. This has been mentioned above. [48] I think WP:NOTNEO is the most relevant part of policy here. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A single source don't adequately demonstrate the notability of the term. At best, it justifies a mention in the main article, using politico as its source. Tarc (talk) 15:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2009m12d15-The-Gore-Effect-sets-in-on-Copenhagen-as-heavy-snow-is-forecast and #2(b) http://www.
examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2009m12d7-The-Gore-Effect-strikes-as-the-UN-climate-summit-begins Now, for some freakish reason, the Examiner is on some kind of Wikipedia Spam list, but if you remove the spaces after the "www." you should be able to get to the articles. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The examiner is a self-published thing that looks legit on the surface but is really not, hence the spam filter.--Milowent (talk) 16:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable Source #4 (transcript, "American Morning" on CNN) [52]
Four sources, which, taken as a whole, certainly provide significant depth of coverage, including numerous examples, definition of the subject, criticism of the subject and information about attitudes toward the subject by those who use the term. This is in addition to the commentary and other sources, which can be used for limited purposes in the article. All WP:GNG criteria are met. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You keep swinging and missing, Noroton. #2 is a blurb about its urbandictionary entry, while #3 and #4 are one-off namedrops. No coverage of the neologismm itself in a reliable source has been presented in this AfD. Tarc (talk) 01:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thank my lucky stars you're not the ump. You're misusing the word "blurb". Come to think of it, you're misusing the phrase "reliable source". The Toronto Globe & Mail is one. It's irrelevant that the mention is short in specific sources: the substantial coverage required by WP:N means overall coverage by the sources taken as a whole: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail -- not all sources, just "sources". For this kind of subject, we have plenty of details, particularly from the Politico article. The other two sources are also reliable. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the best definition we can get is the Gobe and Mail's cut and paste of the user generated content in Urban Dictionary.com, we are in trouble. Active Banana (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To change sports metaphors, if the best you can do is move the goalposts from "reliable enough to include in a Wikipedia article" toward criteria for handing out some kind of journalism prize, your argument is in trouble. There is actually no doubt that the definition is correct (plenty of other sources that use the term have cited the "Urban Dictionary" website). Providing proof from the Toronto paper is just reliable sourcing that should satisfy anyone. Cut-and-paste is just fine for Wikipedia as long as the cutter-and-paster's organization is a reliable source. It's the source's judgment we're relying on, not the source's originality. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: First of all, the "Gore Effect" is an idiotic claim in a world full of people who have no clue about science or the scientific method. But that should be irrelevant to this discussion. The term itself has received significant press coverage, e.g., [53]NY daily news, Dec. 20, 2009, "The Gore Effect brings snow to New York City.", [54], the Columbia Journalism Review, noting how impossibly stupid the concept is yet cited by the press, [55] Politico, [56] Salon, [57] Herald-Sun (AU), [58] (NY times, albeit blog commentary), etc. All those who wish to claim the coverage is insignificant probably haven't looked, but I steeled myself and did. So, the term and the concept is clearly notable, and there is certainly enough out there to allow the creation of an encyclopedic article. Personally, I would rather than when someone googles "gore effect", they'd be greeted with this as one of the top hits instead of some IQ-challenged outlet like The Climate Depot.[59]. The average editor may not believe it, but there are millions of people in the world who actually believe crap like this is real instead of a joke, even though the jokesters know it. It comports with the goals of this project to retain this article. Should we delete articles on Young Earth creationism because its silly from a scientific perspective? I would think not, because the subject is notable.--Milowent (talk) 15:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is plenty of coverage in reliable sources, and the term is definitely notable. Whether or not the article is written with a proper level of neutrality is a separate issue. Torchiesttalk/contribs 16:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although editorials in generally reliable newspapers are not considered reliable sources for "facts", they are considered reliable sources for usage. Young Earth creationism, on the other hand, is just WP:FRINGE, and should be treated as such. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 16:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please excuse me if I break any rules since I am not familiar with posting here. However when I saw that "The Gore Effect" page was up for deletion, being a AGW skeptic for many years and having heard of someone named "William Connelly" that seems to have a lot of pull for censorship of any articles in Wikipedia that are critical of the AGW crowd, I had to come here to see if he was behind this attempt as well...
Well..... no surprise here.... I say... keep "The Gore Effect" and stop deleting articles just because they don't support your particular beliefs.... Wouldn't it be interesting if the shoe was on the other foot, and it was skeptics that had influence in Wikipedia and deleted the AGW articles.... Catoni52 (talk) 11:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)— Catoni52 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Hi - please remember to assume good faith. I've already argued to keep the article, but no one is trying to censor anything here. Talk of politically-motivated factions controlling our articles is highly unhelpful, and in any case irrelevant to the question of whether this particular topic deserves an article. Robofish (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an original synthesis by search engine. Apparently, global warming denialists have a sense of humor and a particular disdain for Al Gore, but there is no consensus definition and no independent sources have referenced the term or studied it as a term or as a phenomenon. Until such time as it becomes a real meme as documented by people who are reliable sources in such matters, Wikipedia should not be hosting a page that contains a laundry list of sources who have combined the terms "Gore" and "Effect" to stand for a variety of ideas. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per ScienceApologist. I was looking for a view that swayed me, and the argument that no reliable sources adress the term in any suficient detail (as opposed to use the term, or mention it in trivial detail as part of a puff piece) makes it clear that we are comitting original synthesis by search engine, an essay that desperatly needs creating. Hipocrite (talk) 17:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's the synthesis? That the term exists and is discussed frequently by the press? Sources cover that. Perhaps also see the sources I mentioned in my !vote above, which would clearly be up to snuff for most articles on wikipedia.--Milowent (talk) 17:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, primary sources cover that. There are no reliable secondary sources that cover the topic in detail - merely examples of use. We are taking a couple of primary sources (things that use the term, not things that analyize the term) and using them to synthesize our article. That's not what we do. Hipocrite (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. There are sources discussing the term and its use in the press. E.g., [60], [61]. Its not a just a term used in articles that never take cognizance of the concept's use and spread.--Milowent (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you didn't quite understand what I said. The second link has exactly is an example of use - a primary source. The first link has exactly two sentences devoted to the phrase - while that is a secondary source, it's evealuted merely in passing, certainly without the depth required for encyclopedic treatment, and the source itself is not what the article is based off of. Hipocrite (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Three more reliable, secondary sources which together provide depth of coverage have been listed at 17:58, 10 June, above. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two more primary sources, and one secondary source (theglobeandmail) that does little more than provide a dicdef. No secondary sources adress this article in the depth required for an encyclopedia. Hipocrite (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hipocrite is right. There are only two secondary sources claimed and they marginally contradict each other in definitions. If there is no consensus in the two minimal secondary sources we have for a definition, the term is clearly not rising to the level of encyclopedic yet. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hipocrite is wrong. The Globe & Mail and the New England News Channel are certainly doing reporting functions as second-party sources. I see your point about the CNN transcript. Marginal contradictions are not fatal problems with sources. Nor do all sources have to be beyond minimal under WP:N, just the overall sourcing. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect This isn't even a fringe theory like Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. No one is seriously claiming Gore influences the environment. it's a political joke. Wikipedia shouldn't be used a collection point for nonsense. We could just as well start a list of "unusual" weather every time Obama plays basketball or Sarah Palin gets a new outfit. A sentence or two in a broader article with a redirect might be ok, but not an entire article. --agr (talk)
Keep An interesting example of extremely effective satire, as judged by the standard that some people take it to be a real crank theory. Well worth covering--enough sources. DGG ( talk ) 19:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per ScienceApologist and ArnoldReinhold. It's a Neologism, not an encyclopedic subject. At the most, it should be merged to the Al Gore article and amended to state what it really is: an ad hominem attack invented by climate change deniers. Kindzmarauli (talk) 19:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
People here are losing sight of the fact that just because WP has an article on a subject by no means implies endorsement of the ideas that carry it. We have an article on Flat Earth and another on the Flat Earth Society. That does not mean WP editors believe the Earth is flat, only that we recognize some loose nuts do. We have many articles about arguments against scientific facts and theories; they merely reflect that some people disbelieve them, not that WP is anti-science. Furthermore, the Bushisms article, imo, is far more negative against Bush than the Gore Effect, represented as humorous, is against Gore, but since whole books by important journalists have been written about Bushisms, it's altogether proper to have an article about them. A challenge: what "good, solid, mainstream, reliable" sources devote time to the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Intelligent falling? Pardon, your bias is showing. Yopienso (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC) P.S. Note that we cover a gamut of conspiracy theories, not because they are true or supported by the mainstream media, but because they exist. Yopienso (talk) 19:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IF has been discussed in Nature[62] no less. It's not a question of bias but of notability as judged by notable discussion in notable places. TV weathermen joking and op-eds opining about God's sense of humour don't really cut it. --Nigelj (talk) 19:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please use caution when invoking WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. First, the essay notes "you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do" (emphasis added), while most editors referencing similar material are doing so as part of an argument, not as their sole argument. Second, the reason the argument is flawed because the other article may not be notable. I think we've all seen examples where the argument is tendered, and the response is to prod or AfD the other article. In those cases, the argument is that this article has as much notability as that article, and the response is "agreed, they both go". However, people have noted quite a number of similar circumstances, including Lincoln-Kennedy coincidences urban legend, and I haven't seen evidence that editors are moving to delete the other articles.--SPhilbrickT 11:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, SPhilbrick. I am familiar with the Other Stuff policy; note we're not pointing out "Article X" but "Category X." Categories, in fact. As said below, we have a whole category on political satire, but apparently some editors feel GW is deadly serious and we can find no humor in it. Perhaps it is, but we may as well die laughing as frowning. Yopienso (talk) 16:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move to "Al Gore and the environment" article. This may mean that the article will have to be shortenened. Then, if with the consensus of the editors there it is decided that the section should be expanded, one can create a new article solely devoted to the Gore effect. You then won't have big disputes about whether the topic is notable enough to have a big article devoted to it. Count Iblis (talk) 20:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a search of the google news for "Gore Effect" comes up with at least 5 different usages. Applied to: cold weather during AG's speaking engagements, the impact of Inconvenient Truth, the remaking of oneself after a political defeat, and "the decline in environmentalism" during the first Clinton/Gore administration, and small "g" "gore effect" as some type of fashion trend which actually seemed to have the most number of gnews hits. This does not appear to be a "real" topic or defined usage on which to build an actual encyclopedic article. Active Banana (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep again. If you google Bielefeld and Conspiracy, you might find different topics, the Bielefeld Conspiracy as such has enough media cloud for an own article. One might consider at least the German article in Die Zeit as a real second source, since it mockingly reports about the media attention besides the effect as such. A merger with the solemm litany about St. Albert and the environment makes as much sense as to merge Lolcat into Cat. --Polentario (talk) 22:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Indented, user already !voted above--Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If we delete The Gore Effect, lets delete Bushisms and even the articles on specific terms like Strategery and Internets. Those articles poke fun at Bush just like this one pokes fun at Gore. All have become "catch-phrases" and Wikipedia would demonstrate a degree of bias if The Gore Effect were deleted. I don't think the article argues Gore's research, it just defines and explains the history behind a popular catch-phrase.--NortyNort (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just trying to draw a line in the "Wiki-sand", it is what it is.--NortyNort (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Per Hipocrite I think: Is this article about an actual hypothesized effect on weather, or about a funny joke? Tho some jokes are notable enough to be an encyclopedia entry, this one seems no more notable than the average Rush-ism, Christgau-ism, or any other writer's reusable turn of phrase. That the writer is lobbying for his neologism's inclusion is also a concern. / edg☺☭ 00:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that NRO pansy invented the term, he's just one of the media horde that uses it.--Milowent (talk) 12:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's amazing to me that an encyclopedia that includes an article entitled Hotheaded Naked Ice Borer, about one April Fool's joke in Discover magazine, balks at including one about a joke on Al Gore that is referenced by the media every time there's cold weather when he's making a presentation about GW. Guess we'll have to get rid of the Obamaisms, too.
