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

The result was delete. WP:SYNTH / WP:FORK (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdoms of Great Britain[edit]

Kingdoms of Great Britain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Some sort of weird original research/content fork. Any notable content is amply covered at many other articles like Countries of the United Kingdom, List of British flags, List of British monarchs, etc, etc. Biruitorul ^Talk 23:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is kind of an interesting hodgepodge of different tidbits of United Kingdom history, but as the nominator says, all of this is covered in other articles. Mandsford 01:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Novel moniker? If that would be the phrase. Dupe. (talk) 01:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This reads more like someone's school essay than an encyclopedic article. Resolute 01:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this article is filled with massive amounts of HTML, and is formatted in a manner other than that used in Wikipedia articles. 70.29.210.155 (talk) 05:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Not Delete

The (primary article) Kingdom of Great Britain; such articles mentioned by the proposer; and all other (Wiki-history) Articles, define origins of (KoGB) as the 1707 Act of Union. This is insisted upon, because the 1606 “Act of Union”, (English & Scottish Parliaments) has no legal basis in law? Re: the 1707 Act, was legislated by a new “British Parliament.” These other articles are important, in their own contexts, and in perspective to each other. However, all are written from “post-1707” political, legal, &/or ideological perspectives.

This Kingdom(s) of Great Britain, defines the origins of (KoGB) as a 1606 Act of Union. Notable content, includes the full Quote of the 1606 Act, (unpublished in over 300 years); with Timeline citations of all the legislators and procedure, (1603-06) & (C.16 to C.18th). This Article also emphasises the first and last Houses of the Tudors, Stuarts and Hanover, as successions from two female rulers, their royal styles, naval histories, and genealogies; histories of such relevant Flags and Arms of the Kingdom(s) of England, and of Scotland. The Article especially emphasises the “bearing of flags,” from both 1606 & 1707 Acts of Union, specifically from a historical naval perspective, of such kingdoms being an island.

This article is not about post-1707, British, political, legal, &/or ideological perspectives. Kingdom(s) of Great Britain is a perspective from Kings and Queens, of such Kingdoms, in naval defence of their realms; their evolutions of our national identities; C.16th - C.18th. Stephen2nd (talk) 15:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to review WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:SYNTH, WP:COATRACK and a slew of other violations this logic implies. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have answered your question on notable content, and lack of coverage in other Articles. This is not WP:NOR, (prior publication-refs), and my SYNTH details its Verifiable facts. (KoGBetc1707+), doesn’t cover the periods (1603-1707) which are historically relevant. The 1606 Act of Union and proclamation are verifiable facts, of English-Scottish history. These eras of history, as reflected in the Article, are within all Wiki-rules, and have an as-equal importance in history, as other eras do.Stephen2nd (talk)

• Comment Union of the Crowns for dynastic union with James VI. It also violates most of WP:MOS, has terrible sources WP:RS, and skips over the entire civil war/restoration. --Savonneux (talk) 20:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge. The article title is confusing, the introductory text is confusing and inaccurate, the format is poor, the references are poor, and so forth, per other commnts above. Having said that, there appears to be some information in the article relating to the activities in and around 1606 which - if properly referenced and formatted - would be a useful addition to the encyclopedia, probably best as an addition to the article on Union of the Crowns. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: similar arguments apply to this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If this article is intended to cover the history of the kingdoms of England and Scotland from the Union of the Crowns through the Acts of Union, it does so in a profoundly opaque way. An article on that subject is potentially useful, but I see no reason why it should have this title or any of this content.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. This is interesting to probably nobody but me and the creator, but it is not an encyclopedia article. Userfy? Bearian (talk) 20:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Well it is interesting. Interesting in that it somehow skips over the entire Interregnum without even a footnote, it's more like Stuart period (England).--Savonneux (talk) 07:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The content is interesting but likely duplicitous (as previously mentioned) and, well, it hurts your eyes to look at it. The article is odd and presented in such as way as to be difficult to process or understand contextually. Besides, dear ol' Wiki doesn't look like that page at all. Needs serious cleanup to stay. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 03:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Mall[edit]

Fort Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Fort Saskatchewan has a mall. Apparently the mall has few tennants left. But you can buy it for $5 million! Only coverage is local, routine, and tangentally related to the mall itself. This article screams its lack of notability at the top of its lungs. Resolute 23:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I have tried to rescue this article but I think it is time to throw in the towel. fails WP:N insufficient coverage to allow it to pass. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 23:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As with most malls, I doubt that this was ever notable enough for its own article. Mandsford 01:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But its the only mall is Alberta in a town named after Saskatchewan! Seriously though, I'll see what I can dig up on it, I've added a lot of local press stories. The content could be tightened up, merged and redirected to the town if the consensus is to delete, as the mall seems to be tied to the fortunes of the downtown.--Milowent (talk) 12:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no coverage outside local press, no other indication of how it could meet guidelines. Claritas § 13:49, 30 May 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. As having only one RS. No prejudice to recreation if a second is found. Shimeru (talk) 23:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Milk Junkies[edit]

Milk Junkies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

There are no sources. Is this at all notable? I have no idea, but I thought I'd let the community decide. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nominate it if you personally don't believe its notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Anyway, looking through some of the results from a quick search[1] I see that Mania.com has reviewed some of the episodes in this series. Yep, its notable. Really need a way to filter through these results better, eliminating sites that aren't considered reliable. Dream Focus 01:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as Dream Focus pointed out, Mania.com has reviewed the series twice (well, reviewed two different releases in the series, but I digress). And, while I also agree about the need for better filtering in the custom Google search, it's already a fair bit better than a raw Google search. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 07:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC) Weak delete per Calathan and AnmaFinotera. I still maintain that the staff-written portions of Mania.com are RS, but am also willing to accept that two reviews on the same site might be considered one source. Had I not been vastly less involved with Wikipedia over the past ~8 months, I might have picked up on it in my original !vote, and possibly saved some of the discussion below from taking place. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 19:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is mania.com a notable publication or reliable source? Currently it isn't covered in any Wikipedia article, which leads me to doubt it. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • See WP:ANIME/RS#Situational. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 19:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Despite existing since 2007, this article has no references. Notability not established. Gobonobo ^{T C} 18:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the contrary, notability *has* been established by the two Mania.com reviews pointed out above. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 19:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two reviews on a single fansite isn't enough to guarantee notability, in my book. Has MJ received any coverage in mainstream media sources? This article seems to me like it would be more at home on a specialized Wikia than on Wikipedia, since it doesn't appear to have attracted any attention from anyone outside of hardcore porn/anime fandom. Stonemason89 (talk) 19:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mania.com is not a "fansite", it is an anime and manga news aggregator on par with Anime News Network. See WP:ANIME/RS#Situational, which I directed you to above, but which you seem to have overlooked. If you really still have qualms about the reliability of Mania.com, I recommend you ask for more opinions at WT:ANIME. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 20:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • When I said "fansite", I meant a site geared specifically toward fans of anime. Sorry for the confusion, but what I said earlier still holds. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The way you articulate your argumentation and you choice of wording can lead other editors like i to suspect that you have a negative bias toward anime in general. Low culture is always what is not your center of interest.
In the past, i wrote that i will not vote in hentai related AfD due to a my negative bias toward, so no vote again. --KrebMarkt 22:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck? I merely said that this article is not of particular importance to the general population, only a small niche (and as a result is more suitable for Wikia than Wikipedia). I'd express the same opinion if someone were to create a separate article for one of the RuneScape skills, quests, NPCs, etc. (and I certainly don't have a negative bias toward RS, as I play it!). Quit inferring bias when there is none. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has room for all sorts of articles of interest only to small niches though. If it satisfies WP:N or one of the more specific notability guidelines, there's no reason to bar the topic from Wikipedia just because it might not have wide enough appeal. In the case of individual RS quests, skills, NPCs, etc., I would argue that if enough RSes have written about one (and it can be sufficiently argued to split it out from the main article), it is more than deserving of its own article. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 01:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still though, there has to be a limit. Even if a subject is of interest to a group of people and it has received substantial coverage, that still doesn't mean that it's an appropriate topic for a serious encyclopedia. See this afd for an example of an article about a topic that received quite a bit of attention, but still is not an appropriate topic for a serious encyclopedia. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Obama's arms will never be an appropriate topic for Wikipedia because anything which could be written about them would be better covered in her main article (and, indeed, looking at the deleted article, everything written there was ultimately trivial almost to the point that it was pointless to bother writing about it). This article, on the other hand, cannot be merged anywhere in a similar fashion, and contrary to your belief, pornographic anime series are easily encyclopedic topics, as long as they meet the notability requirements as this one does. It is also important to differentiate between a temporary flurry of media interest which quickly dies out (there is an essay floating around somewhere which I've seen a few times but haven't been able to find for a while now, which recommends against creating articles on subjects just because they are the story of the day in major newspapers) versus more long-term interest in reliable sources - the article you pointed out sounds like the former, while this one is definitely the latter. The more you argue against this article being inherently unencyclopedic because its topic is too esoteric and specialized, the more it sounds like you do have a bias against it, for whatever reason. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 06:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The citations in the article are both from mid-2007. That does not seem like "long-term interest" to me. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That remember me an old debate that occurred more than one year ago at WP:BK. --KrebMarkt 13:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would love you to define general population in the context of Wikipedia which promotes diversity in readers, contributors and covered subjects with the reserve that the subjects meet any of our inclusions guideline.