Being entirely practical, the article begins, "The 'Gore Effect' is a satirical construct..." I would beg that if hotter heads prevail and the ruling WP bias can't accept this well-written and informative article, that at least it will be merged with the Al Gore and the environment article and there will be a redirect from it to that one. Yopienso (talk) 00:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SARCASM applies to edit summaries as well. Tone down the snark, please. Tarc (talk) 01:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't tell if you're laughing with me or reprimanding me. In any case, WP:SARCASM is amusing--thanks for pointing me to it--and I'm honestly not intending to be snarky or counterproductive. My sincere apologies if Long live the Hotheaded Naked Ice Borer! Now, where's my teleprompter? And, why is it snowing at my GW conference? was offensive. I'm for keeping all that stuff. Here's hoping cooler heads prevail and this article as well as others about the popular culture, humorous hoaxes, pranks, and spoofs will be spared the axe. Yopienso (talk) 05:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, the reason Hotheaded Naked Ice Borer hasn't been nominated for deletion is because the idea wasn't intended as a satire of global warming or any other environmental political issue that some WP editors may be taking a little too seriously. Cla68 (talk) 06:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Milowent convinced me. People who google this phrase should come up with a responsible, balanced article by Wikipedia that notes weather is not the same thing as climate, instead of a partisan site that simply will reinforce their prejudices. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 06:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Changing to strong delete in light of later experience It appears certain editors will not allow any statements that question applications of the meme. Since this makes it impossible to create a neutral and properly sourced encyclopedic article, I must regretfully change my view. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be suggesting that WP:OR and WP:SYN should be waived in order to accomodate some desired sense of NPOV. As opposition appears to be discovering (and, perhaps, as should be anticipated), RS sourcing that might be cited as being critical of the "factual" basis for this satire (or ANY satire) will be a tough nut to find. JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm concerned with errors in statements of facts about geophysical observations. We're being forced to lie to the reader because making a reliably sourced statement that a certain event did not in fact occur would be "synthesis." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is not an argument against keeping the article. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 09:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is a fact that the issue is so trivial, and so un-discussed by sensible secondary sources, that it is hard to imagine anybody doing a proper scientific study on the real observable facts about God altering the weather when Gore speaks about GW. In the absence of this, the article will be left with a strong bias towards, "Well, you never know, He does move in mysterious ways sometimes..." If anything, it deserves no more than a passing mention in some other article that does have a sensible purpose to it. --Nigelj (talk) 10:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even thinking about something as complicated as that. Just things like telling the reader that there were record low temperatures on a given date when in fact the temperature was near normal. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. My apologies for misinterpreting your argument. However, I disagree that it's a reason for deletion. If it's notable, it should have a Wikipedia article or redirect, even if it were based on lies. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 15:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given all the heat this article has generated above, how could it possibly be non-notable --Epipelagic (talk) 09:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fundamentally unencyclopaedic. Its a collection of opinions by opinion writers, used to bolster the notability of a joke?! --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And coverage by news organizations. It's worth noting that Wikipedia has whole categories for this phenomenon, and there's a serious side to it, at least as a phenomenon worth thinking about: Category:Political neologisms, Category:Political satire. In an encyclopedia of 3.2 million articles, I think this is actually encyclopedic, even from a serious perspective, because readers can learn something from the article alone (as Boris says just above) or by looking at a bunch of these articles together. Aside from that, we shouldn't try to pretend that it's not part of the nature of Wikipedia that sometimes we just gotta get our grove on. If we don't have a good emotional outlet in creating serious articles about funny (but important enough) subjects, we'll just get goofy in more destructive ways. The encyclopedia is edited by anybody -- except Vulcans. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 13:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The striking thing is that the references in the most reliable sources (Time etc), and those that aren't editorials or other kinds of opinion articles are using the neology in quite a different way than the one being "promoted" by the article. Which is the effect that Gore has had on people's outlook (example: Sayre, Carolyn (Feb 8, 2007). "Measuring the Al Gore Effect". Time. Retrieved 2010-06-11.) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The Gore effect" is the kind of phrase writers tend to use to try to make their writing snappier ("the Clinton effect" [63] "the Obama effect" [64] "The Blair Effect" [a book title] [65]). The subject of the article is the meaning as a satirical joke. In a paragraph that another editor deleted from the article, I noted that the phrase was used for other meanings, one of them actually very similar to this one. I've collected a few diffs of the older and alternative meanings (for instance, an Albany Times-Union article from April 2008 uses "the Gore effect" referring to his influence on ordinary people to "have an Earth-friendly 'moment'"[66]), and I'll try to include that in the article soon, but the article covers an encyclopedic subject, not a dictionary subject, so alternate meanings are peripheral. Any further discussion about this should be on the article talk page. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see I'm contributing too much to this discussion, and will try to stop. In sum:
This is at least the fifth version of a page that keeps perennially getting created and deleted, along with the many "Keeps" on this page, show there is no consensus to delete, but rather a strong effort to include.
how many times does this stupid thing have to get deleted before people get the message? shows a deliberate effort by a partisan group to control content.
Since the article is about satire, not science, reliable sources are not limited to our usual mainstream organs, but should include opinion pieces. We have a plethora of articles (not "Article X," but "Category X") about outrageously false pseudoscience. There is no mainstream support for any of it, nor does the mainstream pay much attention to it. Most sourcing, therefore, must necessarily come from fringe writers. In one sense, ChrisO, WP is "a serious, respectable reference work." But it is not stodgy nor strictly serious and respectable. Note for one example among hundreds the WP:SARCASM "policy guidelines." The Encyclopedia Britannica, a thoroughly stodgy, serious, and respectable reference work, omits these units of measurement which we gleefully include.
As my dad used to tell me, "Careful, now--don't smile or your face will crack." :D Yopienso (talk) 16:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"There is no mainstream support for any of it, nor does the mainstream pay much attention to it. Most sourcing, therefore, must necessarily come from fringe writers. " WHAT???? Hell no. (struck based on clarification below) Active Banana (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, rats! A sensible comment on my nonsensical comment before I could delete it. I was out thinning carrots and mentally going over what I'd written and realized I'd not been thinking straight. Active Banana, I was going to delete "We have a plethora of articles (not "Article X," but "Category X") about outrageously false pseudoscience. There is no mainstream support for any of it, nor does the mainstream pay much attention to it. Most sourcing, therefore, must necessarily come from fringe writers." The first sentence repeats what's been said before, while the second two were meant to refer to quoting silly nonsense from fringe sources, but actually articles about that silly nonsense are based on RS's that quote that silly nonsense. Now, to proceed: should I delete that as well as your comment and this one, or just leave this whole mess here? Yopienso (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, AB; my preference was to delete, but I can strike. Or we can come back and delete. Feel free to delete anything I strike. Yopienso (talk) 04:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The only argument for deletion that holds water is "non-notable"; the current form is neither an attack page nor a hoax. I believe that the widespread use of the term in reliable sources, along with the Politico and Daily News articles covering the term more in-depth, are sufficient to establish notability under the GNG. Buddy431 (talk) 19:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are reliable sources and the topic might even be barely notable enough to qualify for a stand alone article, so keeping it wouldn't violate policy/guidelines. But that doesn't mean it's appropriate to fork it off, either. The "Gore effect" seems to be adequately covered already in Al Gore and the environment, so this content fork is not justified. YilloslimeTC 20:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or partial merge to Al Gore and the environment; failing that, delete. While the topic is probably technically notable, this does not mean that we need to have an article about it. Many minor aspects of the life of very notable people are so well-reported that we have enough material to write an article about them, but at some point we have to draw a line so as not to get one article for each and every piece of trivia associated with the person. Sandstein 21:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is viable and within reason & rules; right under the "Selected honors and awards" section maybe. I would also redirect The Gore Effect directly to said section.--NortyNort (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather keep this as a separate page; it's a term that people are likely to search for on their own, thus it's useful to have an article of its own for this topic, even if the page ends up being relatively small. Cazort (talk) 21:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as snarky, partisan, unhelpful propaganda. Who cares about this fake nonsense? Şłџğģő 23:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am very thankful for a variety of sources used now in the still and alive German entry of de:Gore-Effekt. I try as well to get de:Why I Want to Fuck Ronald Reagan on the german main page - so far for "snarky, partisan, unhelpful propaganda" to be deleted all and everywhere. :) Best regards --Polentario (talk) 02:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The German de:Gore-Effekt article is trash, frankly. Look at the sources - WorldNetDaily, National Review Online's blog, self-published article at The Examiner, blogs. The fact that you think this is a model to follow does not give me any confidence about your judgement of what makes a good article. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good start. You are omitting Die Zeit as a reasonable source and trying to ridicule various decisions of a major WP community. The article in question was mentioned on the German main page and got hitrates aroun 40.000. So far as now not any QS brick or further attempts to erase it. I assume the article is a possible model since it withstood various censoring attempts. yes. Best regards. --Polentario (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Die Zeit is a very reputable source. The article you are referring to is an opinion piece. My German isn't the greatest, but the first three paragraps are about him being out of milk, complaining that his kid sleeps till, noon, not having any food in the fridge, and his kid not reading a note he left on it. Movementarian (Talk) 14:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And? You can be sure that the german climatistic gang jumped on the article like a duck on a June bug! However the community was able and willing to read further. Martenstein
starts with a deliberation about a psycholocal rule - when people hate a certain aspect in others, its often as well an aspect of their own personality. --Polentario (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Op-ed pieces are are not considered reliable sources, even when they appear in well respected newspapers. Movementarian (Talk) 14:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they are. Remember, this article does not purport to be scientific or factual.
Statements of opinion
Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. These are reliable sources, depending on context, but when using them, it is better to attribute the material in the text to the author.
Note that otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of its content may be as reliable as if published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ARSYopienso (talk) 23:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if you were writing an article about John Doe and you wanted to show that he thought something was important you could use an op-ed piece where said something was important. If you wanted to show varying opinions on a notable topic, then sure. You can't use an op-ed piece to show notability. At least that is how I read things. Movementarian (Talk) 23:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see above where you already presented this article on 11:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC). Read the responses given during the subsequent half hour. Yopienso (talk) 04:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Phrase is in mainstream use and notable enough for people to come and learn about it. Off2riorob (talk) 22:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess if my vote got Polentario to push back with such incoherent blather, it bodes well for my point. Şłџğģő 17:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uf the enWP wants to stay the The Village That Voted The Earth Was Flat, go all along. --Polentario (talk) 17:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess if my vote...ah, the hell with it. Thanks, buddy. Şłџğģő 17:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Polentario, meaning no disrespect at all, is English a second language for you? Many of your edits both here and in the article/talk can be difficult to comprehend or are, IMHO, not very well composed. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He's German, I believe (de:Benutzer:Polentario) - he's also the creator of the utterly dreadful de:Gore-Effekt article, which makes this one look like featured article quality by comparison. I'll AfD that too shortly. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, did you? Nothing new on the western front so far. --Polentario (talk) 20:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had guessed he was not a native English speaker. I, personally, don't edit at the German WP because there's a language barrier. Şłџğģő 18:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, his English is a farsight better than my German, but I'm not sure he's quite up to editing English article content. That being said, I'll feel less restrained in the future editing his contributions there. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Wikipedia:Etiquette: "Remind yourself that these are people with whom you are dealing. They have feelings, and probably have other people in the world who love them. Try to treat others with dignity. The world is a big place, with different cultures and conventions. Do not use jargon that others might not understand. Use acronyms carefully and clarify if there is the possibility of any doubt.". Discussing others ability to edit main space articles like this is not proper. I got the same kind of criticism (yes I'm not an native English speaker), and can do mistakes. I've been on Wikipedia for over five years, and edited extensively over the last three years, without any trouble before running into this area. So please don't question his ability to edit. Iff you spot a problem with the users contributions please try to fix the problem. Nsaa (talk) 21:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, the dozen or so demeaning, snotty comments Polentario has left here so far in violation of WP:Etiquette are being ignored. Hmm. Şłџğģő 00:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No disrespect, but this article makes us look stupid. How often does Gore speak, every other day? And we're going to put together different statements by pundits who highlight days when the weather was cold, to "let the reader decide"? I see no substance here for us to create a legitimate article. A sentence or two could easily be merged to Al Gore and the environment. Mackan79 (talk) 02:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as unencyclopaedic. Twin usage referred to highlights how meaningless this concept is as an overall encyclopaedia. WP is not a battleground. Delete this and let's write serious articles. MikeHobday (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This may deserve a line or two in some other article, but it's not worth an article of it's own. It's just a trivial joke. Will Bebacktalk 23:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do any reliable sources actually provide some analysis of this claim? Even in the version of the article you link, all I see is a series of surface-level descriptions, at most which say that this is either a fun or stupid joke about coincidences with Gore speaking and cold weather. Nobody says what the joke means; although a series of coincidences is implied, we don't have anything approaching an analysis of whether even that is the case. Many of the claims are clearly exaggerated or inaccurate, but nobody has presented anything resembling an analysis of their accuracy. So where is the article? A claim with no analysis of either its accuracy or meaning in reliable sources does not generally call for an independent article. Mackan79 (talk) 07:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
analysis? AQFK mentions WP:RS, but I get the impression he's making a WP:N point, and the word "analysis" appears nowhere on that page. WP:N does talk about significant coverage, meaning a certain depth of detail. I think that there is sufficient depth of detail available from reliable sources for us to present readers with comprehensive coverage of this subject. The Politico article says what the joke means. The Toronto Globe & Mail published a definition. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, whether there is "significant coverage" to justify an independent article is the issue. The little piece in Politico says, "While there’s no scientific proof that The Gore Effect is anything more than a humorous coincidence, some climate skeptics say it may offer a snapshot of proof that the planet isn’t warming as quickly as some climate change advocates say." So then it is a real claim according to that source, but still we have nothing about its accuracy, and indeed no evaluation (independent or otherwise) for us to write about. Why would that be an independent article? As many sources (and more reputable) say the "Gore effect" means something totally different, specifically his effect in popularizing concern over climate change and environmental issues. Mackan79 (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well–sourced article referring to a term in mainstream use, regardless of whether it is pro–or anti–Gore. Wikipedia is where I would turn to if I came across some such a term in the editorial of a mainstream newspaper and I would be dismayed if there were no mention of it here. As with any potentially polemical article here, may require more vigilance by the Community, but that’s pretty much par for the course.--Technopat (talk) 01:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has numerous sources indicating that the "Gore Effect" is a notable satirical idea or joke used to portray Gore and other believers in global warming. The article does not portray the Gore Effect as being an actual hypothesis about the relationship between Al Gore speeches and the local weather. Those who think it is a stupid idea or joke should add additional sources, such as this Salon article, which portray the proponents of the Gore Effect negatively, rather than seeking deletion. --Metropolitan90(talk) 06:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to any of these sources which explain that it a "satirical idea"? I agree it's intended to be humorous, but I'm not sure it is satire, or that any reliable sources have tried to analyze it as such. A simple joke seems to me a better description based on the scant reliable sources provided. Not to open a can of worms, but we don't have Al Gore invented the internet (see redirect from I invented the internet), even though a search on that seems to return many more hits than one on this (try "Gore 'invented the internet'"). Note also one of my favorite policy statements, from WP:NPOV: "The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article" (pipelink added). Mackan79 (talk) 08:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[68] this third party piece points out the "irony" (although it is another blog/opinion piece)Active Banana (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not say so. And given that Martenstein writes als Gore bei einer Anti-Erwärmungs-Klimakonferenz in Peru weilte, gab es dort sogar Kältetote. Im Mai. ("when Gore was at an anti-warming conference in Peru, people froze to death. In Mai.") you can rest assured that it's all ironic. First, Peru is one tropical country with elevations so high that it has significant regions with cold all-year-round climate, and secondly, its completely (if barely) south of the equator, so there is no expectation that May is a particularly mild months. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does. Hmm and who cares about Perus climate here? Its an ironic Gloss about a running gag being repeated far beyound the US blogosphere, not about the one and only science. 16:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC) Polentario (talk) 19:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care to provide an actual quote? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seit einiger Zeit spricht man deshalb in der Welt der Wissenschaft vom "Gore-Effekt", welcher eine starke, plötzliche, lokal begrenzte Abkühlung des Klimas bewirkt, sobald der Erwärmungsprophet Al Gore in der Nähe ist. Den Begriff "Gore-Effekt" verwendet man halb ironisch, aber nicht ganz ironisch, denn auffällig ist es ja schon. 2:0, as far as I remember. Polentario (talk) 19:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The quote you provide does not support the claim you made ("since the coincidences happen too often"). I assume you talk about Germany vs. Australia? That's only at half time - not much of a task for your memory... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Youre starting to play foul. Translation service: For some time the world science speaks about the Gore effect, which causes a strong local climatic cooling as often as Warmers Prophet Al Gore is around. The expression Gore-effect is to be used half ironcally, not completely ironic, since it (the effect, my addendum) is a striking one. 4:0 to correct your stats btw. I mean its like the guy from the CNN weather stuff statet - its a sort of runnung gag about al Gore with world wide references. So keep (the ball) 21:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
First, Google translations are unlikely to capture ironic subtext in colloquial writing. And secondly, even so it actually confirms my statement. See confirmation bias. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I assume youre perfect, Mr Schulz. About which statement are we talking now? Your repeated foul play here is a good example of xomeone caught in an ideology and assuming the world has to play accordingly. The World as Will and Representation as example :) end of message. Polentario (talk) 22:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That other stuff, like "Gore 'invented the internet'", doesn't exist is not a deletion argument. Wikipedia has articles on some political satire (Category:Political satire) and some political neologisms (Category:Political neologisms). This is a separate subject from "Al Gore and the environment". -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This blog says, "In a standout editorial published in Wednesday’s Washington Times, the satirical case is made for the so-called “Gore Effect”—a curious phenomenon that reveals more about the “Global Warming” weather-alarmists than the weather itself." And this blog says, "It’s hard to know how to respond to the Gore Effect – the “phenomenon that leads to unseasonably cold temperatures, driving rain, hail, or snow whenever Al Gore visits an area to discuss global warming.” On the one hand, it can be used as a satirical device." Granted, these are blogs, not mainstream newspapers, but they do specifically refer to the Gore Effect as a satirical idea. --Metropolitan90(talk) 16:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These blogs aren't any more reliable than we are. We shouldn't have articles on political satire reflexively, regardless of whether there is an NPOV article to be written. This question comes up all the time with memes of this sort, so what is our standard for significant coverage? Personally I don't think "it's been mentioned a few times in semi-reliable sources" should be the one. If we have an article on this meaning of this term, then there is no argument against having another article on "Gore effect" as Gore's impact on the public response to climate change.[69][70][71][72][73] Unfortunately it would have to be an entirely different article since no sources discuss them together. So what do we say, Gore effect (sometimes satirical joke) and Gore effect (impact on public response to climate change)? Call me crazy for suggesting Al Gore and the environment. Mackan79 (talk) 22:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some of the text needs to be rewritten so it's fully supported by the WP:RS sources given (especially op-eds used should be "attribute the material in the text to the author"), but the term has been used significantly by mainstream media, and got in dept coverage as shown above by many other users. Nsaa (talk) 13:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to have missed the in depth coverage - what specifically are you referring to? Active Banana (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Start reading the first reference given in the article, Lovely_2008-11-25_Politico, and it should give you an answer (as said over and over again in the discussions above as far as I've seen. I should although have written Significant coverage and Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. as stated in WP:GNG, not in dept coverage to be perfectly clear. Nsaa (talk) 23:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I believe I was the first person to write a Wikipedia entry for the Gore Effect back in January 2008. I find it very amusing that this is still an issue. Matthew Drabik (talk) 18:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC) — Matthew Drabik (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I'll anxiously await the debut of your sequel, "'The Gore Effect' Effect". Hurry before "Scrappleface" gets hold of this. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The last comment by Matthew Drabik in that AfD [74] contains the particularly enlightening "the Gore Effect is a term of mockery," we can just skip right over whether we have a source for "satire" and go right to the horses mouth for the intention. WP:BLP / WP:ATTACKActive Banana (talk) 20:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You think Matthew Drabik coined this term? mark nutley (talk) 21:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Active Banana, please note that my entry was deleted and I did not write the one under discussion, therefore your reference to me is moot. Also, satire usually includes mockery. If I were to say "Al Gore knows Global Warming isn't true and is lying to increase the value of his green technology investments" that would be an attack. Using humor to point out that real world events (both metrological and climatological) undermine Al Gore's arguments is not an attack.Matthew Drabik (talk) 21:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: We can have Bushism, so we can have The Gore Effect. They're terms both commonly used, meet the notability guidelines, and so on and so forth. Macai (talk) 23:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would have been happy to nominate this as delete except that when I tried a google search I found several reliable sources mentioning the term, so it deserves an article. This article has also been taken to the BLP board and I would agree that any BLP violations should be swiftly removed, but the article is not about Gore, it is about an effect seen amongst other people, so there is definitely scope to have an article, even if it is shorter than current. Weakopedia (talk) 09:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This political/satircal term and its meaning have been thoroughly noted in reliable sources. BLP worries which creep in can be handled easily, as they are elsewhere. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add these links to articles on the Gore Effect in Spanish and in Italian. They are mere blogs and do not qualify as RS; I offer them to show this joke is not told only in the USA. (Polentario has given a German link above.) And here's one from CNN: "MARCIANO: It's the Al Gore effect. I mean that - that's - in the weather community, we kind of joke about it. It's just a bad timing. Every time there's some big weather climate conference, there seems to be a cold outbreak. But, globally, we are still warming. We'll see how it pans out for - for 2010. But globally, temperatures, believe it or not, are still above average." (That's ROB MARCIANO, AMS METEOROLOGIST.) Yopienso (talk) 17:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Marciano quote from CNN is currently in the fourth paragraph of the article. I don't think there should be a WP:RS problem with adding citations to blogs for usage -- in fact, I think that's ultimately necessary to be able to cover the history of usage and therefore cover the subject comprehensively -- but a few editors shot down that idea on the talk page. But it's good to know that this has traveled around the world. I suppose doing internet searches for "Gore Effect", replacing "Effect" with various translations of the word would get some interesting results. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or do you really want to delete an article which already was kept in the German WP's AfD debate? :- However, the term Gore effect already is influencig "green" politics around the world, e.g in Australia. If you like it nor not, wether if it's true or not, the issue is widely discussed, [75] or [76]; What so far many missedis the coincidency (?) with the term gofe effect in cinema and comics, see here, here and here. --Matthiasb (talk) 11:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Matthiasb, you are talking about a different meaning of the term. The AfD is about the use of "the Gore Effect" to describe unusually cold weather coinciding with a global warming presentation by Al Gore. - Pointillist (talk) 12:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The 'effect' itself is as unscientific as the 'TV repairman syndrome' is untechnological. (Remember TV repairmen? Best picture you ever got was when one stopped outside your house with your address at the top of his list...) But... It's rather better referenced. Not attack - I could see Gore even using it. A modern reversal of the Pathetic Fallacy. Neologism, maybe. So was 'quiz' once. And wiki... Once again, better sourced than the usual neologisms we get, made up three nights before by two well-oiled students and today claimed to be widespread across California, Maine and Bhutan. Peridon (talk) 18:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per many above. Sourcing is plenty adequate for notability. Synthesis by others reported elsewhere is fine. Urban Dictionary origin is fine, since it's now clear that usage is RS'ed to mainstream. BLP doesn't apply because 1) it's sourced, 2) it's not contentious, and 3) it's not an attack. The number of editors arguing on various rationales that it should be deleted is concerning, because none of the rationales advanced above hold up to any policy-based scrutiny whatsoever. Jclemens (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep. I can understand that the term might look suspicious and unencyclopedic at first glance, but the sourcing seems to be sufficient and even the international press is using the term occasionally, so I see no convincing reason why there shouldn't be a WP entry.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment. Various arguments above refer to Google hits. Please note that mere Google hits are somewhat meaningless as the counting is not accurate due "gore effect" having other meanings as well but more importantly to establish notability of WP articles only reputable sources matter and the number of Goggle hits gives no information on that. If you want to get a vague idea regarding reputable sources at least try to use Google books or Google scholar instead of a Google websearch.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody disagree with you on that "Google hits" is not enough to establish a notability per WP:N, but where do you see this? Last I checked the ref.section it contained some 30 wp:rs sources … Nsaa (talk) 23:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: It contains 30 references - whether they are reliable in this context or not, is quite another cup of tea. [i haven't done a count - but the significant majority of references are editorials/opinion articles/blogs ]--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see from the comment above i agree that the term might have enough reputable sources to establish notability. My comment was referring to various Google hits comparison further up, which are not suited to establish notability.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what this has to do with the keep/delete debate. I Agree with you that Google count is not a way to establish WP:NOTABILITY. I've not seem that kind of argument (maybe I've not read the discussion good enough, but the overall argument is not moved by this argument either way and that was my point). @Kim D. Petersen: You are correctly saying that many of the sources are opt.eds. But we don't need to take the WP:RS discussion about them. I think we all agree on that we know that editorial can be used as WP:RS depending on what to source (as repeated over and over in this and a lot of other discussion I and Kim has been in.). Nsaa (talk) 01:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further up people argued for keep/notability by comparing the Googgle Hits of this article with the Google hits of other apparently notable articles (such as Bushism for instance). Since such arguments seem to be creeping up in this and similar discussions again and again, I was just pointing out that they are not valid.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a poor joke, no matter how many times repeated in reliable sources, does not make for a coherent encyclopedia article. Dlabtot (talk) 23:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP doesn't rely on any editor's opinion, such as Dlabtot's that this is a poor joke, but on WP:VERIFY:
:::"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."
Nor whether editors like it. Yopienso (talk) 00:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What does truth have to do with it? It certainly has nothing to do with what I said. Most jokes have an perceived element of truth anyway, at least the funny ones. However, Wikipedia is not a compendium of jokes. Dlabtot (talk) 01:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. See WP:NOTE: "On Wikipedia, notability determines whether a topic merits its own article. Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." We've established with many sources that this joke is notable. Maybe not as notable as Why did the chicken cross the road, but notable enough to include. Yopienso (talk) 01:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it seems this article has better sourcing than most of the articles in Category:Jokes, including Why did the chicken cross the road, which we all know just off the top of our heads must be more notable. I think this article is quite coherent. The article tells us what it means, what has been said about it, and something about its history. That's more than we have for quite a few of our 3.3 million articles. It wouldn't surprise me if we have a million articles in worse shape than this one. No exaggeration. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone finds and adds a reliable source or two which states that the Chicken crossing riddle is actually a satirical comment criticizing the theory of human-caused global warming, then I think we could expect that article to get the same treatement that this one is getting. Since that probably won't happen, the Chicken article will likely be left in peace for the time being. Cla68 (talk) 06:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So the Chicken DIDN'T cross the road because of global warming, then? Peridon (talk) 09:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually no, he wanted to get to the other side because Gore was coming to speak and it would be cooler on that side. Active Banana (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually among many other things WP is or can be a "compendium" of particularly well known jokes as well, after all we collect the " knowledge of the world". While it is true that an arbitrary collection of jokes belongs to Wikisource or Wikibooks and the articles on arbitrary words belong to wiktionary, WP nevertheless does cover special vocabulary, cultural or language phenomenons (including famous/well known jokes with their background), etymological aspects. The Gore-effect could be seen as such and hence possibly be covered, provided the sources establish that it is a notable case.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources cited in the article and by others above show just enough significant reliable coverage to justify inclusion. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you noticed that refs 9-20, which by far are the most reliable sources - refer to a completely different usage of the term? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not a 'joke', it's a partisan attack that originates with opponents of Gore re politics and his views on Global warming. Jack Merridew 17:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Jack Merridew The article in question, The Gore Effect, quotes CNN meteorologist Rob Marciano but does not include his description of the "Gore Effect" as a joke among weathermen. Here it is:
MARCIANO: It's the Al Gore effect. I mean that - that's - in the weather community, we kind of joke about it. It's just a bad timing. Every time there's some big weather climate conference, there seems to be a cold outbreak. But, globally, we are still warming. We'll see how it pans out for - for 2010. But globally, temperatures, believe it or not, are still above average.
You see he makes a point that it's a joke, and goes on to affirm the globe is still warming. No climate denier, no Gore attacker. (An example of a non-attack joke: WP's article on Polish jokes does not constitute an ethnic attack.)
Note to whom it may concern: many posters are omitting edit summaries. Please include. --Yopienso (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there's an administrator watching this page, it looks like I either took a sock puppet's bait or we have one way-too-cute editor here. Click on both "Jack Merridew" links above and then google him. --Yopienso (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See Jack Merridew, too,which you linked to and you might like to visit this version of my user page. fyi, I am a sockpuppet (this is too easy;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Cutie, for checking in. Since you like jokes so much, you should be very happy about the "Gore Effect" being in WP. I'm a dour old fussbudget whose face cracks every time she smiles. (Some would call those lines wrinkles--little do they know about crackleware. Or maybe I'm crazed. Not me; my face. :P) xoxo --Yopienso (talk) 00:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment another user has suggested that becuase of the existance of sources documenting multiple uses of the phrase, the article should be split [77]Active Banana (talk) 21:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of articles in Category:Political neologisms. Perhaps it matters that there are nonpartisan, third-party sources for the article. Some have said that opposition to the article is agenda driven. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And yet none of the nonpartisan, third-party sources discuss this even so far as to address whether the joke has any basis in reality or is purely a fabrication. And perhaps there should be a higher standard for poorly sourced political neologisms that are just perhaps based on attempting to demean living people, where another article could easily address the same material in context. Mackan79 (talk) 01:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The CNN source doesn't fit your description, nor Politico. The New England News Channel source doesn't look like it has anything malicious in it. I'm unconvinced this satirical meme attempts to demean Gore, although some who scoff at him use it. There's too much good information to merge. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First use of humour, even malicious one in a BLP can be topic in WP, compare (Honoré Daumier, after Charles Philipon), and Helmut Kohl. If you need a source to decide wether its a real effect or not, try Harald Martenstein or the Marciano from CCN. Running Gag sounds appropriate. Polentario (talk) 05:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I thought this was a very interesting take on popular culture and science. Great relevance...this is the kind of article Wikipedia is all about.BryantLee (talk) 06:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC) [Note: this user was subsequently indef'd as a sock of Scibaby William M. Connolley (talk) 17:53, 16 June 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.
Non-notable rapper lacking GHITs and GNEWS of substance to support article. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. ttonyb (talk) 05:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I can't find anything of substance either. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability, either cited in article or found on searching. Most of what I found was MySpace, FaceBook, and other unsuitable sources. Talk:YoungFresh contains a large number of links, but I checked about half of them and none of the ones I checked even mentioned either "YoungFresh" or "YoungFre$h". JamesBWatson (talk) 13:40, 9 June 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 SNOW close Between the cascade of keeps referencing sourcing and the nominator's status, there is clearly no merit in this AfD at this point. Jclemens (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not a Notable Organization TheZachDOTnet (talk) 04:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Two documentaries and a book mentioned in the article, plus a fair number of sources cited. It looks like it's been covered enough to be a notable organization, as significant coverage in reliable sources is the baseline for notability per WP:GNG. —C.Fred (talk) 04:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Also, the nominator has been blocked indefinitely for username violation, but was under some suspicion at AN/I as well. Kindzmarauli (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Besides the adequate sources that were already listed in the article, a brief look at the talk page lists no less an 16 more good sources that could be used to improve the article. --Dbratland (talk) 21:30, 9 June 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 - nominated by a now blocked user, apparently not in good faith. Deletion rationale has unanimously been rejected, no delete votes. Non-admin closure. --Pgallert (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not a notable organization TheZachDOTnet (talk) 04:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Strong keep. Looking at the references list, and some of the articles in question there, there has been significant coverage in reliable sources, so the organization meets WP:GNG. This is also the second AfD nomination by TheZachDOTnet tonight, a newly-registered account (although apparently he's been editing as an IP for some time). Both nominated subjects are Asperger/autism websites; coupled with his pre-emptive use of the ((Not a vote)) template, I have to ask whether the nomination is in good faith. —C.Fred (talk) 04:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per C.Fred. "Not a notable organization" doesn't seem to be enough rationale to delete, when the sources show significant coverage. Zach, could you elaborate? Dayewalker (talk) 06:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the article is already copiously sourced to reliable sources that discuss its subject extensively. Its notability is established. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
note to all parties - if you go to Thezach.net, you will see that this person says, ""Currently I am working on several projects including... an autism advocacy and news website" --Orange Mike | Talk 13:52, 9 June 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 nothing really stands out that "classic moped" is more than an adjective.---BalloonmanNO! I'm Spartacus! 02:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. An editor's opinions about what is a classic X does not an article make. There are no sources which distinguish classic mopeds in the way the article purports. The adjective "classic" can of course be applied to any moped, much like the adjectives "good" or "blue" could used, but in this sense it is being used as a kind of special pleading. Classic moped could just as easily be named Real moped or True moped, which is entirely in the eye of the beholder.