If you want to avoid misunderstanding then be more careful with what you write. It's all matter on how your discourse is perceived. --KrebMarkt 06:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable. No reliable sources cited in the article. None found on Google or Google News. --MelanieN (talk) 17:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete, no significant coverage in reliable sources.-- Nuujinn (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC) I'm changing to weak delete per arguments from Calathan --Nuujinn (talk) 22:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you and MelanieN both ignoring the two Mania.com reviews linked from the article as well as the above discussion? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 00:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dinoguy, please read WP:RS where it is defined what is meant by an "independent, reliable source." Specifically, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Most websites do not qualify as reliable sources. A fan blog certainly doesn't. Why? Well, for one reason, it isn't published. For another, users are encouraged to "submit your own review" which means information published there may not be independent. If all you have to offer is two items at a blog-type website like mania.com, you do NOT have any reliable sources and the article does not meet Wikipedia criteria. --MelanieN (talk) 04:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I will point you to WP:ANIME/RS#Situational (the third time I have linked that page in this discussion). Mania.com is not "a fan blog"; as I said above, it is an anime/manga news aggregator on par with Anime News Network. Fan reviews, which are not reliable, are kept clearly separate from staff reviews, which are - how to tell the difference is already noted on the project page I linked. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 04:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MelanieN, please see my comments below. Mania.com has passed as a source in featured articles, which have particularly strict standards for reliable sources. Also, Chris Beveridge is a professional reviewer of anime, and is one of the most prominent critical reviewers of anime. Calathan (talk) 04:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete First, I want to say that Mania.com is definitely a reliable source. Besides Anime News Network (which no longer reviews hentai), it is basically the gold standard for critical reviews of anime in English. It has been accepted as a reliable source in featured articles (such as Madlax and Tokyo Mew Mew), and reviews from Mania.com are regularly cited in articles on anime and manga that have been released in English. Furthermore, reviews from Mania.com are frequently given as reliable sources in AfD discussions for anime and manga articles, and have been used as a major reason for keeping many articles. The article clearly now contains references to a reliable source with significant coverage of the topic, contrary to what MelainieN and Nuujinn claim. All that being said, the coverage is only from a single source, and I feel that coverage from a single source is not sufficient to show that a topic is notable. Though Mania.com chose to review two volumes of the series, WP:N says that multiple sources are generally expected and multiple sources by the same author or organization are generally treated as a single source. So unless significant coverage from at least one additional reliable source besides Mania.com is found, I still think the article should be deleted. I would support redirecting the article as a valid search term if there was any appropriate target for a redirect, but I couldn't find one myself. Calathan (talk) 04:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Just to concur with Calathan, Mania.com is #2 website just after Anime News Network for anime review and Mania.com hentai reviewer Chris Beveridge built a repute for reviewing such show thus qualifying as an expert in this area. Saying that Mania.com reviews are not acceptable per Wikipedia standard is either acting out of ignorance or putting some full denial mode tantrum. Now i can't deny there is some skillful subliminal manipulation here, by writing that Mania.com is fansite so for fandom, it's implying that Mania.com is not reliable per Wikipedia standard even if it's untrue. This AfD will probably end up with the article deleted but in no way you will convince me or the WP:ANIME participants that Mania.com is not RS with such bullshit argumentation. --KrebMarkt 06:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no significant coverage in reliable sources - mania.com reviews can essentially be written by anyone. Claritas § 13:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But again, these reviews aren't by anyone, but by Chris Beveridge who is the main editor for the anime/manga section of the Mania.com (which was formerly AnimeOnDVD.com before it merged with Mania.com). He is a professional reviewer with coverage in other reliable sources such as Anime News Network [2] [3], and Anime Today [4], the podcast for The Right Stuf International. Furthermore, reviews by him and others editors of Mania.com have been accepted as reliable sources in multiple featured articles and many good articles. Quotes from his reviews have also often been placed on the packaging of anime DVDs by major U.S. anime companies like Funimation Entertainment and A.D. Vision. Calathan (talk) 15:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Just like to weigh in, that like the other anime WP members here, I too accept Mania.com reviews as RSs and especially ones by Beveridge. --Gwern (contribs) 16:23 30 May 2010 (GMT)
• Keep This has become a very muddled discussion. Mania.com's staff reviews have been RS for a while now; AfD is hardly the place to challenge that. Doceirias (talk) 16:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete Agree with Calathan's well done summary. The Mania.com anime/manga reviews, as noted in at WP:ANIME/RS#Situational, are most certainly RS as that part of the site was formerly AnimeOnDVD.com, a long known expert in the industry. Chris Beveridge, former owner of AoD and now primary editor of the Mania.com anime/manga section is considered an industrcy expert, quoted by reliable sources, and is well known in the industry. The only reason the site nor he have an article is he is also a fairly private person so its difficult to say much more than that. AoD was vested as a reliable source long ago. When it was purchased by Mania and folded into the mix, that did not suddenly strip away its reliability. Its reviews are still reliable, as are the reviews and news the same staff continue writing. Yes, Mania does also host user-written reviews, but it is quite easy to differentiate the two, and these are staff written ones. All that said, if Mania is the only one to review the work, I can't really consider it notable. To me, the two Mania reviews alone count more as significant coverage in a single source, not two instances of significant coverage. If no one else has covered it, it still fails WP:N. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:26, 30 May 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. Tone 16:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in Holland[edit]

List of shopping malls in Holland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Delete. It is a list of shopping malls that do not have articles. Wikipedia is not a directory. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Pointless and unsourced list. Rodhullandemu 23:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Unneeded list. Truthsort (talk) 23:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not because I don't think it's a notable topic, but because it's unsourced and not informative. There are some good lists of malls, some of which would serve as a model for a good article. Mandsford 01:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It is actually a list of shopping centres rather than malls. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then that's different-- to the author, don't bother sourcing that one. Mandsford 16:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference between a shopping mall and a shopping centre (except for the term "shopping mall" being mainly used in North-America)?  --Lambiam 22:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Things such as layout and land ownership are different. Malls are an international thing. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Not only do the malls/centres listed not have articles on the English Wikipedia, they also have no articles on the Dutch Wikipedia, except for Batavia Stad. That is not due to a lack of attention to shopping centres on the Dutch Wikipedia: their Categorie:Winkelcentrum in Nederland lists 57 articles on individual shopping centres, some of which even have articles on other-language Wikipedias: Amsterdamse Poort (shopping centre), ja:アムステルダム・ポート, fr:MegaStores, and es:Schiphol Plaza. The only one among these 57 occurring on this article's list is Batavia Stad.  --Lambiam 22:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a recollection that there are few, if any malls in the Netherlands. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:12, 29 May 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. WP:MADEUP - related aricles are national pancake day and national waffle day? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

National Maple Syrup Day[edit]

National Maple Syrup Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

According to the sources provided this is not a sanctioned holiday by any government. Does not appear to be notable. SQGibbon (talk) 22:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While no "National ______ Day" has to be a holiday, this cute idea barely even gets a mention anywhere [5]. This one has been mentioned a few times in the "strange news" section of newspapers, and on a few "hey, guess what today is" websites, but that's about it. For those who give a syrup about such things, it is said to be on December 17. Mandsford 01:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Commment: How strange. As you can see on the article talk page this one is a bit odd. Its been mentioned in papers and such, but the origin is not easily identified as real.--Milowent (talk) 20:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Maple syrup — the obvious place to cover this per our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it exists! (Though even then a mention of it being reported on regardless of its unknown and possibly sketchy origin should be included, I think.)--Milowent (talk) 23:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - could not find a reliable source proving the actual existence of the holiday, not a word on who created it, on why it's in December, or which "nation" we're talking about (Canada or the US, the only producers of maple syrup), thus I am skeptical and think it might just be a hoax. Even the webpages about the supposed holiday admit they couldn't find info on it thus the article has zero verifiable content. And the related holidays are also suspect, except for Pancake Day which is well established by reliable sources. --70.80.234.196 (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Additional comment — I was also unable to find any kind of industry support for this day. Not sure if there is a cohesive national/international maple syrup industry but looking at various state groups (e.g. Vermont and New York) didn't reveal any mention of this day. SQGibbon (talk) 22:03, 29 May 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. There are some questions of verifiability -- that rumors of a massacre were in circulation is not in doubt, but the (unsubstantiated) sources of those rumors are not consistent. Furthermore, the point that there's been no scholarly discussion of such an event is compelling. Shimeru (talk) 23:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Massacre of Hormova[edit]

Massacre of Hormova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

wp:or & lacks wp:verify Alexikoua (talk) 19:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC) The events described, aren't supported by a single wp:rs. The existing 3 'references' [[6]][[7]][[8]], are based on articles of 2 newspapers and report (by whom?) of that period (1914-1915) and we don't even know if these newspapers and reports confirm this events because the context is missing on each. To sum up we have:[reply]

• snippet abuse.
• complete lack of secondaries&tertiary sources.
• clear wp:battle activity by the author,
• events that don't meet even wp:verify.

I'm sure that only some specific extreme povish pro-Albanian stuff like Jaqcues mention such events.Alexikoua (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete, I took the information from official reports of the house of commons, general de meer and the commission of control.--KëngaJonë 19:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should read wp:rs, can you support this events or at least part of them with reliable material that meets wp:verify?Alexikoua (talk) 19:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Classic POV, BATTLEground piece, not supported by any reliable sources whatsoever. Snippet abuse at its worst. Athenean (talk) 19:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is a real event, though non sourced properly by the author. E.g. [9] this reference is left out, as well as others. I will try to rewritte it.Balkanian`s word (talk) 20:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No wonder the events are confirmed 'only' by the Dutch officers of the Albanian gendarmerie [[10]]. I'm sure nothing else ever confirmed this stuff until today.Alexikoua (talk) 20:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)pro[reply]