A better use of what sources there are on this topic would be to expand the section Moped collecting in the main moped article. Dbratland (talk) 23:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge — I think the material is useful, but doesn't need to be its own article. WCityMike 23:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a neologism unless sources can be found using the term "classic moped". –Grondemar 23:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence of the concept of "classic mopeds" is below
http://www.streetlegalmopeds.com/vintage-mopeds.htmlhttp://www.classic-wheels.co.uk/old_raleigh_runabout_mopeds.htmhttp://www.bizjournals.com/austin/stories/2005/12/05/daily37.htmlhttp://www.bikerforum.co.uk/forums/classic-vintage-bike-chat/17690-classic-moped.htmlhttp://scootersource.net/mobylette-2/ Quote "The classic moped styling of the French scooter included a streamlined frame or chassis, spoke wheels, and genuine leather on the saddle or bench style seats. In traditional moped style, the motor scooter looked like an exaggerated version of a bicycle."
http://www.motosalon.ru/moped_eng.html Quote: Classic moped «Classic» moped has a regular bicycle pedal drive with chain transmission to the rear wheels to freewheel and brake in the rear wheel hub, brake includes a rotation of the pedals in the opposite direction. At the rear wheel set is also led by the drive chain of transmission from the engine (hard, no freewheel). Sprocket of the transmission is installed on the same shaft with the engine, but the star shafts and engine can bust a friction clutch (clutch). For the clutch is a lever on the left stick steering. Gearshift no. The right-hand steering handle rotates and serves to throttle the carburetor ( «control handle gas»). On the right hand steering is also installed the front brake lever. There are also «mopeds», made from a conventional bike (there are firms that produce for the special sets), in which case it may remain possible to a full ride in a cycling mode.
86.170.204.241 (talk) 23:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is merely evidence of the use of the adjective "classic" in combination with "moped" -- there is zero authoritative support for a distinct, consistent category of classic vs non-classic mopeds. And the only one of those links that meets Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources is the Austin Business Journal, and it, as well as most of the other links, just use the adjective "classic" to mean some vaguely collectible or historic vehicle. The article Classic car (which probably should be deleted) is the sort of thing we should avoid here: a grab bag of weasel words describing lots of unfounded opinions collected from the 'Net. Lots of people make up things like this and put their opinions on web sites, leading to faux-authoritative articles like Rat bike and unfounded neologisms like "survival bike". It needs to stop. --Dbratland (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dbratland, I would request you to have another look at the link: http://www.motosalon.ru/moped_eng.html Quote:Classic moped «Classic» moped has a regular bicycle pedal drive with chain transmission to the rear wheels to freewheel and brake in the rear wheel hub, brake includes a rotation of the pedals in the opposite direction. At the rear wheel set is also led by the drive chain of transmission from the engine (hard, no freewheel). Sprocket of the transmission is installed on the same shaft with the engine, but the star shafts and engine can bust a friction clutch (clutch). For the clutch is a lever on the left stick steering. Gearshift no. The right-hand steering handle rotates and serves to throttle the carburetor ( «control handle gas»). On the right hand steering is also installed the front brake lever. There are also «mopeds», made from a conventional bike (there are firms that produce for the special sets), in which case it may remain possible to a full ride in a cycling mode. imho, classic is not being merely used as an adjective here - please also read the rest of the article for context. Rather Classic moped is being used as a noun, along with the best definition of Classic moped that I have seen. There is a difference with the comparison that you have made with cars/classic cars here. The issue is that the definition of mopeds has been hijacked in the last couple of decades by legislators who have defined the term to mean roughly any two-wheeler less than 50cc as opposed to where it started, which was roughly a motorized bicycle with pedals for assistance and starting. This has led to a an effort to recognize the classic moped as being a different class of vehicle from the legislative definition of moped.Indradoot (talk) 06:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC) (For avoidance of doubt, I am 86.170.204.241, I am not pretending to be multiple people)[reply]
Please take careful look at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.http://www.motosalon.ru/ is a website put up by a Moscow company that puts on fairs and trade shows on building, finance, cars, you name it. Websites like that do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources. It is a poor English translation but we can see that it only refers to Russian traffic laws, and it seems to treat moped and scooter interchangeably. The text is is also anonymous. Who wrote it, specifically? It does not give any indication of who made up that definition of "classic moped" or what the basis of their opinion is, or whether they are recognized as an authority by independent experts. It's basically a self-published source and thus carries no weight. --Dbratland (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources provided in the article not sufficient to provide notability separate from moped to warrant an article.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any useful information to Moped. The term does seem to be well used among moped aficionados, but it doesn't warrant its own article. First Light (talk) 03:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 04:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per First Light: A classic moped is not what is stated here. This is one narrow article which inludes the word cool three times in the only paragraph it has. The notion "classic" moped that does not include lambretta or vespa or any of the original bicycleswithengines from the 1930's is obviously ill informed young persons (this says "like the VéloSoleX are specifically excluded from the definition of classic moped" and the velosolex page says it is a moped ?!?!?), in bad taste and factually innacurate.Chaosdruid (talk) 13:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what? Besides the unsourced original research and POV, what is there to merge into Moped?
Delete - I think the article suggests that further differentiation between a moped and a scooter is necessary. But I think these two articles are distinct enough as they are. The term "classic moped" could be introduced into the moped article, as the references above indicate it is used, but I don't think there is really anything from the article in question that needs to be merged. P. D. CookTalk to me! 13:05, 15 June 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. The option to merge can be discussed further at the article's talk page. Shimeru 02:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep — The character was the main co-protagonist of two movies and an animated series. The actor's performance in the first film won awards (Independent Spirit Award) and the film itself won a Cannes Film Festival award. Not sure how this doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The article may need a little work with regard to references; if so, send a note off to WikiProject View Askew (of which I am not a part). WCityMike 19:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator - I can find no significant coverage of this fictional character on Google Books, Google News, or Google Scholar. The sources I can find only either state the name of the actor who portrayed the character or else a one-line character description. The best claim for the notability of this character is that Jeff Anderson won an Independent Spirit Award for his first portrayal of the character. While this does increase the notability of the character, it does not provide sufficient notability for an entire article on the subject. Neelix (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The last movie starring the character is four years old; Google News is unlikely. The movie was pretty much nearly a two-person film between this and another character, and in and of itself won awards at Cannes and Sundance in addition to the character winning the Independent Spirit Award previously mentioned. With all due respect, I think your argument as to his supposed lack of notability is not strong. WCityMike 23:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Google News has archives that go back much more than four years. Notability must be demonstrated by sources; this has not been done, nor do I believe it can be done. Neelix (talk) 10:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The 132 mentions consist, as I have stated before, of naming the character in cast lists or providing one-line character descriptions. The general notability guideline requires significant coverage, defining significant coverage as sources that "address the subject directly in detail". These do not. Again, notability has not been demonstrated. Neelix (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an accurate description of the results, and thus your rebuttal is false. WCityMike 20:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find sources that "address the subject directly in detail," feel free to add them to the article. Neelix (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The subject, as one of the two primary characters in a one-setting film (in his first appearance) and as one of the two male leads in the second film, is addressed in detail in the linked-to sources. WCityMike 21:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be merged there is not significant third person information to cover the character. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Having reviewed the Ghits, it's clear this character hasn't received significant coverage/analysis in external media and only returns name-checks, the lack of references in the article is further proof of this. This should be deleted like other askewniverse bios. Ryan4314 (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Some sources here, with a more refined search. Some critical reception, like calling him a "smart-ass" but I don't know if it's enough. Give it time to find its WP:POTENTIAL. Shooterwalker (talk) 05:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N and WP:FICTION#Real-world notability which refutes WCityMike's rationale above. And I quote: "Notability of fictional works and elements within should be based on their impact in the real world as opposed to what occurs within the work. Even if a character plays a highly significant and "notable" role within the work, this does not make them notable for the purposes of Wikipedia." I think it would be pretty tenuous to claim that the Randal Graves character made a non-trivial artistic or cultural impact in the world. Articles on fictional characters should not just be a list of where they appeared and what actors portrayed them, they should discuss how the character made a cultural or artistic impact. If you can find reliable sources which discuss Randal Graves' cultural impact, now would be the time to produce them. SnottyWongtalk 23:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One could argue the article for Scarlet O'Hara makes a poor showing of exactly how her character has had a non-trivial or cultural impact in the world. Mind you, I wouldn't try to delete Scarlett's article, and I would argue that her character has had a non-trivial or cultural impact upon the world, but it does a poor job of showing it ... as do, I think, a great, great majority of Wikipedia's articles about fictional characters. I think the phrasing in that cited guideline -- which is marked not only as a guideline, but as a proposed guideline -- is sufficiently imprecise and vague that it's not really a very useful ruler. (It is mostly useful for providing quotations to support AfD delete votes, not as a genuine guide for fictional characters' notability.) Clerks is a movie that's been awarded out the wazoo, is a significant cultural element, and this is one of two major characters who essentially comprise half of the movie's content (given its one setting and dialogue-only content). The movie has made a non-trivial artistic and cultural impact upon the world; Randal is quite literally half the movie. Thus, yes, the character has a non-trivial artistic and cultural impact. WCityMike 23:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep There is bio established guideline for the notability of fictional characters. The quotes above are from the MOS, which is not the accepted place for notability guidelines and the rules there have never actually met with consistent acceptance by the community. The part in the MOS remains there merely because is no agreement on what to change it to. Only a weak keep because from what is said about the series he does not seem to me like a really major character, nor am I certain the series is highly notable to the minor characters to be worth articles. Those factors are in practice the ones used in actual AfD decisions. DGG ( talk ) 02:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 04:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Added some sources. I'm convinced that there are good sources out there. But would not object to renominating or merging at a later time. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As a non-admin, recommend closure as "no consensus". ----moreno oso (talk) 02:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into View Askewniverse. There does not appear to be substantial coverage to validate a stand-alone article. Perhaps someone can create a separate Characters of View Askewniverse, wherein to include information on the main View Askewniverse protagonists.--PinkBull 21:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have amended my merge target suggestion too. Abductive (reasoning) 21:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep (reiteration of earlier vote). As this was relisted, I'll merely reiterate my opinion above. The character was the main co-protagonist of two movies and an animated series. The actor's performance in the first film won awards (Independent Spirit Award) and the film itself won a Cannes Film Festival award. The nature of the film was such that the character was pretty much half of the film. There are 132 articles that reference the character. The evidence is fairly heavy on the side of this being an article which is weighty enough, verifiable enough, with sufficient references to stand on its own. WCityMike 22:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the interest of building a consensus, I'd support a merge (my earlier !vote was weak keep). Someone could build up a section about this character based on better sources and spin it back out into an article at a later time. My first preference is still to keep it now and merge it later if necessary. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:21, 18 June 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.