I guess you are aware that only the Dutch gandarmarine was responsible about Albania during the reign of Princ William Weid. Either they, or the Greek Army would have confirmed that (I suppose you are waiting the second).Balkanian`s word (talk) 20:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it seems that this report wasn't believable by anyone else, apart from some officers fighting for the Albanian side: just a propaganda report by army/gendarmerie officers of the one side. Greek army or any other army report is irrelevant here, we just need wp:rs that confirm these events, not just saying that some officers saw attrocities in battle that can't be confirmed...Alexikoua (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can't believe author was given an award for this poorly sourced pov article. --Local hero ^talk 20:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep very notable event, but needs to be moved to Massacre of Kodra. Alexikoua, it seems that it has been reported by Austria, the USA, the Dutch army, the House of Commons of the United Kingdom and the International Commission of Control. Sources to verify WP:NN: [11][12][13][14][15][16]--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's this? More snippet abuse? This is getting ridiculous. Athenean (talk) 21:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More snippet abuse? There isn't much to abuse since the text needed to verify the notability of the subject is visible. Nonetheless even if these didn't exist Pearson's book brought by BW is more than enough to verify notability [17].--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No context, no wp:verify, just as I've expected: a event completely non-existent by mainstream bibliography, without a single secondary&tertiary source confirming it. The Alpbanophile author Pearson doesn't confirm this event too, he is clear that this is claimed by the Dutch officers of the Albanian gendarmerie. Alexikoua (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All these are secondary/tertiary sources, unless you consider even Pearson who published his book in 2006 a primary source. Even if these all were primary sources they would still be used to verify WP:NN which is the object of this discussion.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete.This article does not live up to requisites.Megistias (talk) 21:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Having never heard of this incident, I looked up the London Times and New York Times to see what they said about it. Very little, very contradictory, and unsubstantiated, as it turns out.--Damac (talk) 23:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Do we not consider the New York Times and London Times to be reliable sources? If someone wants to dispute the claims, then find a reliable source that does so. Notability is harder to justify, but I think the Newspapers are sufficient. Buddy431 (talk) 01:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Newspaper reports (no matter how conflicting) establish verifiability & notability (multiple independent sources with wide readership), especially large circulation papers in different countries. There are mentions in books. Something happened there on that date in such a way that it meets inclusion criteria factual details not withstanding. Advice to people arguing about facts: Just because you cant see them on google books doesnt mean they dont exist. Go to the library! Google books is a crutch for bad sourcing.--Savonneux (talk) 02:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless better sourcing from reputable modern secondary literature, i.e. academic historians, can be provided. What we have now is unaccounted-for google books snippets from contemporary newspapers, which appear to be presenting hearsay accounts only. Given the fact that falsified propaganda accounts of enemy atrocities were rampant in all war theatres during that time, we should not rely on such contemporary accounts unless they are filtered through responsible modern historiography. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've now become convinced the number and prominence of primary sources is sufficient to establish notability, and thus a legitimate need for some kind of coverage. The grave problem remains that we still have no reliable WP:Secondary sources allowing us to add non-trivial depth to this coverage, and that the artice in its present state displays a bad example of dangerously naive treatment of sources combined with POV-pushing agendas. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it was a propagandist report it wouldn't be disseminated by all major factions. Apart from the official state reports, all major newspapers of the time have reported the event: the NY Times, London Times, The Independent.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 08:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Zjarri. please stop this obsessive misinformation campaign here too, there are 'no' official state reports, only some wrongly used snippets we don't even know what their context was. You have already been warned not disrupting any procesedure possible.Alexikoua (talk) 12:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record when a text is published by the House of Commons and House of Lords and is titled The parliamentary debates (official report).: House of Lords it is an official state document containing reports and bringing sources is the opposite of disruption.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 13:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean this [[18]]. I have to disagree completely. We have an unknown report that is 'briefly read', typical snippet abuse case. By the way 'Massacre of Hormova' googlebooks hit is '1', and the book is written in 1919 by an active Albanian nationalist, that hardly meets wp:rs. Alexikoua (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep a notable event reported by reliables sources, such as New York Times and London Times. Cheers. kedadial 13:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the article to Massacre of Kodra as most sources name the village Kodra not Hormova(alternative name). It seems that even Blackwood's Magazine had reported the massacre of Kodra or Hormova.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 14:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zjarri: Can you explain me why you blindly reverted all the tag: npov & 'budious' tags using wrong edit summaries and pretending that there'snt discussion on the way? [[19]][[20]][[21]]Alexikoua (talk) 14:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alexikoua, I added all the sources needed to verify it so the citation needed/dubious tags should have been removed. If you dispute the neutrality of the article start a discussion and then add a tag. So far you're disputing the event itself and not even acknowledging its notability.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 14:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's really weird you claim that there isn't a discussion in the article's talkpage.Alexikoua (talk) 15:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I welcome FPS's suggestion to delete unless properly sourced. Now it is properly sourced, and we can keep the article. --Gollomboc (talk) 14:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Gollomboc: User:Sulmues welcome back.Alexikoua (talk) 14:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: According to new information provided by User:Damac talk:Massacre of Kodra #UK parliament. The so-called 'official report' was nothing more than a statement by a confirmed Albanian nationalist sympathiser. To sum up apart from some specific Albanian nationlist figures & Dutch officers of the Albanian gendarmerie this seems to be unconfirmed.Alexikoua (talk) 17:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The official report is that of lieutenant-general De Weer, head of the Dutch mission in Albania. You are confusing Herbert with de Weer. The report was filed by the lieutenent-general. The speech was held by Herbert in the House of Commons and, according to Robert Elsie (that you Greeks love), "Western public opinion had had enough of Balkan atrocities and there was little reaction". [22]. None of the two people were Albanians, so you can't call them "Albanian nationalist figures" because they weren't even Albanian. In addition, Herbert had photos on him when he was presenting the case, available upon request. He added that there were many massacres in other villages and that they were common knowledge. He mentions similar massacres in many villages, so that wasn't even an isolated fact but the tip of the iceberg. --Gollomboc (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Off course I'm not comfusing him. According to the link you gave it is clear that De Waal, commanded units of the Albanian gendarmerie, actually he participated in the fights: "De Waal himself tried to storm Gjirokastra on 12 May with the help of a volunteer corps under Sali Butka (1857-1938), but was cut off by Greek troops under General Papoulias." I've asked for at least one desent secondary or tertiary source, but it seems clear that there is hardly to find something on this.Alexikoua (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, So far all we have unsubstantiated reports from primary sources. Athenean (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, we have very good reliable sources. According to this, pages 11-12, it's widely described in Tajar Zavalani's book "History of Albania" published in 1998. @Alexikoua, de Weer witnessed the massacre first hand and according to Noli he should have done it along with a representative of the Zographos government as had been agreed between Zographos' govt and the International Commission here in p206. However Zographos did not keep to that committment. --Gollomboc (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"This" is some self-published essay, and Tajar Who? Also, English language sources, please. Athenean (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gollo/Sulmues: Please provide at least one clear wp:rs material, this nationalist Vatra stuff is far from being considered rs.Alexikoua (talk) 20:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't my fault why Zavalani hasn't been scanned in google books. This is all I can provide. The Greek Army committed genocide against the Albanian population after having lost the war against Prince Wied Albanian and Dutch forces. What else can I say. Selam Musai was injured in Hormove and after the Albanians lost the Hormove battle, a genocide was committed on the Muslim Albanian population. It was a religious genocide. And why should I provide all the sources btw? Why don't you Greeks bring your Greek sources and tell us why the Greek Army was defeated in Albania? --Gollomboc (talk) 20:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The book is offline. What do you mean? I would apprecitate if you avoid this highly nationalist declerations. Alexikoua (talk) 20:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know it is offline. Not everything can be found in google books, but Zavalani is a secondary source. And reliable as he is distant from the events. The first edition of his "History of Albania" was published in the 1960s. What I mean: These massacres in Hormove, Lekel, and many Kolonje villages were typical of the andartis' soldiers who as soon as they would realize that they would not win the battle, they would commit atrocities. Why don't you start an article on the "andartis" forces to explain who they really were? Or do I have to do it? Kengajone opened this article and he is not prepared well to substantiate it, but this article is improperly in AfD today. These articles have to be started and written by seasoned wikipedians, as they are extremely controversial. However bringing them to AfD is another way of edit-warring them. I am sure that there are sources in Greek about this. I would be surprized if there weren't. Why don't you bring your own sources and we compare notes? Are you suggesting that there is nothing said in Greek history about paramilitary forces? --Gollomboc (talk) 20:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean (there are neither in English nor in Greek as far I know), the article is a combination of wp:or, wp:battle, excessive snippet abuse, as I've explained. Thanks to User:Damac Talk:Massacre_of_Hormova we learned that the snippets that were supposed to confirm this 'massacre' are just propaganda reports by nationalist elements. I kindly ask you to respect this proccess.21:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I asked you if you have ever HEARD of the "andartis" para-militaries. Can you please tell me what you know about them? Are you telling me that there is nothing in the Greek history about the "andartis" troops who terrorized the whole southern Albania in 1913-1914? Are you telling me that this is all made up? That the andartis don't exist? That they have never gone into a war? What are you telling me? I am respecting this process and in my opinion the sources are sufficient. User:Damac just digged the dialogue in the House of Commmons between the Foreign Secretary and an MP. He said that the MP was interested to the throne of Albania, but he never accepted it. The fact that he was fond of Albania means nothing as to how reliable he was. He was a British MP and a very respected one and to me his bringing the issue to the House of Commons was a very important political factor. The Great Britain parliament had a lot of issues in 1914 to waist time on the Greek andartis who would go to Albania to commit their holy war after the Greek government was told several times to retire from Albania. In relation to the WP:Battle mentality that you claim the author of the article has: Everything that Kengajone claims in the article is well supported. Actually the sources go even further to describe atrocities. I really think we should reword many of the pieces of the article, and please feel free to do so, I have witnessed that you have good talent at that, but let's not say that we have no sources, because we do. --Gollomboc (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plaese, calm down and avoid irrelevant questions.Alexikoua (talk) 21:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - needs some clean-up, but well sourced and meets WP:N. Claritas (talk) 19:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Fut.Perf. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 20:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Newspaper Archive, book published by McFarland, book published by IB Tauris, US Congressional record [23] some sort of interview with Albanian politician. AFD is for coverage, to debate reliability go to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard--Savonneux (talk) 21:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first book is by Edwin Jacques, a known pro-Albanian charlatan. The other two sources speak of allegations by Albanians. This is something that is alleged to have occured almost a hundred years ago, and all we have are reports in newspapers about allegations by Albanians. There is no proof in scholarly historical sources anywhere that this occured. Plenty has been written about WW I in the Balkans, yet no historian worth his salt has confirmed this atrocity. Massacres may be notable. Unsubstantiated allegations of massacres are not. Athenean (talk) 22:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The House of Lords, the International Commission of Control, the Dutch reports, the Austrian and American reports, Pearson, Blackwood's Magazine etc. aren't Albanian.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And they all speak of nothing but allegations. A confirmation of this event simply does not exist in the historical literature. Athenean (talk) 22:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Zjarri: I'd kindly asked you to avoid this campaign of misinformation and to apologize about the excessive snippet abuse [[24]], about the so called 'official report', this was nothing more than claims by a nationalist sympathizer, as Danac informed you Talk:Massacre_of_Hormova. Alexikoua (talk) 22:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Allegations are notable if they are verifiable and widely disseminated. We don't evaluate truth WP:V first sentence: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth Also the term "snippet abuse" that you keep using as if referring to some sort of policy does not exist in any guideline that I can find and using it as such is misrepresentative of current guidelines.--Savonneux (talk) 00:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation: I guess the term "snippet abuse" refers to something I have repeatedly admonished people for in these recent Greek-Albanian debates: the tendency of using Google Books as a lazy substitute for actually researching the literature, and "citing" snippets found on Google without making a minimal effort at verifying their context, reliability and actual bibliographical details. Abuse of sources caused by such lazy googling has indeed been a major source of disruption in this field. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But if these allegations were notable, they would be treated by contemporary modern academic historians. So far, we have nothing but hearsay in newspaper reports from over 100 years ago, i.e. primary sources. And even back then, they were unsubstantiated runors, nothing more. If these allegations had merit, I imagine one of the many contemporary historians of the Balkans would have written something about them. So far, nothing. Athenean (talk) 00:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Contemporary usually means it means originating during the same time, dunno if English is first language but makes it confusing to read when it means modern and at that time... In any case, rumor/allegation etc. are all judgments of truth. It is covered in at least 3 books and multiple contemporary newspapers, all widely disseminated, and easy to find (books are all available on worldcat, and newpapers are online). That meets inclusion criteria truthyness nonwithstanding. --Savonneux (talk) 03:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3 books? The Jacques book at least, is nowhere near RS. As for the newspapers reports, they aren't reports of atrocities, but allegations of reports of atrocities, that reached the West second and third hand. Regarding your earlier comment about snippet abuse, there's no specific policy against that per se, but creating articles by collecting de-contextualized snippets obtained from keyword searches on Google Books is the lowest of the low forms of poor sourcing and tendentious editing. Athenean (talk) 04:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still haven't seen any proper treatment by a reputable modern historian. Neither Edwin Jacques nor Owen Pearson count as such; they are both known national apologists with no academic standing. The reliance on contemporary newspaper reports is nothing short of naive. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Some things you can live with but some are outrageous. This is outrageous. One source, biased, little information or backing up material, and, most of all, no notability whatsoever. I think that this article would only occupy space in WP servers and wouldn't have any hits unless it is made a featured one, which cannot happen.--Michael X the White (talk) 08:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article suffers from User:Zjarri.s' disruptive activity, who insists on restoring all this wrongly intepretted snippets, ignoring Damac's comments. On the other hand he removed parts that question this event, like: [[25]][[26]], while launching weird accusations: [[27]].Alexikoua (talk) 10:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note:For the record other users removed 2k of text or started editorializing. Deleting that large content without consensus is extremely disruptive and I reverted it.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 10:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment From the sources provided it would seem that the alleged event did receive enough coverage to satisfy WP:N. If the massacre was propaganda and did not actually happen, perhaps an article with Massacre of Kodra is claimed to have been conducted by the Greek army in 1914 in Albania, but which is suspected to be propaganda / exaggerated ... ? MKFI (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, here's my suggestion. We retain the article. We say that it is the subject of dispute. We explain what the Albanians say happened, and we explain why the Greeks say it didn't happen. We leave it to the reader to decide. How's that? DS (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me.Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course and I think that there are enough sources describing the Greek stance on the matter. --— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete' A tragic but without serious bibliography story. It is certain that balkan history has plenty of such, the first victim of war is always truthMetsobon34 (talk) 18:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's actually how we want a project like this. Modern history has tons of similar unconfirmed stories. Actually, in the same fashion, I can create plenty of articles about massacres committed by Albanians against Greeks in Northern Epirus. There are several Greek sources like John Cassavetis (a official report to the Paris peace conference 1919 [[28]]), K. Skenderis (a Greek MP) [[29]] or the French reporter 'Puaux, René' [[30]]. According to the same arguments we can create the 'massacre of Lunxhery', 'of Korca', 'of Moscopole (1916)' and several others 'committed by Albanians against Greeks', since we have reports by MPs, Peace conferences and reporters of that time.

My question is: should we unbury all this so-called 'official' reports of the past and create several articles of the same style? In my opinion wikipedia is not the right place. I know that some Albanian contributors want this article to stay but how they would feel if they see similar Greek reports in the same fashion? I suggest to leave these questionable events were they belong... deep buried in some old libraries, and create real encyclopedic articles.Alexikoua (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You are casting everyone as some sort of partisan. I know I really don't care about the Balkans. Add whatever articles you like and they will be evaluated on the same criteria. Relative truth value has no bearing on the inclusion criteria. Something either has coverage, or it doesnt, full stop.--Savonneux (talk) 21:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To D.S.: I'm not sure the description as a "dispute" fits the bill here. From what I've seen so far, the problem is not so much that there is a dispute (with a Greek side "claiming it didn't happen"). The problem is there is no modern coverage at all, except in partisan literature uncritically rehashing the contemporary reports. A "Greek side" to the story, if one exists, hasn't been cited yet, unless I missed something. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Still judgements of

• Delete there is no proof that this event ever happened. A story reported in a newspaper a hundred years ago is not a reliable source, plenty of stories are invented or exaggerated. It seems too that the most recent book, which was not written by a scholar, but by an Albanian nationalist, may have used these reports as sources. TFD (talk) 23:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't need to be proof that this ever happened. It needs to be verifiable that it happened. I consider the New York Times, even 100 years ago, to be a reliable source. Buddy431 (talk) 01:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not in times of WW-I-era war propaganda. Taking any kind of contemporary report at face value in such contexts is just dangerously naive. Fut.Perf. ☼ 04:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Greece and USA were aleats in the WWI war. [31]Stupidus Maximus (talk) 11:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, and that makes no judgment on the event having occurred. Even if it's propaganda, from the multitude of sources cited, it seems to be notable propaganda. We have articles on notable incidents used as propaganda whether or not they happened to be real or embellished: Gleiwitz incident, Jessica Lynch, Muhammad al-Durrah incident ... --GRuban (talk) 12:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  As I see the above mentioned events have plenty of bibliography to offer, while on the contrary, the specific, has virtually nothing (Pearson who's the only contemporary is far from neutral as stated in the article).Alexikoua (talk) 13:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. as per Future Perfect and Alexikaua. Guys, this article really cannot stay in an encyclopedia in this manner. It is already understandable from the 1st sentence, that it is more a description of some phrase, rather than an event. I see almost all the above mentioned by FutPer. and Alex. this article lacking. Propaganda and anything else that an encyclopedia is not for should not be on Wiki and there surely is a lack of RS here with Notability etc. Aregakn (talk) 13:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. And whoever proposes a merge in their comments are wrongly voting keep, by the way. Aregakn (talk) 13:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I wonder if it was noticed, but 3 out of 4 sources provided were published at the period, and qualify as a primary sources. Only one source is secondary and most of the description is attributed to him. It is not relevant if the event happened or not, but if the reported even is notable. If we scratch history we will find thousands of massacres, particularly aborigenes in America, Australia etc., we can go on villages by villages including them, but many of those purported massacres are in the shadow of history. For me, that 3 out of 4 references provided are primary and published at the time, only means that the purported event had slight notability in the said period and have pratically none now. If we rely on only one secondary source, we're writting the thesis of the author of this one single secondary source, this borders promotion. Ionidasz (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Extraordinary claims need extraordinary reliable sources according to Wikipedia. I think it's enough. NY Times is good even during the WWI if supported by sufficient number of other Wikipedia:RS. Emilio1974 (talk) 17:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per Ionidasz good reasoning. --Tadija^speaks 18:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is virtually no mention of "Massacre of Hormova" or "Massacre of Kodra" outside of Wikipedia, and these few sources. That, to me, calls in the question the reliability of these sources. Such an article would require much better sources. Prodego ^talk 19:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's more than that actually, with the internet today, it is easy to find materials published about a century ago. Having sources alone is not enough, if all we have are sources of over 70 years ago, it may show events had some notability near a centry ago, but it says nothing about the current notability. Ionidasz (talk) 19:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Those sources are very iffy, and I've found practically nothing else other than those sources. The Thing That Should Not Be (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If its a hoax, its a notable hoax. It was certainly talked about and at the very least is part of Albanian perceived history. Allegations of bias and truth can certainly be addressed in the article. Also, a reference to a denial would be helpful. I haven't seen one yet.Lateg (talk) 22:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's perhaps true, but sources are lacking to write anything significantly long to make it more than a stub. For a historical events, alleged or true, Jstor and others seems to remain silent. Ionidasz (talk) 02:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know if it happened or not but the article cannot exist however it is. Restating some short news of papers is what the observation news-agencies do, but not encyclopedia. If it took place, reliable researches on the event are needed to address this issue here. The article doesn't seem to have the capacity to be improved on this level of source-references. Aregakn (talk) 03:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Need a rewrite before considering keep. A massacre article based purely on "according to the pro-Albanian author...alleged atrocity...unconfirmed report" just screams nobody was even sure if the Greeks had ever set foot in Hormova in the first place. Can someone at least confirm/verify the basic facts that the Greek had occupied Hormova, and that somebody died afterward? If not, then I just don't see the event to be notable as a stand alone "masscare", maybe as a small footnote in the article Greek-Albanian relations. Jim101 (talk) 04:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: did anyone actually tried to establish notability by using both Greek and Albainian sources? if both Greek and Albainian sources confirmed that some sort of casualties did occur and caused significantly fallouts between the two countries, then this event could be notable (abit with a name change like "Hormova controversy" or something). Jim101 (talk) 01:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It lacks notability, it is based on few scattered snippets (mainly phrases), it's one of these articles that their authors try so hard to create from nowhere. Every single village, rock or tree on Earth has something to tell, but it doesn't mean that it deserves anything more than a simple reference in a wider article, let alone its own history-related article in an encyclopedia, which can easily be interpeted as propaganda or one-sided, especially when you cannot provide a proper account of context and there's a lack of reliable and diverse sources, like in this one. - Sthenel (talk) 08:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This event has no modern bibliography, it seems that was far forgotten some 100-90 year ago. It might happened but no real book supports even a supposed massacre like this. Balkan history is full of massacre reports that were soon forgotten by everyone, like this one.Villick (talk) 14:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sufficient secondary sources to demonstrate notability of the subject. (Whether it was true does not affect notability - see The Crucified Soldier) Article also needs work - it claims sources accepting the incident as true are pro-Albanian, yet provides no evidence of actual bias on the part of those sources. Edward321 (talk) 20:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually all of the existing metarial is biased as per discussion page. Suppose the misundestanding is because the snippets alone don't help much. On the contrary, 'The Crucified Soldier', has enough after 1920, published material.Alexikoua (talk) 20:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: This article is based on some highly non-neutral reports of that time. I have checked the web but I can't see one book that mentions this. Some rumors that occured at 1914 are imposible to become a serious article.CrazyMartini (talk) 20:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

French, english[edit]