Not a notable organization —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheZachDOTnet (talk • contribs) 04:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
TheZachDOTnet (talk) 04:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is technically the fourth nomination, and should probably be moved there. —Soap— 04:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was moving it while you left this comment. —C.Fred (talk) 04:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question for nominator. How, exactly, is this organization not notable? Is there a problem with the four sources that have covered it and are referenced in the article, or is the organization not sufficiently broad in nature? —C.Fred (talk) 04:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Question The organization is actually only an online forum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheZachDOTnet (talk • contribs) 04:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. On the whole, the article should be kept—or at least incubated rather than deleted altogether. I'm conflicted on this one. The nomination is weak: online forums can be notable. There was also no discussion on the talk page about the concerns with the article; it's been quiet for six months or so. I also, in the course of searching for sources, found where AFF is a favourite target of Encyclopedia Dramatics. On the other hand, the article as it currently exists is weakly sourced; I'm hard-pressed to say it meets WP:GNG, although one of the sources is a dead link, so I'm unwilling to make the blanket statement of no significant coverage. In the end, I'm just not convinced by the nominator that the organization is non-notable enough to warrant deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 04:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to do it, but I have to call the nominator's conduct into question. He's just made another weak nomination (WP:Articles for deletion/Wrong Planet (2nd nomination)) with the same weak rationale and same pre-emptive use of the ((Not a ballot)) template. Given that the account is relatively new, it raises the question of whether the nominations are just to make a point or further an agenda. —C.Fred (talk) 04:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
previous attempts to delete were voted against by mainly users of the Aspies For Freedom forum including User:GarethNelson, User:Pika Pikachu2005 and user:David McNamara, User:AmyNelson, user:User:MttJocy, User:Intgr and others. Thats why the template not a ballot was quickly added. TheZachDOTnet (talk) 07:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. I second the questionable practice of a new account being so quick to delete autism-related topics with almost no explanation. Dayewalker (talk) 06:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question: How many nominations are there? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 07:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Answer: This is the fourth, previous attempts to delete were voted against by mainly users of the Aspies For Freedom forum including User:GarethNelson, User:Pika Pikachu2005 and user:David McNamara, User:AmyNelson, user:User:MttJocy, User:Intgr and others. Thats why the template not a ballot was quickly added. TheZachDOTnet (talk) 07:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Answer to the question asked - within about twelve hours of its creation, the TheZachDOTnet account had nominated three articles for deletion. Most of this account's edits have been related to such deletion nominations. I'm suspecting sockpuppetry and/or block evasion, but may (of course) be wrong. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response - Your accusations of sock puppetry and ban evasion are unwarranted and irrelevant to the discussion at hand. TheZachDOTnet (talk) 01:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
note to all parties - if you go to Thezach.net, you will see that this person says, ""Currently I am working on several projects including... an autism advocacy and news website" --Orange Mike | Talk 13:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response - This does not have any bearing on if Aspies For Freedom is notable. TheZachDOTnet (talk) 01:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then I think this should be Speedy Close as a WP:COI nomination . Codf1977 (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response Not relevant to establishing if organization is notable. TheZachDOTnet (talk) 01:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment TheZachDOTnet is currently blocked, but only for a username violation. His new choice of username identifies himself as Zachary Lassiter (which is also on his website). I don't personally believe he is a previously blocked user or a sock, though. —Soap— 21:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to autism rights movement The fact that the organization has its own website makes it quite notable. Also, the merging of Don't Play Me, Pay Me was quite successful. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 22:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Merge and Comment The fact an organization has a website does not make it noteable. I do however support a merger into autism rights movement. TheZachDOTnet (talk) 01:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with a Merge vote in this case is that you're essentially saying "this organization does not meet the notability guidelines for its own article, and a merge to another article per WP:NNC should be forced on it". I agree with a merge at the editors' discretion, but not by it being enforced by AfD, because it does meet WP:N. Jclemens (talk) 01:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the circumstances of this nomination nearly caused a knee-jerk reaction to Keep, having visited the supposed references in that article I have to seriously wonder about the organization's true notability. Of the 4 refs, one is a press release by the subject of the article, one is a dead link, one does nothing more than mention the name of the organization, and the fourth doesn't mention the organization at all. Best I can tell they attempted to organize and failed to last. That there have been almost no constructive edits in the past year reinforce my feelings about this. --|Uncle Milty | talk| 14:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the dead link... sort of: it now points to the magazine's paywall. The NYT article is indeed about the movement rather than the specific organization, but agreed--it's not the best ref. I did find a ref from late 2009, so there's a definite history of coverage for the topic. Jclemens (talk) 20:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, see Uncle Milty's comments. GregJackP (talk) 17:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A Lexis-Nexis search for sources finds multiple in-depth reliable sources. The Saner piece is 2114 words, focusing specifically on this organization. There are other sources which can be added as well. While I empathize with the issues created by a new nominator appearing to be a COI, the simple fact is that this AfD should be closed as keep because this organization has been covered multiple times in reliable press. Jclemens (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I share Uncle Milty's concerns about the quality of the article, and the references, the guardian ref cites 20,000 members. While that may be a lie (anyone got that copy of G2?) other comments on here suggest there are reliable sources, and google suggests there are plenty of references on reliable sites (no I'm not suggesting google is a reliable source). That, combined with a reversion I just applied to that users edit to Autism Speaks using biased language, and a primary source, makes me think if the user is not a sock then they are at least editing (and nominating) to an agenda - lack of explanation supports that in my view. Bertcocaine (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(In all fairness to Uncle Milty, I added the Guardian ref after his !vote was cast) Jclemens (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response If you actually look at their website [78] they list under 20,000 members currently. With the date of that article its clearly a lie. Also it should be noted that on forums many users are not active supporters of the organization much less members. Judging by the recent activity there is much less then 20,000 members. TheZachDOTnet (talk) 01:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that a newspaper publishes something which is inaccurate isn't important to whether or not the mentioned topic is notable. Please see WP:VNT. Jclemens (talk) 01:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — a notable organization with references. Shouldn't there be some sort of limit on renominations for deletion? Surely once notability is established, it is notable historically. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 12:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response - as noted earlier: :::previous attempts to delete were voted against by mainly users of the Aspies For Freedom forum including User:GarethNelson, Pika Pikachu2005 and user:David McNamara, User:AmyNelson, user:User:MttJocy, User:Intgr and other users ZacharyLassiter (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response so your suggestion users editing Wikipedia with bias and not a neutral point of view? Yet the third nomination for deletion was by User:Pika Pikachu2005 who you accuse of voting to keep. In your responses to comments on this page you have only once noted why you think the article is not notable, thereby expanding on your initial 4 word comment, which has been questioned several times above. Were the previous 3 all ballots? Or are you suggesting the 3 different Admins that closed the debate were not paying attention and ignoring bias from certain users? And what evidence do you have the the guardian article is 'clearly a lie'? Bertcocaine (talk) 19:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response (in list format to make more readable)
Clearly a lie: If you would of read what I typed you would see that it said 'If you actually look at their website [79] they list under 20,000 members currently.'
I'm suggesting that the previous admins may not have been aware of bias by certain users.
I'm also suggesting the organization is not notable due to the fact that it is rarely referenced by news media, except for exact copies of their press releases. ZacharyLassiter (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response
Thanks for replying clearly, you're right the list format is better.
They may list under 20,000 members currently on their website - however that total could have reduced, and it is certainly no reason to accuse the Guardian of lying (a deliberate act) when it could be simply an error (without the article, who can tell?)
user:Pika Pikachu2005 nominated for deletion, and then put forward speedy delete - the history shows nothing about them voting to keep on that nomination (the third). They may have changed their mind, but that is every persons right
For your last two point, thank you for clarifying your opinion on the matter - I think more statements like that will help support your argument.
You have swayed me slightly - I still think Keep (mostly based on the arguments of other on here) but I accept your point that previous nominations may well have been skewed, and the Admins concerned may have missed this. Bertcocaine (talk) 03:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepDelete It showed promise, but lately this organisation has shown that it does not have the influence imputed previously. It has in effect died as everything except a support site. This aspect is not notable and the article should therefore be removed. Addition of sources causes me to change my vote. GetDumb 07:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "It's not notable" is a poor reason for nomination. It exists, it's sourced. Within the ASD community it has a reasonably high profile, most as a backlash to the exclusionist viewpoint of Autism Speaks. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - having read the sources provided, they don't seem to me to provide sufficient coverage to pass the notability guideline. It is borderline though, as there is some coverage, and there may be more not immediately accessible online. Robofish (talk) 01:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep IAWWP:SNOWBALL - refs have been added for the subject organization to six scholarly journals, one MSNBC bioethics article, and a BBC article that all discuss the subject organization. Katana0182 (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The news media seems to think well of it to quote them, and ask them for comment on things. [82]DreamFocus 03:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I expressed some concern awhile ago about sources. This issue has now been resolved as notability has now been established, and in a very big way. Recommend to the nominator that this AfD be withdrawn. AinslieL (talk) 08:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep per massive improvements by Jclemens. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In all fairness, my improvements were quite a bit more modest than those by Katana0182. Jclemens (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there's significant coverage to reach the bar of notability. Notability isn't transient, so the current state of the organization isn't really relevant. Nuujinn (talk) 00:03, 15 June 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. Fram (talk) 11:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This book does not meet the notability standard in WP:NBOOK. There is no indication that it meets the 2nd through 5th parts of NBOOK. As for the first, a search of Google Books shows several hits, though most appear trivial (copyright entries, etc.). There is a brief review in the American Library Association Subscription book bulletin, but that doesn't seem substantial enough to meet the first part of NBOOK: "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience." ALXVA (talk) 19:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article was originally called Nebraskana Society and was intended (apparently) to be about an honor society rather than about a book. For whatever reason, the author never went beyond the 1932 book in gathering information about the organization, although there are things available [83]. The nominator rewrote the perspective of the article to be about the book [84], based on the limited information in the article, and then nominated his or her own work for deletion. Thus, I can't see judging this by WP:NBOOK alone, and I'm going to throw in "Nebraskana Society" in to the title of the discussion . On the other hand, I don't see any news or book evidence to show that the Nebraskana Society was ever notable. If anyone out of the Cornhusker State wants to write an article about the society itself, I'm all for keeping. Mandsford 13:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That is a good point. I refocused the article on the book at the suggestion of the editor who removed the prod I placed on the article. That editor thought the best chance for notability was for the book. So far as I can tell, the Nebraskana Society was never an actual club, society, group, or what have you, that had meetings or selected members or did the things one thinks of when thinking of a society of some sort. It was merely what the authors called the group of people the authors selected to be covered in the book. I think membership in the Nebraskana Society is the same thing (nothing more or less) than inclusion in this book. Thus, in fairness to the article creator (and to me in moving the article to the book name), the society and the book seem to be coextensive so I doubt much of note was left out. The book's introduction seems to support this view and explain why nothing else on the society can be found. ALXVA (talk) 14:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – it's not clear to me that there is a potential article on this topic, but the present article is not it. (The book seems to be mainly a list of names + photos + bios - eg we have "Mr. Dahlman, one of Omaha's most beloved citizens, served as mayor nearly 25 years, and in 1928 was elected delegate at large to the Democratic national convention. He was a member of the Community Chest, the Chamber of Commerce, the Young Men's Christian Association, the Library Commission, the Fraternal Aid Union, the Royal Arcanum, the Woodmen of the World, the Ancient Order of United Workmen, the Moose and the Elks. He was president of the Americanization League. (Deceased)." I would certainly like an article on 'the Woodmen of the World'.) A redirect and merge to a subsection of History of Nebraska might be a solution, pending more substantial efforts. Occuli (talk) 09:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 04:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since there has been suggestion that WP:NBOOK is not the only relevant guideline, I would just mention that the Nebraskana Society seems to fall short very short of WP:ORG. The only substantial coverage of the group I can find is in the book which is not independent of the society and even if it were independent, one book does not constitute multiple sources. The first hit on Google regarding the society as linked above is the online digitized copy of the book. Everything else seems to be genealogical work or various other listings. In sum, I think the book fails to meet WP:NBOOK and the organization or whatever one would call it fails to meet WP:ORG. ALXVA (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - per nom. Fails all five NBOOK Criteria as this book does not receive "mulitiple non-trivial" coverage, has not won "a major literary award", made a "significant contribution" to various forms of listed media, is not the "subject of instruction" or reading lists, and the book's author is not "so historically notable". ----moreno oso (talk) 02:04, 17 June 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) 00:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; not only is it not notable, the article is obviously biased towards the band. Maj. Gen. Stanley (talk) 22:59, 13 June 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) 00:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to fail WP:MUSIC. No sources given, and searching for this on Google turns up nothing. It may have been Coil's only appearance in the U.S., but it still has no coverage in third party sources. I say delete. Undead Warrior (talk) 03:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I see no reason otherwise. Geschichte (talk) 06:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this bootleg. Joe Chill (talk) 15:34, 9 June 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. T. Canens (talk) 22:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Korean composer and pianist written up in a rather spammy tone. Lots of links but which, if any, are to independent reliable sources? — RHaworth(talk·contribs) 17:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — It sounds as if the nominator has a problem with the article's tone and has a unanswered question as to the reliability of the sources. If that's the case, then there are appropriate flags for each of these said deficiencies, and the article's creator -- or other editors -- should be given a chance to rectify said problems. WCityMike 19:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excuses for nomination - I'm the creator. There were several reasons for misunderstanding - 1) I didn't know the official written name of Mr. Park, so I made a couple of different pages like 'Park, Chang-soo, Park Chang-soo and Park Chang Soo,' among which Park Chang Soo is the final decision. 2) This is the very first time I created the article in wiki. 3)English is a foreign language for me. 4) Mr. Park is a musician of minor genre, so there are few official, reliable websites which can support that he's notable enough. If any, they are in Korean. 5) The very official reliable website is his own homepage, where there are many reliable sources having appeared in magazines and newspapers written in Korean and in English for a few. I was afraid I made many issues here since I did this for the first time, nevertheless I created the article because I think someone should do. In fact Mr. Park may not care about whether the article about him appears in wiki or not. There are several links in which his playing the piano can be heard. If you care about these kinds of issues, then please listen to the musics and help improve this article together. MJE0610—Preceding undated comment added 01:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
weak delete He might possibly be notable, but the material here is not suitable for an article. It might be acceptable if someone who understood our style and the sources was prepared to work on it. DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as article fails WP:MUSICBIO. There are no independent sources from the musicican itself and fails all criteria. ArmbrustTalkContribs 12:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
some independent sources added - Searching for the original sources in the homepage, I included some, not many, sources into the page, among which are major broadcasts of Korea. Most of the sources are in Korean. MJE0610 01:38, 3 June (UTC+09) —Preceding undated comment added 16:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 02:38, 9 June 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.
Not sure if this is a hoax but I'm pretty certain that the subject does not meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Can not find any reliable sources to establish notability. Not even mentioned at Mötley Crüe, the band he is supposed to be a founding member of, if he was I would simply redirect there. J04n(talk page) 02:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: I've found a reference to this person, in French, in the book Motley Crue: the dirt. If my crappy French serves me properly (and if this doesn't constitute a BLP violation?!) it reads "They auditioned a slightly dense guy named O'Dean, who had a voice that sounded somewhere between The Cult and Scorpions. He was a very good singer, he had an incredible voice, but Nikki [Sixx] didn't like the fact that he didn't sing like Brian Connolly from Sweet. The other problem with O'Dean was the fact that he always wore a pair of very clean white gloves, which he thought were integral to his "look"."[85] The book goes on to talk about how he refused to take off these gloves while performing, including when he was supposed to clap, to Nikki Sixx's considerable chagrin.
This Italian rock encyclopedia also makes a passing reference to the "disappointing" (deludente) O'Dean as a predecessor to Vince Neil in the lineup.
Soooo... I think that's enough to establish the guy's existence sufficient for a merge into the main Crue article. There's no coverage of him outside the context of the band, so I see no reason to sustain an independent article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonzonoir (talk • contribs)
Merge (a little) to early history of Motley Crue. I agree totally with User:Gonzonoir who wrote the detailed Merge rationale above but neglected to sign the comment. O'Dean can be mentioned briefly in the history of Motley Crue with some basic references to "The Dirt" and the other stuff found by Gonzonoir. But he doesn't remotely merit the level of detail found in his article now. Merge a few pieces of info to Motley Crue and ditch the rest. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the missing sig headsup; I am having a slightly dense phase myself. Resolved above... sigh... Gonzonoir (talk) 20:25, 10 June 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) 00:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no source to establish notability of demo, and demos are not normally notable.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 02:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this demo. Joe Chill (talk) 15:55, 9 June 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) 00:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Promotional (auto?)biography of non-notable author who fails WP:AUTHOR. I can find virtually no secondary sources independent of the subject and no evidence the subject meets the general notability guideline. The article was created by User:Newcurrency, an WP:SPA whose only edits are to this article and whose username matches the book (and related website/blog) by the article's subject. -- Rrburke (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNews, GBooks, GScholar turn up nothing relevant. GHits returns the usual Twitter, LinkedIn, and ecommerce links. NoMinimalNo independent evidence of notability, apparently totalrelative total lack of independent verifiable sources. I do note that the article cites an interview with MacLeod in the "Integral Leadership Review," which could conceivably be used to establish notability. I like crossing things out, apparently.ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ah! I did some digging around their site thinking I'd find something similar and you apparently succeeded where I failed. Agreed on all counts. ILP cannot be used as a reliable source, in this case. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jeez, I looked right at that very page and somehow missed Mr. MacLeod...a tiny self-applied trout to the forehead ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Moreover, Integral Publishers, the publisher of the subject's book, appears to be the book-publishing arm of the Integral Leadership Review. -- Rrburke (talk) 18:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this author. Joe Chill (talk) 22:09, 9 June 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.
Delete. The individual albums contained in this repackaged 2 in 1 set already have articles, and I don't see anything that makes this release independently notable. Article was previously part of a bundled AFD nom two years ago (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Die volle Dröhnung). Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:21, 9 June 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. T. Canens (talk) 05:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No proof of notability; only reference given is a letter to the editor written by the subject himself. Stonemason89 (talk) 16:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Almost a speedy delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I completely rewrote the article. It's still self-sourced, but it gives a much more plausible claim of notability (he is the author of nine books, not counting the self-published ones, not just the single NYT editorial mentioned in the earlier version of the article). —David Eppstein (talk) 23:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep I;ve added the books. gthey seem to be more in the nature of college-level education books than research works, and they are not bey any of the major scholarly social science publishers, but together with his professional position I thin it is just enough to establish him as meeting wp:prof. DGG ( talk ) 07:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per DGG. He apppears barely to be a notable professor. Although now retired, once notable, always so. Disclosure: I was an editor/reviewer for 2 editions of the Brown, Sukys Business Law textbook. Bearian (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment. The article is a BLP so a few more comments would be helpful. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm utterly bemused by DGG's "I;ve added the books", as he has not, so far as I can tell, edited the article at all. The book publications by this person that I can identify are a couple of monographs published by the University Press of America. All (or almost all) of his other works were published in a single journal (The Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies) or by the publisher of that journal (the Council for Social and Economic Studies). WP:PROF#Criteria lists nine criteria for inclusion, and I'm seeing no evidence that this fellow meets any of them. Deor (talk) 04:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I can't find evidence that he has made an academic impact (such as heavily cited publications), and I can't find evidence that his books are making an education impact (such as syllabi that list them). So I am skeptical that he passes WP:PROF. That leaves the race-related news stories, but keeping our article on this basis would amount to stating that he's notable as a racist (or at least as a curmudgeon with an unfortunate consistency to his activism). I don't think that what we have on him (a few local news stories and one high-profile editorial that only briefly mentions him) is enough to make that conclusion. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:39, 13 June 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. Jayjg (talk) 03:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A nest of apparent socks are repeatedly creating and recreating this article after speedy deletion, removing maintenance tags and deprodding it. A non-notable company, with no third-party references supplied to establish any information about it. Bare claim of notability in article, so coming here rather than speedying. ⇦REDVƎRS⇨ 09:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My article about BlazeVideo is taged "Articles for deletion" by you, and the reason you stated was “A non-notable company, with no third-party references supplied to establish any information about it.”， but the company is not of no notability, many website linked to it, and it win very good popularity from the user. Don't doubt, if you search HDTV player, you'll find www.blazevideo.com(the website of BlazeVideo) ranked No.1, and may people have been searching for software of BlazeVideo, like BlazeDVD, BlazeDVD Copy, Blaze Video Magic, etc. just type "blaze " in google or yahoo or other search engine, you may find these phrases in searching tips(not so frequently searched phrases won't be listed there). And some other related company like Slysoft, Cyberlink, they are all listed in Wiki, and I think this company deserve several words of description. I have already made some improvement with my article, if you have any good advice, please do tell me. I will keep on improving it. Please just don't delete it without a persuasive justification. I believe Wiki is still a free encyclopedia, and everyone is trying to help each other. I want to do more for it too.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Haiyangzhai (talk • contribs) 03:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not of no importance, no copyright violation, can any one tell me why the AfD tags are still over there, any tips are appreciated, or please remove the AfD tag, it make me feel very uncomfortable. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haiyangzhai (talk • contribs) 08:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No knock against the company, but the references provided do not establish sufficient notability to make a convincing argument that this firm warrants an article on Wikipedia. --Ckatzchatspy 04:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: I doubt if you have read the text above carefully or did you check it in practice, and I want to know what kind of argument would be considered convincing by you. You guys can't just deny my work without give me some little bit clear and constructive advice. If you can not help, just leave it alone and let someone else to improve it, is that OK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haiyangzhai (talk • contribs) 08:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article reads like an advertisement, the company itself is not noteable and the article is poorly written. I don't feel that at this time this article has a place on Wikipedia I Feel Tired (talk) 01:45, 15 June 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. T. Canens (talk) 05:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed for deletion because "Fails WP:N. This 2009 invention has not been commented on or used in independent reliable sources." Contested, after which followed a short discussion on the talk page of the article, and at Wikipedia talk:Notability#peer-reviewed literature. While the game was published in a peer-reviewed (i.e. reliable) journal, there have been no independent commntaries, uses, reviews, criticisms... of it in other reliable sources. It has, after its publication, gone so far unnoticed. This may of course change in the future, but for now, it is not yet notable. Fram (talk) 07:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment. If it is deleted, is there any way to restore its content if anyone else cites it? (or is that my job?) Robinh (talk) 19:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, Robinh. "Deletion" on Wikipedia doesn't mean the text is actually gone, it just means it's hidden from non-administrators. If anyone else cites it, then any administrator can restore the article with the text intact. (It is possible to remove material from even administrators' capability to view it, but that's only done in very extreme circumstances; the process is called oversight.) In this case, though, I'm not sure deletion is necessary. A lack of notability means there shouldn't be a separate article. It doesn't mean there shouldn't be any coverage on Wikipedia. Since there's a reliable source, we should consider the possibility of a merge to (for example) combinatorial game theory.—S MarshallT/C 19:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this. The Game is cited in two EJC papers: V17, R13 (2010) and V16 2009, R77. Both by the same author. Does this change things? I do not believe that merging with combinatorial game theory is a good idea because the Game's relation to other parts of CGT is not yet clear. Robinh (talk) 20:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment The game appears under a different name is a special case of a game appearing in another EJC paper by Zhu. I guess EJC likes combinatoral game theory. I have edited the page accordingly. What is the timescale for this process? Robinh (talk) 19:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep (just to be explicit). The Game is cited by three peer-reviewed articles by two distinct authors. I plan to further improve the article (by adding a picture of a game in progress and perhaps discussing online list colouring of graphs) as and when. Best wishes, Robinh (talk) 21:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that in the event of a deletion I think Robinh should have page userfied. Shadowjams (talk) 02:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge with combinatorial game theory and/or perfect information to improve those articles. Notability issue aside this topic does not have enough "meat" to make it encyclopedic yet and will need more written about it to become so. 66.102.198.175 (talk) 03:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads like someone's college notes. No assertion of notability, no RS. I'm sure this exists but it is just too obscure to matter. Szzuk (talk) 20:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This has itself been reliably published in a good journal, so it's not original research, but only one other author has even cited it. I don't think that's enough — WP:GNG requires multiple nontrivial secondary sources, we have only one (Zhu's paper), and the source's coverage of the subject is close to trivial — it says only that this game is a different name for another problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:10, 13 June 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.