@Stupidus Maximus: It seems that this misinformation campaign using 'snippets' that noone knows who wrote them (maybe some Albanian nationalist 100 years before) is your typical strategy, as already performed in[[40]] talk:Thanasis Vagias (trying there to prove that one of the Karagiozis shadow puppet character is really him...).Alexikoua (talk) 14:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, such citations are worthless without a proper account of the context. The printed sources evidently don't represent the original authors of the relevant reports, but are in turn quoting something or somebody. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Stupidus: Your list is very similar with this [[41]].Alexikoua (talk) 21:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "According to the same arguments we can create the 'massacre of Lunxhery', 'of Korca', 'of Moscopole (1916)' and several others 'committed by Albanians against Greeks', since we have reports by MPs, Peace conferences and reporters of that time." To this, I say: Sure. Go ahead. List 'em all. Give the claims of both sides (that it was a terrible atrocity, vs that it never happened and that it's more damn propaganda), name the external entities which mention the incident, include 'snippets' if need be. Whether the incident "actually occurred" is no longer the issue. The issue is whether the incident was reported to have occurred. If a British MP known to be a Gorplakian sympathizer reports an atrocity committed against Gorplakians by Frobeepians, does that mean it's necessarily false? Was he lying, were his informants lying, or did Frobeepian troops genuinely massacre 600 Gorplakian children at East Horse Nostril and the MP is terribly concerned that no one cares about Gorplakians? It doesn't matter. What matters is that the British MP reported it. What about the massacre of 600 Frobeepian children by Gorplakian troops at West Horse Nostril? Answer: same criteria apply. It's true that war uses propaganda, and that reports of atrocities during war have been fabricated. It would be shameful to accept such reports unquestioningly. But it would be equally shameful to reject such reports unquestioningly, because atrocities do happen. Especially in war. Over the centuries, Gorplakians have butchered Frobeepians and Frobeepians have butchered Gorplakians, and both have butchered, and been butchered by, the Voggybloops. And all three have made up lies about each other. If an incident -- particularly one from early last century -- has been widely reported, then we at Wikipedia do not judge whether or not it happened. We report what the incident was claimed to have been. And we report the possible flaws in those claims. And we let the reader decide. DS (talk) 14:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That a British MP mentioned in over 80 years ago, means that over 80 years ago it had some notability. Showing that notability existed 80 years ago does not show the required notability still exist now. Ionidasz (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except that's not the only place it was mentioned. DS (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:NTEMP 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.--Savonneux (talk) 06:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's not the same context, also read what follows. It is a little too much than not having to have ungoing coverage, when the coverage is 80 years old and qualify as primary source. Only secondary sources show notability not primary. Ionidasz (talk) 14:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • And where was it? Jstor and others don't give a single result, google book does, for some snapshot and are materials from the period. One book, only one recent book is available. I agree that it happened or not is irrelevant, as even alleged events can have their article. But notability is relevant and without it, we have a problem. Ionidasz (talk) 19:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I dont understand why you keep calling these stubs [42]? I can see full scanned pages. Thought that was what you were talking about since you were referring to things 80 years old. Even if they are primary they can be used for illustration purposes. It's covered in two modern books (in English) book published by McFarland, book published by IB Tauris (I used google book pages so people could see bilbio info). [Edit] also here [43] which has an earlier issue with mention of it as well, magazine haz wikipedia article The_New_Age. --Savonneux (talk) 00:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that both Frobeepian & Gorplakian & international bibliography has long forgotten this 100 years old alleged incident. We can't explained why, but even when some Frobeepian wikipedians recently unburried some highly questioned reports of that time, most parts of this puzzle are still missing.Alexikoua (talk) 08:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image[edit]

Until now I hadn't searched for the incident in Albanian-language sources. This image is a monument in the village of Kodra/Hormova in honor of the victims. If this is was an incident that wasn't notable then there shouldn't even be a monument.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 11:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Zjarri: Can you please focus on the topic without beeing disruptive again as you have been already instructed? Actually, this proves nothing. And how are you sure this monument is related with this alleged incident? (Lapidari ne Hormove, so what? No wonder, the incsription says nothing about it) If you can't provide a single secondary&tertiary source please stop playing with supposed 'monuments'.Alexikoua (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way: The village of Hormovo was the target of Ali Pasha's troops in 18th-19th century [[44]][[45]] (about the massacre of Hormovo by Ali Pasha). The attempt of ZjarriRrethues to disrupt the proccess by using pictures he found in panoriamio of unknown monuments is simply unacceptable.Alexikoua (talk) 12:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been instructed by anyone for being disruptive and I don't think that bringing critical evidence is disruptive because some may not like the article. If you zoom in the monument you'll see the inscription "Lavdi Deshmoreve" (Glory to the fallen). This is an article from Shekulli mentioning the "Lapidar of Hormova" especially related to this incident[46]. Why are you mentionig Ali Pasha and an incident not even remotely related to this? That is the disruptive action here not me bringing sources that verify the notability of the subject.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 12:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but you need to respect this procedure (irrelevant monuments have nothing to do with this). You have already tried to dirsupt this afd and you have been instructed (mysteriously you deny this) [[47]]. No wonder your previous disruptive comments in this page were removed.Alexikoua (talk) 13:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a monument commemorating this particular incident not an irrelevant monument of an irrelevant incident. For future reference avoid wp:npa violations by labeling as instructions discussions I've had with users and not admins or highly established users or even users with a clean block log record.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 13:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And please don't post ultranationalistic and irrelevant articles as well as irrelevant pictures to prove a wp:point. Wikipedia doesn't need them. If you dont have secondary or tertiary sources, I suggest you leave this afd.Alexikoua (talk) 13:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's an article mentioning the monument of the photo in relation to the event of the AfD so why are you labeling it as irrelevant?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 13:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isnt the place for this. Mentioning photos has never been considered disruptive here to my knowledge and almost all I do is research AFDs (check my contribs). All evidence can be mentioned, it is up to other people to decide its worth. I should add there is an exhibit in a Leiden, Netherlands public library with photos as well here. The source for the images is Instituut voor Militaire Geschiedenis (Institute Military Research), The Hague.--Savonneux (talk) 22:16, 30 May 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. The added sources appear to meet notability concerns. Shimeru (talk) 00:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood (programming language)[edit]

Hollywood (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This article is not encyclopedic. The product this article advertises is not well known and is not of any significance in the field it targets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koft (talk • contribs) 20:22, 23 May 2010

• Hollywood is a massive program and very popular program on all Amiga platforms (and there are many). I don't understand why it should be removed. -- Matthias H. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.246.148.131 (talk) 22:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 23-may-2010, Elwood:

I disagree because:

• I don't see anything wrong with this information. Remember that:

• • The information isn't the issue, the issue is that this is non-notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koft (talk • contribs) 21:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quote:

An encyclopedia (also spelled encyclopaedia or encyclopædia) is a comprehensive written compendium that holds information from either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge.

End quote.

• As a programming language, Hollywood have the same rights as these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scala_(programming_language)

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMOS_(programming_language) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.215.145.134 (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • it doesn't because people know what those products are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koft (talk • contribs) 21:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

End, 23-may-2010, Elwood —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.80.148.37 (talk) 20:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is an advertisement for a product, see http://amigaworld.net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=5442

"Hollywood now has its own entry at Wikipedia, the world's most popular encyclopedia. Here is the link so you can check it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood (programming language). The article provides a good overview of what Hollywood can do, what platforms it supports, and a short history of the program. There is also a dedicated section about the popular Hollywood Designer add-on, which allows the easy creation of presentations and multimedia applications using a convenient GUI. Finally, I'd like to inform interested customers from overseas that the Euro is currently pretty weak in comparison to the US dollar, so for everyone who is thinking about purchasing Hollywood, now might be a good time to order." Koft (talk) 21:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep : I disagree with the deletion because Hollywood was a great language!

I use it daily and dont know whats the problem with that wikipedia entry... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuxedo75 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this programming language. Joe Chill (talk) 23:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Joe Chill. The issue we are discussing here is not whether Hollywood is a good or bad programming language. What we are discussing is whether it is a notable programming language. That is, have articles and/or books been published about it by persons who didn't create it or have a financial stake in the programming language? The articles Scala (programming language) and Visual Basic appear to have such independent sources cited showing notability of those languages. Maybe there are such sources about Hollywood too, but they need to be cited in order for participants here in this discussion to know that they exist. And if anyone can find such sources but doesn't know how to add them to the article, they can cite them here in this discussion which could at least confirm the existence of the sources (if they are relevant and useful). If such sources are provided, I may reconsider my recommendation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In recognition of the fact that multiple sources have been added to the article, I have withdrawn my "delete" recommendation and am now neutral. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Language is an embedded lang for a specific product that's virtually unknown. No references I can find have been written about it. Koft (talk) 03:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps Hollywood is not yet notable enough for its own article. However, the article Amiga software needs a major overhaul to bring it up to date with recent developments. If it is deemed insufficiently notable, this Hollywood article should be condensed and merged with the broader Amiga software article, as Hollywood is certainly a major example of new Amiga software, and much-used within the Amiga community despite its lack of notability in the wider world. 188.74.93.216 (talk) 01:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As it currently stands this page is nothing more than advertisement for the program. Thumb down.131.207.242.5 (talk) 07:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Adding references and sources is not a problem. There have been many articles and tutorials covering Hollywood in magazines over the last 5 years. I just need to sort them out and will add references then. Also, it is worth noting that Hollywood is widely used by dentists in Norway as an interactive info channel and also for education. Cf. here: http://www.ferrule-media.no --> The info channel sold by this Norwegian company is realized using Hollywood technology —Preceding unsigned comment added by Softwarefailure (talk • contribs) 09:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I think it meets the general notability guideline (based on a few minutes of Googling) as other similar articles, and Hollywood is "well known" withing Amiga circles. The only (or major) issue I think it has, is that it doesn't cite any references but that could be fixed over time. Marko75 (talk) 14:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I have read the article twice and I must admit that I can't see any problems related to it - at least to me the article is both well written and informative. The article is also neutral and fair to the products in question. In fact Hollywood as a language should indeed be mentioned alongside Amos, Visual Basics and others.

I see one person also mentions that Hollywood / Designer as a softwarepackage is not "important" enough to have its own page on Wikipedia. I'm a bit surprised to read such statement. I am the CEO of Ferrule Media, one company wich uses Hollywood / Hollywood Designer to develop commercial software used in the Norwegian schools and in dentistry / medical world. We have used Hollywood to develop for several year already, both in our Norwegian and Danish office.

The Hollywood/Designer-bundle is one of the most important software-packages available on the modern Amiga, and is well known among the Amiga community.