Though this book is a rather important and expected companion book of the considered popular series, The 39 Clues, most information for the book is yet unknown, including the book cover, contains, and authors. Many of the information released by this time of the nomination is still yet final. Therefore, according to WP:CRYSTAL, I nominate this article for deletion. Mktsay123 (talk) 07:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the cover and at least the author of the introduction is known (or at least presumed known, see [86]), there is absolutely no indication that this book is notable or ever will be notable per WP:BK. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This should not be deleted info will come i promise —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.250.76.234 (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think that enough information is presented in the source within the article [87] to make a page for this, if 98.250 wants to make good on the promise. Although October 26, 2010, is still four months away, the publisher has authorized the release of enough fact to take this beyond just being a crystal ball. Obviously, if not kept, then it would be redirected to The 39 Clues and then all of the new information would be added there, awaiting whatever date that people decide is not "crystalbally", but it's a tomayto-tomahto situation. I say tomayto. Mandsford 14:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right, it's not a WP:CRYSTAL situation, but it's not one of the 10 novels in the series or I'd probably lean keep too. Is there an indication that it would pass WP:BK that I'm missing? VernoWhitney (talk) 14:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Because of WP:CRYSTAL, I'm inclined to say that this should be redirected to The 39 Clues until it can pass the standards at WP:BOOK. If, closer to the time this can be done, then by all means, go ahead and create the page. Thanks, Rock drum (talk·contribs·guestbook) 16:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see no problems with redirection as the number of hits indicate that it is being searched. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The 39 Clues per above until such time that this book is notable enough for a stand alone article.--PinkBull 18:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Verno Whitney You Told Me To Come Here. What Would You Like Me To Join. --JabocJacobOhYeah (talk) 03:25, 1 March 2011 (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) 00:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Renominating as the last AfD reached no consensus (no votes). I am somewhat reluctant to renominate this as reading WP:MUSIC makes me think it passes No. 1 of the criteria for musicians and ensembles as well as No. 5 (although Undergroove Records may not meet the requirement of major independent label and that the second album is only speculated). Despite this, almost all I could find were databases, I did find a BBC Local, Rock Sound and DiScover stuff on Google, but nothing about participating in a tour. While I believe they are promising, I don't think that they are notable enough for Wikipedia just yet. Should more sources be found, I will withdraw this AfD, but the article should have re-write, have more sources and should be expanded. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 06:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been ((rescue)) flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron.
Comment. I have to admire the nominator's attitude here. Being here to build an encyclopedia means writing articles, not trying to make them go away. Therefore, deleting articles should not be something that one wants to do. If more nominators had this attitude then AFD would be a more pleasant place to work and we would have fewer battleground AFDs. Article tagged for rescue--Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline keep, with a major WP:NPOV rewrite needed. Criterion #5 of WP:BAND is "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." They've got one album and one EP to an indie record label (Undergroove) that sort of qualifies. That alone I'd say wasn't quite enough, but adding the reviews from Kerrang and Rocksound, the profile in NME and the airplay on Radio 1, I think it scrapes it by the narrowest of margins. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only the album was on Undergroove (and they don't look that good a label for wp:music), the ep was on The Communion. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND. Released one full-length album over four years ago. SnottyWongtalk 23:22, 9 June 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.
I was originally going to move this article to Bement Camp and Conference Center (which appears to be the current name), but after searching Google, I see a fair number of hits for a campaign to save the camp; no sites going into much detail about the camp itself (other than message boards, Facebook and MySpace). Erpert(let's talk about it) 17:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I see you nominated this eleven minutes after the article was created. Any notion of giving the creator a chance to improve and source it? RGTraynor 03:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't your rationale for keeping, is it? Incidentally, WP:DEADLINE can work both ways. Erpert(let's talk about it) 06:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure an unofficial essay can. RGTraynor 17:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What other references do you need? The Diocese of Western Mass has all the records I cited their most recent document concerning the camp plus Mary Bement's will. Much of the verification for this would also be from living people not documents how do you cite personal experience. We did it for anthropological interviews. I would appreciate any guidance and help any of you can give.Also this isn't the right place to note this but they are linked - Bishop Lawrence has been dead for many years,1969 why do you have him listed as a living person? Bccalumnus (talk) 02:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't verify the information from documents, there's a good chance the subject isn't notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Please read WP:V. By the way, considering your having said "we did it for anthropological interviews", you might also want to read WP:COI. Erpert(let's talk about it) 06:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The information is verified from documents cited in the Document. If I cited them incorrectly please help me correct them. I could also add the news articles from the Worcester Telegram especially the ones for the 60th anniversary of the camp. Unlike the majority of summer camps Bement is labeled on many map searches when searching for other locations in Massachusetts. This is not original research. I was asking about the difference between the interviews we did in anthropology where we cited individuals when there were either no documents to cite or the interviews were used to verify existing documents. As to the conflict of interest you suggested, this entry is written from a neutral point of view covering only facts not in question. It also expands from the entry for Bishop William Appleton Lawrence who is erroneously listed as living and his birth and death dates are on a Wikipedia disambiguation page. Your question about the camp name is legitimate, but the camp was known by most people as Bement Center Camp for far longer than the current Bement Camp and Conference Center and is also called just Camp Bement. This should have been noted in the entry. In fact I'm sure there is a way to note all the names the camp has been known by so searches would be more productive. Your continued guidance and assistance on this is greatly appreciated. Bccalumnus (talk) 14:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
any feedback, suggestions or help would be greatly appreciated,
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) 00:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:57, 9 June 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. 01:05, 9 June 2010 PMDrive1061 (talk | contribs) deleted "Gtfomdmcmb" (G3: Vandalism: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gtfomdmcmb) (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be completely unnecessary, but it didn't quite fit into "patent nonsense." Highly vulgar and lacking context, and is written much like a dictionary entry. Neo(T) 00:57, 9 June 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) 00:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0(talk) 00:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, "probably issued" says it all. Geschichte (talk) 06:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 15:57, 9 June 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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0(talk) 00:49, 9 June 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) 00:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0(talk) 00:48, 9 June 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. Listed for 21 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepHobart Mercury, 5 February 2009, "Music misfit brings monkey business"; The Guardian, 4 September 2008, "Review: Pop: Martin Martini and the Bone Palace Orchestra Soho Theatre, London 3/5" by Brian Logan; The Evening Standard, 3 September 2008, "WIZARDS FROM OZ COMEDY; COMEDY BY BRUCE DESSAU; MARTIN MARTINI AND THE BONE PALACE ORCHESTRA; SOHO THEATRE"; Hobart Mercury, 7 August 2008, "Martini monkey business" by Meryl Naidoo; Sunday Age, 17 February 2008, "Served with a twist" by John Bailey; The Age, 22 December 2006, "Martini stirs and shakes" by Fiona Scott-Norman; Herald Sun, 14 December 2006, "our favourite martin" by Shane O'Donohue; The Age, 28 January 2006, "CABERET" by Lily Bragge duffbeerforme (talk)
are any of these sources available online? how did you find them? LibStar (talk) 02:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0(talk) 00:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to have sufficient mentions in media other than just Google News. --Canley (talk) 04:34, 10 June 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.
Keep Hey, this company was on the BBC [92] and the British Theatre Guide [93] and LondonTown.com [94] and The Stage News [95]. I think there is more than potential notability. The Pebble Dare (talk) 00:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0(talk) 00:46, 9 June 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.
Declining speedy A7 (org) as this is a label of a notable recording company. merge to East West Records or delete as appropriate. UtherSRG(talk) 09:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0(talk) 00:46, 9 June 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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0(talk) 00:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia: "All Simpsons All the Time." But seriously folks, it's only a stub and probably of use to WP users, which should be what it's all about. Carrite (talk) 07:31, 9 June 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. –MuZemike 20:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sure it's a fine festival, but it has absolutely no recognition in reliable sources. The article cites its own publications; Google supplies facebook and similar pages; Google News Archive supplies ZERO hits (how rare is that???). Thus the festival is not notable by Wikipedia's standards. Sorry. --MelanieN (talk) 02:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0(talk) 00:44, 9 June 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.
I have found no sources independent of the subject to demonstrate notability. This appears to have been written by a company that did work on this book to promote it (Geni-i-uk). Author removed my PROD but did not address the lack of independent sources for notability. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 20:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Same editor has created pages for separate stories in the collection: Golden Friends;Maya's Story;The Journey In Search of Pollen;The Search by Sebastian Rhys Wall;Inside Out by Borys & Jola Kurzeja-Ryan, none of which meet notability guidelines for books and should either be merged into the main article or deleted with it. I've not PRODded them separately as I thought that might not be helpful. Just listed them here--Plad2 (talk) 05:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken the liberty to redirect all of these articles to Polska Tales, as I feel that they are uncontestably not notable. This article has a third party source, but those articles are easy redirects. If anyone wishes to undo them I will be fine with it if they give me valid reason why the short stories meet WP:NB. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 20:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0(talk) 00:44, 9 June 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 fails wp:music, allison records isn't a major label and rs were not provided.---BalloonmanNO! I'm Spartacus! 06:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0(talk) 00:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - they recorded on Allison records, and toured North America. Bearian (talk) 20:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Allison records has maybe one notable act, not good enough for wp:music, touring lacks coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:30, 15 June 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) 00:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails notability. The only google hits Hinckley Band of Thieves are wikipedia mirrors. The "lead" member Fredric Hinckley doesn't appear to exist. No reputable sources. Nothing to support claim the band existed for upwards of 170 years. No significant content (eg. location, impact on society, history.) No content added since 2005. Hoax? Gwinva (talk) 00:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:V. Probably has something to do with a game or a Web site or something of the sort, but it doesn't satisfy any of the criteria of the WP:GNG. Deor (talk) 00:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete either a hoax for a fictional element so minor even Google hasn't heard of it. Delete either way. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: could find nothing, therefore delete. Dewritech (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. None of the people mentioned appears in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Searches for "Hinckley" in the Bibliography of British and Irish History, the British Humanities Index and Historical Abstracts produce no relevant results. EALacey (talk) 10:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable at best, probable hoax. Edward321 (talk) 20:53, 13 June 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.
Merge — I think the material is useful, but doesn't need to be its own article. WCityMike 23:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Strong keep — The character was the main co-protagonist of two movies and an animated series. The actor's performance in the first film won awards (Independent Spirit Award) and the film itself won a Cannes Film Festival award. Not sure how this doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The article may need a little work with regard to references; if so, send a note off to WikiProject View Askew (of which I am not a part). WCityMike 19:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