Best regards
Torgeir Vee,
CEO, Ferrule Media,
www.ferrule-media.no —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.109.184.154 (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Hollywood is even more powerfull than Latex's beamer class

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beamer_(LaTeX)

or can be at least used in the same way, as shown in this very, very basic example presentation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klY2VIFFCAU

Hollywood is a real cross platform multimedia language and the most important one on AmigaOS. As "Beamer" and especially, "Scala" (as mentioned above) are valid entries in wikipedia, for sure, this should be true for Hollywood, too.

I personally use Hollywood for presentations given at the Max-Planck Institute for Computer Science. I'm working there (see: http://www.mpi-inf.mpg.de/~tcrecel/) and Hollywood is very much appreciated!

regards,
Tom Crecelius —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.66.109.66 (talk) 17:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It's notable in the Amiga world. 75.189.213.49 (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This product plays an important role for the small but active amiga community. It's a symbol of unity in a broken amiga history ... the many different systems supported give a good way to produce software without adding to the ongoing battle of succession. In its role I think it earnes a place here and in every wiki. Rilgamon (talk) 10:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article is informative and factual as far as I can see. It is used by educators in certain small countries. Is the desire to delete it driven by big multi-national companies protecting inferior products? David White-DreamVision Media — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.252.18.166 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 26 May 2010

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Shimeru (talk) 00:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheung–Marks theorem[edit]

Cheung–Marks theorem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Believe to be a non-notable mathematical theorem; at least to the extent of not requiring a Wiki article. The original paper has very few citations, and Google only returns a small handful of relevant hits for "Cheung–Marks".

Was originally PRODded; removed by article's author. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 11:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete—Unfortunately it doesn't appear to satisfy the necessary criteria for notability.—RJH (talk) 18:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. From update, this looks to be a correction to the only error Shannon's 1948 Bell Labs paper that founded information theory.BigChairMonk (talk) 19:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC) — BigChairMonk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• • That's not important (and not correct, either!). What's important is whether the theorem has been discussed in a non-trivial manner in multiple independent sources, e.g. textbooks. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 19:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I had a class with Makrs and got an account just to vote on this. Bob Koffee —Preceding unsigned comment added by BobKoffee (talk • contribs) 19:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC) — BobKoffee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • This isn't a vote! It's a discussion on reasons to keep or delete the article. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 11:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Here are some references from varying perspectives.

• • "Coined". Brown, J.L., Jr.; Cabrera, S.D.; , "On well-posedness of the Papoulis generalized sampling expansion , " Circuits and Systems, IEEE Transactions on , vol.38, no.5, pp.554-556, May 1991. Brown and Cabrera coined the term term "Marks-Cheung Theorem" based on the original paper. From abstract - "K.F. Cheung and R.J. Marks have shown that if at least one of the interpolation functions used in the generalized sampling expansion of A. Papoulis (1977) is not square-integrable, then the problem is ill-posed in the sense that the variance of the reconstruction error is unbounded when noisy samples are used." and, from the paper, "the Cheung-Marks theorem needs to be restated in terms of the (YJw)); an alternative proof shows that the problem is well posed only when each of the {Yk(w)} belongs to L2( - a, a). This latter result, along with a more detailed proof of Theorem 1, can be found."

• • Historical. Unser, M.; , "Sampling-50 years after Shannon," Proceedings of the IEEE , vol.88, no.4, pp.569-587, Apr 2000. Unser Cited Cheung-Marks paper in the most important developments of the sampling theorem in the last 50 years.

• • In Practice . While et al. Generalized sampling interpolation of noisy gravity/gravity gradient data. GEOPHYSICAL JOURNAL INTERNATIONAL Volume: 178 Issue: 2 pp 638-650 AUG 2009 (1985); Reference Marks & Cheung. "It is shown that the GSE is well-posed if 0 < | det[H(k)]| < 8, where H is the expansion matrix (described below in eq. 1), and k is the wavevector..."

• • Generalization to vector sampling. Seidner, D.; Feder, M.; , "Vector sampling expansion," Signal Processing, IEEE Transactions on , vol.48, no.5, pp.1401-1416, May 2000: "The first issue is well posedness. In GSE, this problem was initially discussed by Cheung and Marks [17], who found a sufficient condition for ill-posedness of the system. Under their definition, an ill-posed GSE system produces a reconstruction error with unbounded variance when a bounded variance noise is added to the samples."

• • Frame Sampling.The Journal of Fourier Analysis and Applications Volume 2, Number 5, 1996 Frame Analysis of Irregular Periodic Sampling of Signals and Their Derivatives M. Zibulski, V. A. Segalescu, N. Cohen, and Y. Y. Zeevi: Reference Marks & Cheung. "...in such a case reconstruction might be possible with troublesome convergence properties (which is the reason for calling the sampling unstable)."
  • — SlimDeli (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • The existence of these one-sentence (or less, for example the "Sampling-50 years after Shannon" paper doesn't even mention Cheung-Marks, merely one cite amongst three) mentions would merit, at most, a footnote in the sampling theorem article. A full-blown article is unwarranted given that the term "Cheung-Marks theorem" is essentially unheard of. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 00:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 22:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it's inappropriate that this article was nominated for deletion so quickly. A stub was created, and then the article was proposed for deletion within an hour, with no discussion on the discussion page. Sometimes you can tell from the initial stub that something is original research, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. Sure, in the long run the subject needs to prove its notability, but I have seen topics that were clearly crazy treated more gently than this one. -- Walt Pohl (talk) 11:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For reference, I originally PRODded this, because it wouldn't meet CSD. The author removed the tag, so I AfDed it instead. I don't believe this to be original research, I simply believe it's a theorem with very little exposure. Actually, there was some discussion on the talk page, but that's orthogonal to whether an AfD should take place (which in itself is a discussion!). Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 12:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I'm rather foreign to informatics (and to English wiki notability rules as well), but: a quick google search, in addition to what was mentioned above, gives, for instance, Brown, J.L., Jr. Cabrera, S.D., Multi-channel signal reconstruction using noisy samples, that mentions their result in the abstract: ...proving a converse to the ill-posedness result K.F. Cheung and R.J. Marks...".
    • So it seems to me that we indeed can conclude that not only the result exists, but also that it is still of interest to (some) people, that the notability conditions (at least as far as I can see), are met. The result is mentioned in other papers, other researchers are generalizing it, proving the converse statement, etc. For instance, given the abstract of this paper, it means that some part of the paper (seemingly independent from Cheung and Marks themselves) is devoted to things around this result. So it interests some people.
    • Well, that's more or less all I can say after a quick googling. To say more -- maybe one should read these papers through... --Burivykh (talk) 21:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The original paper has citations. Keep. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:06, 30 May 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) 01:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Summit Series[edit]

2008 Summit Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Premature article that evidently fell through the cracks. While there was a push at that time for a second Summit Series, it was intended to take place in 2007 for the 35th anniversary of the first, not 2008. The 2007 Super Series grew out of that, and I can find no indication that the idea was ever seriously revisited for 2008. I suspect this article is based entirely off the opinion of the newspaper writer in the source. A good example of WP:CRYSTAL this. Resolute 21:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —Resolute 22:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: An excellent example of WP:CRYSTAL, I daresay. (Should there be a WP:CRACKEDCRYSTAL for orphaned articles speculating about events which putative dates have come and gone?)  Ravenswing  00:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not sure I can add too much to what's already been said. Patken4 (talk) 21:25, 25 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael J. Franklin (CPO)[edit]

Michael J. Franklin (CPO) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Notability not established, weak sources, possible conflict of interest. Proximity to important persons does not confer notability, and there doesn't appear to be much independent mention, which is appropriate for a man who was "a silent, nameless figure often photographed beside many powerful, well known and famous people from 1985 until 2010". JNW (talk) 21:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the book seems to be privately published as an ebook, and not even included in Amazon, The notability otherwise is extremely borderline. It would probably be a good idea when the career is non-notable to try to delete on that basis, instead of relying of BLP PROD, which must be declined if there are relevant sources, and then requires another procedure. DGG ( talk ) 22:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. I've previously expressed concerns on the article's talk page that there is an apparent COI. A contributor to the article is User:Judson012, whose username is, coincidentally, similar to the middle name of the subject. Even more coincidental is that the draft for this article is at User:Judson012. The major contributor to the article is User:Haverly999, who has edited User:Judson012. All of the edits by both editors have been related to this article, yet there is no discussion between the two editors, indicating that there is some pre-existing relationship between them. This belief is strengthened by the fact that Judson012 has signed at least one post on another page as Haverly999, indicating some sockpuppetry.[48] The page appears to be purely self-promotion of a non-notable individual. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom and AussieLegend - Poss WP:CSD#G11. Codf1977 (talk) 07:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per DGG. This is a BLP of a NN bodyguard, with very weak sourcing. Bearian (talk) 20:48, 25 May 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) 01:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Godspell-Original Australian Cast[edit]

Godspell-Original Australian Cast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

I hope I am doing this right, so apologies if I am making a mistake. This album has no particular notability on its own terms. The Australian production of "Godspell" wasn't particularly famous. Does it make sense to keep an article like this, or can we get rid of it? The Pebble Dare (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 08:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Seems non-notable to me. Notability is not inherited, and this album does not seem to have gained the coverage that would make it notable. I note that the single referred to does not actually come from this album. Also I have removed the album cover image, as it's not the cover to this album (its the cover to the Broadway cast album) and so can't be used here under WP:NFCC. The Godspell article says that there were 'several' cast albums - perhaps it could list them. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TFOWR^propaganda 14:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (or merge to Godspell, per suggestion by Elen of the Roads above). I'm not seeing sufficient notability to justify an entire article. Disclaimer: I discussed this with the nominator prior to this AfD being created. TFOWR^propaganda 14:13, 27 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Late july 2009 severe storms[edit]

Late july 2009 severe storms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

I believe that this is an accurate WP:NOTNEWS application because this is a news story that does not hold any interest after the first day. The author removed my PROD without reason, and the only reference that they included was a website that does not exist. I could only find one mention of this at the NOAA website, so I believe that it fails WP:N as well. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 20:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: poorly-sourced single event with no long-term or widespread effects. Fails WP:LOCAL as well as WP:N. Rodhullandemu 21:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• But it injured three people! err... Delete. God help us if every routine storm had an article. Resolute 23:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:N insuficient 3rd party coverage to allow it to pass. Along with WP:NOTNEWS
• Delete fails WP:SEVERE and WP:N. Severe weather articles includes basically a damaging derecho or damaging hailstorm, over 25 tornadoes if there is a fatality or a major damaging tornado (EF4-EF5 or an EF2 + hitting a large city) or a very killer tornado. No indication meeting those criterias. Just the usual daily severe storm... that is it. JForget 14:30, 29 May 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. As failing WP:PROF, per Future Perfect. Shimeru (talk) 00:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nikos Stylos[edit]

Nikos Stylos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Article is a about a minor advocacy-type personality and usual nationalist Balkan pseudo-historian that dabbles into the usual fringe theories connecting Pelasgians and Albanians. Fails WP:NOTABLE and WP:ACADEMIC on all counts. Has not received any kind of significant coverage in mainstream reliable sources, nor has his work been cited in peer-reviewed journals. The only coverage this individual has received is from other fringe nationalist historians and advocates. A debate on the article's talkpage has failed to establish notability. This individual is likely a real-world acquaintance of the article creator, who is also a Cham advocacy SPA. Athenean (talk) 20:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep His work has been cited by a number of historians in Albania (Prof. Dr. Beqir Meta (member of the Albanian Academy of Sciences): [49] 2.Prof. Dr. Rexhep Doçi [50] 3.Dr. Laurent Bica (lector at a university in Tirana) Bica, Laurant. "Niko Stillo: Njeriu akademi" (Niko Stillo, the Academy Man). pp. 218. Tirana, 2008.), et.al. He is well-known in Albania, and those sources shows that and finally a comment to Athenean: Your afd report seems like an WP:IDONTLIKEIT, you are not the one who would judge what`s fringe, pseud-historian, etc.,etc: the authors I sorted above are not fringe nationalist historians and advocates, but rather proffessors, all of them, and one of them is a member of the Albanian Academy of Sciences. Thanks,Balkanian`s word (talk) 20:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this is a WP:IDONTLIKEIT AfD, mainly because the person is a Cham Albanian, a minority group of Greece. He has been interviewed by Shekulli, a newspaper widely circulated newspaper of Albania and one of the 3 largest Albanian newspapers[51]. In Albanian national television TVSH there has been a program about him [52][53][54]. Members of the Albanian Academy of Sciences have examined, peer-reviewed and written about him and his works:

Beqir Meta [55],Rexhep Doçi [56]. Also Laurant Bica, lector at the University of Tirana has written a book examining his works [57].--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My, the sheer intensity of Balkanian's response is telling. In response, none of the two publications provided by Balkanian are in any way notable or reliable themselves. They are not peer-reviewed, rather, they are self-published essays, and not even in English. Who are these people, and why should they be taken seriously? I stand by comment that this man's work is nothing more than FRINGE advocacy. The two individuals cited by Balkanian above are themselves not notable. A university lecturer? Come on. What's next, his work has been cited at www.illyrians.org? Moreover, these days, anyone who tries to connect Pelasgians and Albanians has crossed into WP:FRINGE territory, as such such theories are totally rejected in scholarly sources. This would explain why this man's work has not been cited in the mainstream, peer-reviewed, scientific literature. The Albanian Academy of Sciences was until very recently advocating the "liberation" of Cameria and Illirida, and their incorporation into a "unified Albania". Hardly the most credible of institutions. Athenean (talk) 20:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing more than 1) a self-published essay from a website, 2) a FRINGE tract about the usual Pelasgian nonsense, 3) some more fringe nonsense from another self-published website. None of these meet "substantial coverage in mainstream reliable sources" or "significant coverage in the peer-reviewed literature". It's impossible to find a word about this guy in English or in a single serious, reliable source. Athenean (talk) 20:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you see and your opinion about the Academy of Sciences of Albania is irrelevant to WP:NN, which has been verified. Original link from Shekulli: [58] --— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• delete There are not references to peer review journals and other independant and reliable sources to indicate that he is notable. He is a non-notable advocate for one side of a controversial theory, but no for a fringe theory. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 21:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• For the record Mentor Nazarko who interviewed him has cowritten with James Pettifer this book [59]. If he was that not notable he wouldn't be interviewed by Nazarko.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Being interviewed by some one notable doesn't automatically bestow notability. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: As per talk page. Although I've asked for at least one reference the answer was that there are some videos about him in youtube. Might become some kind of tv star some time, but having an article in wikipedia is hard to reach by the moment.Alexikoua (talk) 22:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no sign of notability. Note that for academic (including pseudo-academic) writers, the inclusion criteria is the "professor test" (WP:PROF). Merely being mentioned/cited by other writers somewhere is far, far from enough. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no proof of any wider notability outside a fringe circle. Constantine ✍ 09:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because IMO he meets Wikipedia:AUTHOR#Creative_professionals. If Stylos is the first one to lecture on Pelasgian origin of Albanians, that doesn't mean he is in fringe territory. Galileo Galilei also was fringe theory at his time. Stylos is one of the pioneers to propose the Pelasgian origin of the Albanians, along with Dhimiter Pilika and user:Athenean may lecture at his home, not these academics. --Gollomboc (talk) 16:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment perhaps, but when he claims that Albanians were the first to domesticate the horse, that the Phaistos Disk is written in Albanian, etc (based on what I found about his views in the internet), then he is definitely very deep in fringe territory. Either way, the question is not what views he holds, but whether he is notable enough. As a historian, which is what he claims to be after all, he does not meet WP:ACADEMIC notability criteria, plain and simple. Constantine ✍ 17:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have not read his books. Can you please cite him about what you just said? --Gollomboc (talk) 18:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ROFL @ comparing this fellow to Galileo! Athenean (talk) 18:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He isn't the "first one to lecture on Pelasgian origin". The "Pelasgian" meme isn't new, revolutionary or even original; it's a thoroughly obsolete 19th-century idea. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep notable to have his own article like the references prove.--KëngaJonë 18:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, Nothing reliable on him and nothing of note Megistias (talk) 19:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Pure pseudo-science POV pushing persona. He claimed he deciphered Phaistos Disk and that the text on it is written in arvanitika:[60], page 16.... The Cat and the Owl (talk) 20:21, 24 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Milev (poet)[edit]

Ivan Milev (poet) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Fails WP:N. I can find no news coverage on the subject but that may be a language issue. A regular Google search seems fruitless as well. I would have put it up for a speedy deletion but someone else already had and an IP user removed the speedy tag without an explanation. OlYeller^Talktome 20:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete its better to search for "Иван Милев" as opposed to "Ivan Milev", but after much digging I'm just not seeing notability. Akirn (talk) previously User:Icewedge 20:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Please, don't confuse with the painter Ivan Milev. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. I proposed the page for speedy deletion per criterion A7; the IP editor removed the tag; I BLPPRODded the page, the IP editor removed the tag. I think the subject is extremely unnotable and the article does not even explain why he should be considered significant or important. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 15:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no valuable mentioning in Bulgarian language as well. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 02:05, 27 May 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. Tone 16:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diosdada Alfrez[edit]

Diosdada Alfrez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

I suspect this article to be a hoax. I can't find any sources to confirm the existence of this individual, so it probably fails WP:V anyway. If it is a hoax, it's a pretty notable one, seeing as it's been around for 5 years and has been mentioned in a printed book as factual - [61]. If this woman was such a well known writer, it would be possible to find her books Claritas (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - check this too - [62] - an amazon search pulls up nothing. Claritas (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Not a hoax Neither of the above sources is sufficient, considering the period and the language. There are a number of Philippine catalogs listed in WP:Book Sources, and after checking I found Sa hukmanan (drama) [microform] / Sinulat ni V. Alcover [at] hani ni Diosdado Alferez, of which she is joint author with apparently a different spelling of the name . [63] I think it is not a good idea to say 'hoax' without trying even the obvious on-line language-specific means of verifying. I am not prepared to say non-notable, for there may be more than just this work. DGG ( talk ) 19:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - "Diosdado Alferez" is most likely different person, because the gender of the Christian name is male, not female. Unless the original contributor made a mistake as to that, I'd be very wary of treating the individuals as the same. Diosdado Alferez certainly exists - [64]. Both the names are relatively common, so I'm still pretty adamant that the article is a hoax. Claritas (talk) 20:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

glad to be informed about this--based on the career as listed in your reference, you are probably right, because it goes on to other things which do not seem to match with the material here. DGG ( talk ) 23:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. Perhaps a merge/move into Diosdado Alferez is called for, but it is not a hoax. Bearian (talk) 20:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a hoax. The only claim it makes is "Diosdada Alfrez is a well-known Cebuano Visayan writer who popularized themes and forms which were popular before the war". If Diosdada Alfrez was a "well-known Ceubano Visayan writer", there would be some Cebuano content which confirms her existence. The claim about "popularising" is completely meaningless - there's no indication of what sort of "themes" were popularised or which war is being referred to. Hence, it's a hoax. You can't merge in into Diosdado Alferez. If you think about it, that would be like merging an article on a non-notable/non-existant writer called Alexandra Smith to an article about Alexander Smythe - entirely unsuitable. Feel free to create an encyclopaedic article about Diosdado Alferez, as he seems to be a notable individual. Claritas (talk) 09:58, 26 May 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 was already moved to User:Zz022 userspace. JForget 14:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AJ Barnett[edit]

AJ Barnett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Not sure about notability. Unsourced. Cssiitcic (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No coverage of any kind, anywhere. Worth noting that Mr. Barnett himself is the creator of this article. Resolute 01:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per MQS:TOOSOON. Perhaps this 16-year-old comedian and Youtube vlogger might be notable one day, but it ain't happened yet. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete transparent self-promotion, forgivable in a kid his age. Completely lacking in referencing, thus failing to demonstrate notability. Evalpor (talk) 05:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Moved to User:Zz022 to userfy this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cssiitcic (talk • contribs) 23:25, May 26, 2010
• Comment Perhaps time to close? As this article has been already userfied? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:19, 27 May 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. Shimeru (talk) 00:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who died after being tasered in Canada[edit]

List of people who died after being tasered in Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This is a very one-sided list; why do we have a list of people who died, but no list of people who have been tasered with no lasting ill effects? Fails WP:NPOV. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC) -- RoySmith (talk) 17:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, and also fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY#6 "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations ... Cross-categories like these are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon." There's nothing in the article to indicate why, if at all, this is such a phenomenon. Rodhullandemu 18:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:SALAT says that lists of people should include people who have an article and are notable in the category the list falls under, or if the person(s) don't have an article and/or is/aren't notable as per WP:Notability, then they still may be included if they are important to the category. Also, WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E. cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 20:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, BLP1E? I'm trying to figure out how a policy dealing with living people applies to a list of people who died. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Why do we have a list of people who died, but no list of people who have been tasered with no lasting ill effects? Because the police don't intend for you to die if they taser you, I suppose. It does not matter whether any of the people or events individually meet WP:N. With some emphasis on the first sentence of that, "On Wikipedia, notability determines whether a topic merits its own article." Likewise, with WP:BLP1E (which is WP:ONEEVENT, a consideration for dead people as well, but not an absolute bar), that applies again to whether an article should be written about the person or event-- not whether the person should be mentioned. ("When an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered."). Geez, imagine trying to describe Jack the Ripper or Kent State if you could only mention the people who had their own Wikipedia articles. Mandsford 22:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a difference between mentioning otherwise non-notable people in an article dealing with an event in which they were involved, and listing such people in an article designed solely to list such people, as having the same property or experience. WP:SALAT cites, as an example "list of one-eyed horse thieves from Montana", and I doubt whether such a list would even be viable as a category, let alone an article, even if all of them were amply notable. Rodhullandemu 23:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:IINFO. Simply a list of non-notable people (with one exception) who happened to die in a certain way. Would be no different than List of people who died in high speed chases. While there certainly is an elevated interest in this country over the risks - real and percieved - of tasers after the Dziekański incident, I think you would be better off writing an actual article on that than a list such as this. Resolute 23:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – I agree with Resolute that there is increased Canadian media interest in the topic of Taser safety, but it would be better covered in Robert Dziekański Taser incident, Braidwood Inquiry, Taser safety issues, or maybe a new article. There may be some WP:OR issues with tallying up sources and calling them "increased media interest". I think that the list in Taser safety issues#Deaths and injuries related to Taser use should be cut down, rather than expanded with this list. Quilem Registre Taser incident was merged into this list after an AfD, so we should also consider what to do with it. Flatscan (talk) 04:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Nominator complains that this is "a very one-sided list". Shamefully so, indeed, and this is not the only case! For example, there is a List of people who died in road accidents; why is there no list of people who had a road accident but survived? And what about List of people who have beaten Bobby Fischer in chess: why no list of people who have played against Bobby Fischer and lost? And so it goes, on and on.  --Lambiam 23:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This debate should not care about what other articles consist of. Rodhullandemu 23:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Rodhullandemu, as a non-notable intersection. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sets a bad precedent (i.e - people who died from gun shot wounds), far too broad and open ended. Doc Quintana (talk) 18:48, 30 May 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 due to sourcing of the article. Non-admin closure. Claritas (talk) 07:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

D.Karthika Anagha[edit]

D.Karthika Anagha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Singer who does not seem to meet WP:NOTABILITY or WP:V - I can't find any sources through the internet. Claritas (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Need expert, but lean toward Delete. I saw this a while ago and considered AFD, but it says the person has won numerous awards. If that's true, there's probably notability, but most of the awards cited (like this one) show no hits. I think we may need an expert on India here. Note that if the article's topic is a "keep", the article's content needs serious wikifying. — Timneu22 · talk 20:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have sourced and stubbed the article now. Coverage is very thin - the most substantial one is a five line description of her in The Hindu as a child prodigy. But as a recipient of the Bal Shree, which is a national level award, i think she meets WP:ANYBIO.--Sodabottle (talk) 03:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Nomination Withdrawn - now meets WP:MUSIC and WP:ANYBIO even if coverage is thin. There are still some issues with the article, but I'll bring them up on the talk page. I thank Sodabottle for sourcing the article. Claritas (talk) 07:09, 24 May 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: unambiguous advertising or promotion, and tagged as a copyvio as well. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LUISS School of Government[edit]

LUISS School of Government (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Not sure how notable this school is; unsourced. Cssiitcic (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G12, as a copy vio of [65]. Acather96 (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 23 May 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 G7: One author who has requested deletion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Central Christian Church (Lancaster, California)[edit]

Central Christian Church (Lancaster, California) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Unremarkable church, no indication of how it might meet notability guidelines. Lacks coverage in 3rd party sources. Speedy Deletion tags have been removed several times, taking to AFD. RadioFan (talk) 16:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While churches and other houses of worship are spiritually notable, most generally do not pass Wikipedia's definition of encyclopedically notable. Mandsford 16:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:ORG. No clear claim to notability, nor has significant coverage in independent sources been established. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unfortunately as the creator of this article I would have to say delete. Spiritually notable but form an encyclopedic standpoint not notable. Sign My Guestbook! User:Sumsum2010 19:46, 23 May 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) 01:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wrap (talk show)[edit]

The Wrap (talk show) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Promotional blurb for a TV show. Doesn't seem to be notable as Google doesn't throw out any third-party reliable source. Despite the edit history, I did not create this article. The article creator kept over-writing a redirect which is substantially utilised by wiki-links to refer to an entertainment news portal so the article needed to be disambiguated if it is to remain. However, I don't think it meets the criteria though for page retention. Betty Logan (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:SOURCE. Guy546^(Talk) 21:36, 23 May 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) 01:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flight Level Aviation[edit]

Flight Level Aviation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Notability of this company is not established. According to the company's website, this is a single-aircraft flying school, which means it is even smaller than most typical flying schools, none of which have articles (or warrant them). YSSYguy (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm an inclusionist and belive a lot of things have Notability. But even I can't find a way to inclusionate this. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 15:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not appear to be notable article appears more promotional. MilborneOne (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Can't find any significant mentions in reliable sources. - EdoDodo ^talk 17:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: - Non-notable Spam. - Ahunt (talk) 22:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 02:14, 25 May 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.

Wikipedia:Appeals to Jimbo[edit]

The result was Close as wrong venue; different considerations apply to articles and material in other namespaces, so this is misplaced here. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Appeals to Jimbo. Rodhullandemu 15:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Appeals to Jimbo (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Appeals to Jimbo|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Delete, this page is written like government drivel. At the top we have a word by Jimbo saying that nothing in this should discourage a user from discussing issues with him and the bottom discourages the user to do this. This creates mixed messages and should be deleted as it really cancels itself out. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close, this is the wrong forum; pages in the Wikipedia namespace are deletable only at WP:MFD. Nyttend (talk) 15:08, 23 May 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 Earthquakes in Germany. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Germany earthquake[edit]

2009 Germany earthquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

WP:NOTNEWS. No enduring notability. Not enough reliable sources to expand it into a verifiable article. Doesn't fit the proposed earthquake notability criteria. Aditya Ex Machina 14:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Information has now been transferred to newly-created Earthquakes in Germany, so delete since the point of this seems to be that earthquakes are uncommon on that side of the Alps. Yes, it's a red blue link and there's nothing more to merge to yet . Hint, hint. Mandsford 16:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - a search in German finds sources and the information that this was the strongest quake in the region since monitoring began in 1955, making it a notable event. I have added some material and refs. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Mandsford........ Peridon (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All done and dusted, so Delete Redirect now per De728631. Peridon (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC) updated Peridon (talk) 22:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that sources have been found, but reading them, it underscores to me why a merged page would make more sense than the practice of creating an article every time something happens. The translation of the first one includes this: "Similarly, there was strong shocks last on 24 January 2008 (3.0) and 12 December 2007 (3.2). Of damage is currently still unknown. The region is because of the mining industry time and again to small earthquakes. As the mine in West Kamp-Lintfort notifies the earthquake through the underground mining in the height 573 in the seam Girondelle 5 in about 1200 meters deep has been triggered." An article about quakes in Germany would put this into context-- the July 24, 2009 event (a 3.3!) would be put in perspective with the January 24, 2008 event and the one on December 12, 2007. The second article refers to one that occurred on July 31, 2009, and actually says that the July 24 event was a 3.1, which would not be "the record". It would make more sense, again, to mention all four of those, along with others before 2007, in an article not likely to be nominated or deleted. As we've been saying a lot lately, the practice of treating each quake as its own individual article and then hoping that it won't get nominated is NOT working. Mandsford 22:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is apparently disagreement among seismologists, or something. It's listed at 3.3 by the University of Cologne, but the state geologists say it was 3.1 in their bulletin on the aftershock of 31 July. (And the USGS preliminary assessment at 4.1, of course.) I took the list as definitive and did note the frequent small quakes, and their cause, which the geologists do seem to agree were the cause of the quake in question. If someone were to write an article on earthquakes in Germany, great. But until there is one, this quake does seem to have gone down as unusually large, and it has adequate coverage in reliable sources. I didn't check either newspapers or Dutch sources yet, but found 2 articles and an authoritative list already. It seems wrong to delete an event notable by our standards until there is an article it can be merged to. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• But it's so easy to create an article it can be merged to. A person would click on this red link (Earthquakes in Germany); follow the instructions to create the article by that name; mention the four events that can be sourced so far and then to add mention of other events dating back to 1955 or whenever. Where the earthquake fans went wrong in the first place was in thinking in terms of "events" that must either be described in their own article, or not described at all. Apparently some well-meaning person-- I'm guessing the person who made the infobox-- set that as a standard years ago, and others have followed it like lemmings marching up to the edge of a cliff. The airplane crash people did that for years as well, before they ended up having so many articles deleted that they decided to try a different system. Mandsford 16:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be my guest :-) I know enough to know I would be way out of my depth attempting to cover the entire seismic history of the country, particularly since the sources make clear that the geology varies from place to place. This may be a starting point, but it's beyond me, sorry. Besides, that's not the issue. There is no deadline, we all contribute . . . this one article is on a notable event, it should stay, if there's going to be an omnibus article it can be rolled into, that's a separate issue. Maybe you'll write one today; maybe someone else will write one in 10 years. Whatever. Until that as yet nonexistent article makes its appearance - and regardless of what other articles on earthquakes, or airplane crashes, may be at AfD or have been at AfD - there is no reason to delete an article about a notable event, and the coverage establishes it is notable. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing me to the German sources. I've gone ahead and created an article for this to be redirected to, with the information copied into it. With the exception of a deadly earthquake in the area, all new such events can be added to the page Earthquakes in Germany rather than being made separate articles. Mandsford 13:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Earthquakes in Germany. De728631 (talk) 21:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Redirect to Earthquakes in Germany. This quake in itself is trivial and is a perfect example of the recent flood of Wikipedia articles about non-notable earthquakes. Thanks to Mandsford for created a good place to put such articles. --MelanieN (talk) 18:01, 29 May 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.